[Politics] Voter Identification.

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

How much of a problem is voter fraud in the UK currently?

Don't see the need for this, and will just potentially exclude a large number of people from voting.

Just another way of the Tories introducing national ID cards via the backdoor.

Don't forget you will probably also need to take a lateral flow covid test at the polling station doors and sit around for 30 minutes before only being allowed to vote if you get a negative test.

At least the Government aren't proposing to move over to online voting so that they can give out another round of contracts to their mates which will fail to deliver.

You know that the Conservatives were the only party to oppose ID cards when Labour suggested it don’t you?

 

[Chicken Run]

As I said earlier, Worthing is a lost cause for anyone with my political beliefs, so that ship sailed years ago. I am not talking of my personal circumstance, I’m talking of the National picture, as someone else mentions, a Tory vote is wasted in a lot of pro Labour constituencies, their vote should be as important as a Tory voter in Worthing and mine should be as important as a Labour voter in Liverpool .

Maybe a 2 party system where you vote for the federal party would suit you better, with separate elections for local leader’s ?

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

Beebsays 70.7% voter turnout?

That’s pretty good for any election let alone one in the middle of winter,

In my uneducated opinion the only way you don’t get a Tory is if the left of centre/left parties combine together and have a real focused campaign, it seems to me that all the time there’s too much choice then the votes get lost, I guess you’d be happy with anyone but the Tory right?

Edit just seen the turnout in 2019 was an increase in 2017

Almost all the votes cast in a FPTP election are lost. The votes cast for the winner up to the number required to win are the only votes which make any difference to the result whatsoever. So if the candidate who comes 2nd gets, let's say 20% of the vote, then 80% of the votes are disregarded.

 

[GT49er]

With voter I D set to be introduced from 2023 do NSCers feel this a good thing or a bad thing?
For the record I think it will be a good thing.

Pretty meh about it really. We've managed for years without it without significant fraud affecting results. If they do bring it in, it is essential that they broaden the range of acceptable photo ID. It would be an injustice of Trumpian proportions if they disenfranchised the millions who have neither a passport or a photo driving licence, The young people's cards should be accepted, and definitely bus passes (this will cover the older people who have no passports and cannot renew their driving licence because of sight/other health problems). Probably some occupational IDs too - NHS for example.

Go the whole hog and make it compulsory for social media accounts too.

All things considered that would be a far better use for compulsory ID!

 

[Chicken Run]

Almost all the votes cast in a FPTP election are lost. The votes cast for the winner up to the number required to win are the only votes which make any difference to the result whatsoever. So if the candidate who comes 2nd gets, let's say 20% of the vote, then 80% of the votes are disregarded.

We are talking about constituencies though, and every vote is counted and logged so that every an see.

 

[lawros left foot]

Beebsays 70.7% voter turnout?

That’s pretty good for any election let alone one in the middle of winter,

In my uneducated opinion the only way you don’t get a Tory is if the left of centre/left parties combine together and have a real focused campaign, it seems to me that all the time there’s too much choice then the votes get lost, I guess you’d be happy with anyone but the Tory right?

Edit just seen the turnout in 2019 was an increase in 2017

Edit turnout in Worthing East greater than Hove in the same election

House of Commons library says67%


https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-turnout/

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Yes.

Because poor people don't vote Tory (generally)

More ‘poor’ / working class (CDE,s) voted Conservative the Labour in 2019.

 

[Chicken Run]

House of Commons library says67%


https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-turnout/

I stand corrected still similar to Hove turnout and that seat isn’t a shoe in for Labour.

 

[Scoticus]

Bus passes have photos but aren't accepted as ID.

EasyJet have been accepting my Bus Pass as photo ID for domestic flights for years as does the Post Office when collecting from the Sorting Office

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

We are talking about constituencies though, and every vote is counted and logged so that every an see.

I'm referring to votes within a constituency. If the candidate who comes 2nd receives 8000 votes, then the winning candidate needs 8001 to win. Any further votes for the winner are worthless. Similarly all of the votes for all the losing candidates make no difference at all to the result.

The point of the STV system is to ensure every vote counts. So the constituencies are bundled together (East Sussex might become a single constituency with 8 seats), and the votes for losing candidates are redistributed based on 2nd preferences, as are votes for winning candidates beyond the number of votes needed to win the seat. All the votes are counted, you still vote for a candidate instead of a party, you still have a reasonably local representative, and the result generally gets somewhere near reflecting the vote share. Everybody's happy.

 

[GT49er]

Almost all the votes cast in a FPTP election are lost. The votes cast for the winner up to the number required to win are the only votes which make any difference to the result whatsoever. So if the candidate who comes 2nd gets, let's say 20% of the vote, then 80% of the votes are disregarded.

Your maths seem to need a bit of revision. If the candidate who came 2nd. got 20% of the votes, the winner would have to have got at least 21%. So, only a maximum of 79% is available to be 'disregarded'.
The point, however, is a moot one. Whatever system you have - PR, FPTP or whatever - some of the voters who don't get the result they want will be disappointed, or, in the language of the FPTP opponents, 'disregarded'. You vote for one of the parties that forms the coalition - fine, your vote has 'counted'; your party isn't in the coalition, your vote is meaningless, disregarded or whatever other word you might want to apply.

 

[jessiejames]

A vote is meant to be a secret ballot isn't it?

So why when I vote, I'm given a ballot paper with a number written on it , the number is then written on a piece of paper beside my name.
If the authorities, big brother whatever, wanted to know which way I voted in this 'secret ballot' they could find out quite easily.

Couple of local elections ago, I received a letter from the party that I had voted for, thanking me.

 

[Chicken Run]

I'm referring to votes within a constituency. If the candidate who comes 2nd receives 8000 votes, then the winning candidate needs 8001 to win. Any further votes for the winner are worthless. Similarly all of the votes for all the losing candidates make no difference at all to the result.

The point of the STV system is to ensure every vote counts. So the constituencies are bundled together (East Sussex might become a single constituency with 8 seats), and the votes for losing candidates are redistributed based on 2nd preferences, as are votes for winning candidates beyond the number of votes needed to win the seat. All the votes are counted, you still vote for a candidate instead of a party, you still have a reasonably local representative, and the result generally gets somewhere near reflecting the vote share. Everybody's happy.

So what is the the majority figure then that demonstrates the gap between first and second?

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

Your maths seem to need a bit of revision. If the candidate who came 2nd. got 20% of the votes, the winner would have to have got at least 21%. So, only a maximum of 79% is available to be 'disregarded'.
The point, however, is a moot one. Whatever system you have - PR, FPTP or whatever - some of the voters who don't get the result they want will be disappointed, or, in the language of the FPTP opponents, 'disregarded'. You vote for one of the parties that forms the coalition - fine, your vote has 'counted'; your party isn't in the coalition, your vote is meaningless, disregarded or whatever other word you might want to apply.

The winner only has to get 1 vote more than the next candidate, not 1% more. 1 vote amounts to much less than 1%, so the percentage of votes wasted rounds to 80%.

The aim should be to minimise the number of wasted votes. The fact that no system allows everybody to be perfectly represented is not an argument against improving the existing system.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Couple of local elections ago, I received a letter from the party that I had voted for, thanking me.

You're lucky. In the last 12m I emailed my local MP 3 times. Scored one 'no reply', one my 'email address has changed. You're email will be deleted, so please resend to .....'. and one, you guessed it, 'no repy'.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

So what is the the majority figure then that demonstrates the gap between first and second?

It's a count of how many people could have had a more productive day.

 

[GT49er]

The winner only has to get 1 vote more than the next candidate, not 1% more. 1 vote amounts to much less than 1%, so the percentage of votes wasted rounds to 80%.

The aim should be to minimise the number of wasted votes. The fact that no system allows everybody to be perfectly represented is not an argument against improving the existing system.

Except there's no proof it would improve it. Although some people have a mindset that says it would. We had a referendum on it; they came second. All those wasted votes, eh?

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm referring to votes within a constituency. If the candidate who comes 2nd receives 8000 votes, then the winning candidate needs 8001 to win. Any further votes for the winner are worthless. Similarly all of the votes for all the losing candidates make no difference at all to the result.

The point of the STV system is to ensure every vote counts. So the constituencies are bundled together (East Sussex might become a single constituency with 8 seats), and the votes for losing candidates are redistributed based on 2nd preferences, as are votes for winning candidates beyond the number of votes needed to win the seat. All the votes are counted, you still vote for a candidate instead of a party, you still have a reasonably local representative, and the result generally gets somewhere near reflecting the vote share. Everybody's happy.

county based voting could be sensible alternative.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Given a choice between spending money on free ID cards (which the government's taken upon itself to decide we need) or spending it on pretty much anything else, I'll take the pretty much anything else option.

But if they want to do voter ID, what other option is there? I’ve just - a week ago - got a new passport at £75, and you can’t require everyone to do that if they want to vote.

But Costco can produce an Amex card with a photo on it while you wait in a couple of minutes..... but probably not very sophisticated.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

But if they want to do voter ID, what other option is there? I’ve just - a week ago - got a new passport at £75, and you can’t require everyone to do that if they want to vote.

But Costco can produce an Amex card with a photo on it while you wait in a couple of minutes..... but probably not very sophisticated.

I've no desire to introduce voter ID either, so that's not for me to answer.

I'd argue that anything that can be made that cheaply and easily has limited value as ID anyway.