This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
> Voters will have to show proof of identity before being allowed to vote in a government pilot scheme to reduce electoral fraud. A number of councils in England, including Birmingham and Bradford, will trial the scheme at local elections in 2018. Constitution minister Chris Skidmore said the pilot would "ensure the integrity of our electoral system."
> The move has also received support from the Labour party.
> A full list of the participating councils has not been released, but the government wants to use the pilot scheme to see if it should be rolled out across the whole country. Mr Skidmore said: "The government's view is that electoral fraud is unacceptable on any level. I want to protect the right of everyone to have their say and participate in our democracy. "That is why the new measures we are announcing today will protect anyone who is at risk of being bullied, undermined or tricked out of their vote - and their democratic right.
> "By eliminating fraud and tackling improper practices, we are ensuring the integrity of our electoral system while building a clear and secure democracy that works for everyone."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38440934
I'd have no problem with having to show my drivers license, (or whatever,) to vote.
Post edited at 02:59
11
4
4
7
In reply to Roadrunner5:
What about them?
Postal votes are still available, though it's quite possible that the rules on these would be tightened.
What about them?
Postal votes are still available, though it's quite possible that the rules on these would be tightened.
Post edited at 04:17
7
In reply to Big Ger:
While I'm all for improving processes wherever it will make a positive difference, I suspect requiring showing of ID might be a radical solution to a non-problem. I don't remember reading about any voters who turned up to cast a ballot, only to be told someone had already used their vote, but of course I could have missed some news.
So if there's little or no problem to be solved by this, what's the real agenda?
edit: p.s. 'One person, one vote' is the more acceptable phrase.
While I'm all for improving processes wherever it will make a positive difference, I suspect requiring showing of ID might be a radical solution to a non-problem. I don't remember reading about any voters who turned up to cast a ballot, only to be told someone had already used their vote, but of course I could have missed some news.
So if there's little or no problem to be solved by this, what's the real agenda?
edit: p.s. 'One person, one vote' is the more acceptable phrase.
Post edited at 06:42
24
8
In reply to Big Ger:
I think Roadrunner5 might be referring to the form of ID, rather than the form of the vote. Could it be another push for ID cards by the back door? Not that I have a particular issue with these if they are only used like drivers licences or passports to confirm your identity when you want to. I would have an big issue if you could be demanded to produce one by the police for example.
I'm just wondering how big a problem voter fraud is and weather this just some kind of lip service to address a few rotten apples. There is a linked article " 'Blind eye turned' to election fraud" that is about dodgy practices in Tower Hamlets. This seems to be of far more concern to me and I just don't see producing ID will solve this problem. Here's the link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37055521
I think Roadrunner5 might be referring to the form of ID, rather than the form of the vote. Could it be another push for ID cards by the back door? Not that I have a particular issue with these if they are only used like drivers licences or passports to confirm your identity when you want to. I would have an big issue if you could be demanded to produce one by the police for example.
I'm just wondering how big a problem voter fraud is and weather this just some kind of lip service to address a few rotten apples. There is a linked article " 'Blind eye turned' to election fraud" that is about dodgy practices in Tower Hamlets. This seems to be of far more concern to me and I just don't see producing ID will solve this problem. Here's the link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37055521
1
In reply to john arran:
I'm genuinely curious as to the reasons why people might be disliking my earlier post. I'm not precious about dislikes.
I work in international electoral support and it's widely acknowledged that matters of eligibility should definitely be sorted out before the electoral roll is finalised, not on election day, not least because by election day there can be no method of appeal or correction. The article seems to suggest that having an ID requirement could help prevent ineligible voters from casting ballots, which to my mind is way too late to be effective in any responsible way. If you're on the electoral roll on e-day I accept that you may reasonably be expected to demonstrate your identity somehow if there's any genuine doubt, but my point was that cases of impersonation don't seem to happen, so this appears not to be a suitable response to an identified problem. What is suggested rather is that e-day ID should be used to prevent ineligible people from voting, but election day at a local polling station is very much not the time nor the place for making such eligibility determination.
The way to prevent ineligible people from voting is to make sure they don't appear on the electoral roll by the time it is finalised. Leaving such important matters to poorly-trained polling station staff, whose job it is just to see that those on the roll are able to cast their ballots, is asking for trouble.
Any of the dislikers care to explain your reasoning?
I'm genuinely curious as to the reasons why people might be disliking my earlier post. I'm not precious about dislikes.
I work in international electoral support and it's widely acknowledged that matters of eligibility should definitely be sorted out before the electoral roll is finalised, not on election day, not least because by election day there can be no method of appeal or correction. The article seems to suggest that having an ID requirement could help prevent ineligible voters from casting ballots, which to my mind is way too late to be effective in any responsible way. If you're on the electoral roll on e-day I accept that you may reasonably be expected to demonstrate your identity somehow if there's any genuine doubt, but my point was that cases of impersonation don't seem to happen, so this appears not to be a suitable response to an identified problem. What is suggested rather is that e-day ID should be used to prevent ineligible people from voting, but election day at a local polling station is very much not the time nor the place for making such eligibility determination.
The way to prevent ineligible people from voting is to make sure they don't appear on the electoral roll by the time it is finalised. Leaving such important matters to poorly-trained polling station staff, whose job it is just to see that those on the roll are able to cast their ballots, is asking for trouble.
Any of the dislikers care to explain your reasoning?
29
1
4
In reply to john arran:
I don't know John, you got a like from me, as it was a similar reply to my subsequent post (wrote while you were posting yours). Perhaps it's a rejection of your PC comment? Let's see how many Fraser gets.
Mind you, now that you've highlighted it expect others!
I don't know John, you got a like from me, as it was a similar reply to my subsequent post (wrote while you were posting yours). Perhaps it's a rejection of your PC comment? Let's see how many Fraser gets.
Mind you, now that you've highlighted it expect others!
Post edited at 08:55
1
In reply to john arran:
I'm speculating but is this aimed at reducing the type of fraud seen in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere, where religious pressure was brought to persuade people to vote in particular ways? Ensuring an in person vote from the correct person, rather than a coerced or fraudulent postal vote, might help this. (Not me disliking you).
I'm speculating but is this aimed at reducing the type of fraud seen in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere, where religious pressure was brought to persuade people to vote in particular ways? Ensuring an in person vote from the correct person, rather than a coerced or fraudulent postal vote, might help this. (Not me disliking you).
7
In reply to MG:
Thanks MG. That's a very good point. Would have been good to see some valid justification like that in the report, if that's really the motivation behind it.
Thanks MG. That's a very good point. Would have been good to see some valid justification like that in the report, if that's really the motivation behind it.
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Hasn't the Government announced it's intention to revisit the whole concept of ID cards? Combating election fraud would be a plus for their introduction.
Having friends and family living in countries where they are compulsory doesn't seem to pose any problems to them. I'm sure with modern technology we could develop smarter cards which make it virtually impossible to steal another person's ID. They could gradually replace all other forms of ID like passports and driving licences by incorporating every thing about that person onto them including things like blood group, allergies etc.
> What about those who chose not to drive or travel?
Hasn't the Government announced it's intention to revisit the whole concept of ID cards? Combating election fraud would be a plus for their introduction.
Having friends and family living in countries where they are compulsory doesn't seem to pose any problems to them. I'm sure with modern technology we could develop smarter cards which make it virtually impossible to steal another person's ID. They could gradually replace all other forms of ID like passports and driving licences by incorporating every thing about that person onto them including things like blood group, allergies etc.
3
4
In reply to john arran:
The article I read on the report suggests that in the absence of photo ID other forms of ID might be used (eg.utility bills-which sounds pretty useless) or evidence may be provided when one signs up to the electoral roll to be used when one votes.
The current system is surely nuts? I could send any adult male to vote in my name, or, any adult female to vote in my daughters' names (if I had that much control over my daughters).
The system is hugely corruptible.
The article I read on the report suggests that in the absence of photo ID other forms of ID might be used (eg.utility bills-which sounds pretty useless) or evidence may be provided when one signs up to the electoral roll to be used when one votes.
The current system is surely nuts? I could send any adult male to vote in my name, or, any adult female to vote in my daughters' names (if I had that much control over my daughters).
The system is hugely corruptible.
6
In reply to Trangia:
I see you've drawn an early dislike and expect you'll get more. Not sure if these are really used correctly. Personally, I use "Like" if I strongly agree with something or find it amusing, I only use "Dislike" it I find it insulting to me or anyone else and never because I just disagree. Not even that Nazi lover April20th / winchur666 got dislikes from me. I prefer to verbalise my disagreement with the posts of others if I have any.
Anyway, I think that people have a genuine distrust that at some stage or in some scenario, their personal information will be used in some kind of detrimental way. Why an ID card is more pertinent to this than other forms of ID I just don't know, though I expect someone to be along presently to explain. Personally, I don't think anyone has a right to ask you for any ID unless you are suspected of commiting a crime, trying to obtain money by loan, trying to obtain goods whilst not immediately paying for them, etc., much as it is now. The problem is that after their introduction there is an opportunity for abuse of power. But as you say, there could also be some real benefits.
I see you've drawn an early dislike and expect you'll get more. Not sure if these are really used correctly. Personally, I use "Like" if I strongly agree with something or find it amusing, I only use "Dislike" it I find it insulting to me or anyone else and never because I just disagree. Not even that Nazi lover April20th / winchur666 got dislikes from me. I prefer to verbalise my disagreement with the posts of others if I have any.
Anyway, I think that people have a genuine distrust that at some stage or in some scenario, their personal information will be used in some kind of detrimental way. Why an ID card is more pertinent to this than other forms of ID I just don't know, though I expect someone to be along presently to explain. Personally, I don't think anyone has a right to ask you for any ID unless you are suspected of commiting a crime, trying to obtain money by loan, trying to obtain goods whilst not immediately paying for them, etc., much as it is now. The problem is that after their introduction there is an opportunity for abuse of power. But as you say, there could also be some real benefits.
In reply to Postmanpat:
But why would you do that? And surely, if this is commonplace to a degree that it would have any meaningful effect, I think there would be a lot of evidence that it actually happens, which I believe there isn't.
> The current system is surely nuts? I could send any adult male to vote in my name, or, any adult female to vote in my daughters' names (if I had that much control over my daughters).
> The system is hugely corruptible.
But why would you do that? And surely, if this is commonplace to a degree that it would have any meaningful effect, I think there would be a lot of evidence that it actually happens, which I believe there isn't.
2
In reply to Hugh J:
Err, read the news! There are quite a few reports of voter fraud and highly suspicious postal voting trends. Tower Hamlets for starters. The Electoral Commission have a report online of their recommendations is considering some form of ID
> But why would you do that? And surely, if this is commonplace to a degree that it would have any meaningful effect, I think there would be a lot of evidence that it actually happens, which I believe there isn't.
Err, read the news! There are quite a few reports of voter fraud and highly suspicious postal voting trends. Tower Hamlets for starters. The Electoral Commission have a report online of their recommendations is considering some form of ID
3
1
In reply to Hugh J:
I think you've hit the nail on the head. We've got compulsory ID systems in operation already - driving licences, passports, bank cards, loyalty cards etc etc. some of these are an overt form of surveillance, some covert, and this is increasing . The fear of the information being used in a detrimental way is already happening in that retailers are monitoring our shopping habits, even life styles through things like loyalty cards. Driving licences record our motoring convictions, changes of address etc. Passports monitor our travelling behaviour, this may increase after Brexit when, who knows?, we may require Visas for Continental travel.
Whether we like it or not it's happening. Not everyone is covered by these nets, but the number of true "opt outs" is becoming increasingly small.
So would the introduction of ID cards make this any worse, or simply make it easier for us all to live without having to carry numerous cards and documents? I really don't know but I can see a lot of advantages, some o which I allured to in my earlier post.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. We've got compulsory ID systems in operation already - driving licences, passports, bank cards, loyalty cards etc etc. some of these are an overt form of surveillance, some covert, and this is increasing . The fear of the information being used in a detrimental way is already happening in that retailers are monitoring our shopping habits, even life styles through things like loyalty cards. Driving licences record our motoring convictions, changes of address etc. Passports monitor our travelling behaviour, this may increase after Brexit when, who knows?, we may require Visas for Continental travel.
Whether we like it or not it's happening. Not everyone is covered by these nets, but the number of true "opt outs" is becoming increasingly small.
So would the introduction of ID cards make this any worse, or simply make it easier for us all to live without having to carry numerous cards and documents? I really don't know but I can see a lot of advantages, some o which I allured to in my earlier post.
2
1
In reply to MG:
Yes, I read it MG, I posted a link to it. Rather than voter fraud the problems in Tower Hamlets seemed to be this:
and this:
And how exactly is producing ID going to stop "highly suspicious postal voting trends"?
Yes, I read it MG, I posted a link to it. Rather than voter fraud the problems in Tower Hamlets seemed to be this:
> Sir Eric's report said he had seen evidence of "pressure being put on vulnerable members of some ethnic minority communities, particularly women and young people, to vote according to the will of the elders, especially in communities of Pakistani and Bangladeshi background.
> "There were concerns that influence and intimidation within households may not be reported, and that state institutions had turned a blind eye to such behaviour because of 'politically correct' over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion."
> "There were concerns that influence and intimidation within households may not be reported, and that state institutions had turned a blind eye to such behaviour because of 'politically correct' over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion."
and this:
> Mr Rahman was accused of using "corrupt and illegal practices", and Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey made findings during the trial to suggest that grants had been given to Bangladeshi or Muslim groups in return for support.
And how exactly is producing ID going to stop "highly suspicious postal voting trends"?
Post edited at 10:56
4
2
1
In reply to john arran:
Preparation for post-brexit; stopping Johnny Foreigner from voting.
That's my guess.
> So if there's little or no problem to be solved by this, what's the real agenda?
Preparation for post-brexit; stopping Johnny Foreigner from voting.
That's my guess.
1
3
In reply to Big Ger:
I would just like to make it clear that I am all in favour of an open, honest and transparent electoral system.
I just feel, like John Arran and others, that there is some kind of hidden agenda at play here. Maybe I'm suffering from post-post-truth political suspicions?
I would just like to make it clear that I am all in favour of an open, honest and transparent electoral system.
I just feel, like John Arran and others, that there is some kind of hidden agenda at play here. Maybe I'm suffering from post-post-truth political suspicions?
3
1
In reply to Hugh J:
What do you think Tower hamlets was all about? How do you prove it? Why not just make it more difficult to do?
One blindingly obvious way of getting people to vote the way you want them to do is to make them stay at home whilst somebody else votes for them!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648
What should the State do? Turn a blind eye?
> But why would you do that? And surely, if this is commonplace to a degree that it would have any meaningful effect, I think there would be a lot of evidence that it actually happens, which I believe there isn't.
What do you think Tower hamlets was all about? How do you prove it? Why not just make it more difficult to do?
One blindingly obvious way of getting people to vote the way you want them to do is to make them stay at home whilst somebody else votes for them!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648
What should the State do? Turn a blind eye?
Post edited at 11:33
6
In reply to Trangia:
I don't know, has it?
> Hasn't the Government announced it's intention to revisit the whole concept of ID cards? Combating election fraud would be a plus for their introduction.
>I don't know, has it?
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
But, this thread is all about ID being produced at polling stations.
The article you have linked states these are main elements of corruption in the Tower Hamlets scandal:
1) Voting fraud: ballots were double-cast or cast from false addresses.
2) False statements made against Mr Rahman's rival Mr Biggs.
3) Bribery: large amounts of money were given to organisations who were "totally ineligible or who failed to meet the threshold for eligibility".
4) Treating: providing free food and drink to encourage people to vote for Mr Rahman
5) Spiritual influence: voters were told that it was their duty as Muslims to vote for Mr Rahman. Mr Mawrey cited a letter signed by 101 Imams in Bengali stating it was people's "religious duty" to vote.
I just don't see how presenting ID at a polling station will have any effect whatsoever on the circumstances surrounding this case, apart from perhaps half of the first point, but then they could have been double-cast postal votes?
But, this thread is all about ID being produced at polling stations.
The article you have linked states these are main elements of corruption in the Tower Hamlets scandal:
1) Voting fraud: ballots were double-cast or cast from false addresses.
2) False statements made against Mr Rahman's rival Mr Biggs.
3) Bribery: large amounts of money were given to organisations who were "totally ineligible or who failed to meet the threshold for eligibility".
4) Treating: providing free food and drink to encourage people to vote for Mr Rahman
5) Spiritual influence: voters were told that it was their duty as Muslims to vote for Mr Rahman. Mr Mawrey cited a letter signed by 101 Imams in Bengali stating it was people's "religious duty" to vote.
I just don't see how presenting ID at a polling station will have any effect whatsoever on the circumstances surrounding this case, apart from perhaps half of the first point, but then they could have been double-cast postal votes?
4
In reply to Big Ger:
I think if you're going to have voter id then that is a good reason for id cards. The problem with a driving license is that not everyone has one, and those parts of society least likely to vote are least likely to have one. Then you have a list of alternative IDS, passports and so on (utility bills - really - back to the 50's). If you have id cards, they are going to be aligned with the electoral roll and also will filter out those with eligibility problems, everyone will have one, so noone should fall out of the system
I think if you're going to have voter id then that is a good reason for id cards. The problem with a driving license is that not everyone has one, and those parts of society least likely to vote are least likely to have one. Then you have a list of alternative IDS, passports and so on (utility bills - really - back to the 50's). If you have id cards, they are going to be aligned with the electoral roll and also will filter out those with eligibility problems, everyone will have one, so noone should fall out of the system
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
It looks as if it wasn't for the actions of Andy Irlam, Angela Moffat and Azmal Hussien, that's exactly what they would have done!
From the article I linked:
> What should the State do? Turn a blind eye?
It looks as if it wasn't for the actions of Andy Irlam, Angela Moffat and Azmal Hussien, that's exactly what they would have done!
From the article I linked:
> Authorities are turning a blind eye to electoral corruption in the UK because of a desire for political correctness, a report on the issue has suggested.
> Former communities secretary Sir Eric Pickles said fraud may be overlooked because of "over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion".
> Former communities secretary Sir Eric Pickles said fraud may be overlooked because of "over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion".
2
In reply to john arran:
In the UK it's called Personation , not impersonation.
But your reasoning is completely false here because the problem isn't people taking votes off people who subsequently try to vote.
It's an extremely well known problem, as reported for several years.
ex-Respecter Salma Yaqoob identified it as a problem in muslim communities in Birmingham, which prompted Barrenness Warsi to identify Hindu and Sikh cases to show that it wasn't a uniquely muslim problem (although it may predominantly be muslim, given that George Galloway made the same point in Bradford, Tower Hamlets, well what a mess).
It's largely a cultural thing, North European Protestantism says obey the law because it is the law, Catholic, Muslim cultures much more have the attitude that if you fake contrition you can ask for forgiveness.
That doesn't mean that personation is the only issue, the roll of course, postal votes, baradari block voting, all practices imported from countries where fraud and corruption are a way of life rather than criminal priorities.
> but my point was that cases of impersonation don't seem to happen, so this appears not to be a suitable response to an identified problem.
In the UK it's called Personation , not impersonation.
But your reasoning is completely false here because the problem isn't people taking votes off people who subsequently try to vote.
It's an extremely well known problem, as reported for several years.
ex-Respecter Salma Yaqoob identified it as a problem in muslim communities in Birmingham, which prompted Barrenness Warsi to identify Hindu and Sikh cases to show that it wasn't a uniquely muslim problem (although it may predominantly be muslim, given that George Galloway made the same point in Bradford, Tower Hamlets, well what a mess).
It's largely a cultural thing, North European Protestantism says obey the law because it is the law, Catholic, Muslim cultures much more have the attitude that if you fake contrition you can ask for forgiveness.
That doesn't mean that personation is the only issue, the roll of course, postal votes, baradari block voting, all practices imported from countries where fraud and corruption are a way of life rather than criminal priorities.
6
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I don't really thing it is. Firstly, it involves an admittedly small risk that you'll get found out at the polling station. Secondly, surely a more obvious way is to get a vulnerable person to postal vote right in front of you or even do it for them yourself.
ID cards will also throw up a loads of problems when it comes to things like Bhurkas etc. Are you seriously going to get every woman to remove their veil in the hope you'll notice the difference in a small ID picture? How about a muslim man in tradition clothing with a big beard? Or indeed an orthodox Jew? What about fake ID? Or are we going to introduce retina scanning or something similar? That's a lot of expense for a tiny proportion of the potential issues.
> One blindingly obvious way of getting people to vote the way you want them to do is to make them stay at home whilst somebody else votes for them!!
I don't really thing it is. Firstly, it involves an admittedly small risk that you'll get found out at the polling station. Secondly, surely a more obvious way is to get a vulnerable person to postal vote right in front of you or even do it for them yourself.
ID cards will also throw up a loads of problems when it comes to things like Bhurkas etc. Are you seriously going to get every woman to remove their veil in the hope you'll notice the difference in a small ID picture? How about a muslim man in tradition clothing with a big beard? Or indeed an orthodox Jew? What about fake ID? Or are we going to introduce retina scanning or something similar? That's a lot of expense for a tiny proportion of the potential issues.
4
1
In reply to Hugh J:
I think voter fraud is such a minor issue compared to voter turnout..
What voter id laws do is suppress the vote of the poor which is why right wingers/the republicans favor them.
I think voter fraud is such a minor issue compared to voter turnout..
What voter id laws do is suppress the vote of the poor which is why right wingers/the republicans favor them.
6
3
In reply to Big Ger:
How would postal fraud combat the issues with the Tower Hamlets voting issue?
> What about them?
> Postal votes are still available, though it's quite possible that the rules on these would be tightened.
How would postal fraud combat the issues with the Tower Hamlets voting issue?
2
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Totally unconnected issues.
So why was Respect so in favour of them?
(Just to make sure, Respect was a far left party)
> I think voter fraud is such a minor issue compared to voter turnout..
Totally unconnected issues.
> What voter id laws do is suppress the vote of the poor which is why right wingers/the republicans favor them.
So why was Respect so in favour of them?
(Just to make sure, Respect was a far left party)
4
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Voter turn out is indeed a problem, but then it's not illegal to abstain from voting. (I think it is in Australia though, apparently because not many would bother if it wasn't, but then it's just necessary to turn up, you can spoil your ballot if you want to. I'm sure Big Ger or AP Melbourne can confirm that).
Voter turn out is indeed a problem, but then it's not illegal to abstain from voting. (I think it is in Australia though, apparently because not many would bother if it wasn't, but then it's just necessary to turn up, you can spoil your ballot if you want to. I'm sure Big Ger or AP Melbourne can confirm that).
In reply to Trangia:
I'm not sure. I live in a country where we need ID on us technically, I struggled early on and frequently drove without my license.
It will be a big cultural change to make people carry id. I can see big resistance.
> Hasn't the Government announced it's intention to revisit the whole concept of ID cards? Combating election fraud would be a plus for their introduction.
> Having friends and family living in countries where they are compulsory doesn't seem to pose any problems to them. I'm sure with modern technology we could develop smarter cards which make it virtually impossible to steal another person's ID. They could gradually replace all other forms of ID like passports and driving licences by incorporating every thing about that person onto them including things like blood group, allergies etc.
I'm not sure. I live in a country where we need ID on us technically, I struggled early on and frequently drove without my license.
It will be a big cultural change to make people carry id. I can see big resistance.
In reply to Hugh J:
What about the case of Anis Amri, the xmas market terrorist?
In the UK the police would have to fake a reason for stopping him and then can't ask for ID.
> Personally, I don't think anyone has a right to ask you for any ID unless you are suspected of commiting a crime,
What about the case of Anis Amri, the xmas market terrorist?
In the UK the police would have to fake a reason for stopping him and then can't ask for ID.
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
See point 1 from my post at 11:47
> How would postal fraud combat the issues with the Tower Hamlets voting issue?
See point 1 from my post at 11:47
1
In reply to Hugh J:
I don't see why at least the level of ID required at an airport couldn't be reasonably reguired.
If one group of voters thinks that another group of voters is scamming the system how do you think they might react? I would suggest that they might decide to scam the system as well. An then the system is f*cked.
> I don't really thing it is. Firstly, it involves an admittedly small risk that you'll get found out at the polling station. Secondly, surely a more obvious way is to get a vulnerable person to postal vote right in front of you or even do it for them yourself.
> ID cards will also throw up a loads of problems when it comes to things like Bhurkas etc. Are you seriously going to get every woman to remove their veil in the hope you'll notice the difference in a small ID picture? How about a muslim man in tradition clothing with a big beard? Or indeed an orthodox Jew? What about fake ID? Or are we going to introduce retina scanning or something similar? That's a lot of expense for a tiny proportion of the potential issues.
>I don't see why at least the level of ID required at an airport couldn't be reasonably reguired.
If one group of voters thinks that another group of voters is scamming the system how do you think they might react? I would suggest that they might decide to scam the system as well. An then the system is f*cked.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Take the US.. Trump believes he won the popular vote but millions of illegals voted for Hillary so she won.. yet he is arguing against any electoral audit. Note a re vote just a thorough check and tally of the system...
You seem paranoid that this is one sided? 'One group scamming the other'
The cases are so few in number they'd be drowned out just by increasing voter turnout. Mistakes will always happen.
> I don't see why at least the level of ID required at an airport couldn't be reasonably reguired.
> If one group of voters thinks that another group of voters is scamming the system how do you think they might react? I would suggest that they might decide to scam the system as well. An then the system is f*cked.
Take the US.. Trump believes he won the popular vote but millions of illegals voted for Hillary so she won.. yet he is arguing against any electoral audit. Note a re vote just a thorough check and tally of the system...
You seem paranoid that this is one sided? 'One group scamming the other'
The cases are so few in number they'd be drowned out just by increasing voter turnout. Mistakes will always happen.
1
2
In reply to winhill:
It's a bit unrelated, but I would argue that's a price of freedom. Who has the right to accuse anyone of anything at anytime without proof just because they don't like the look of you? That's a long and dark rabbit hole to go down.
The thing with Anis Amri is that he was KNOWN to be a danger and had been linked to extremist and was an illegal immigrant awaiting deportation. So there's no reason to make stuff up if he'd been identified, was there? I'm sure they had plently of surveillance material on him, they just lost him, that's all. Are you saying we can stop any dark skinned man with dark hair and brown eyes and ask them for ID? Besides, wasn't there a report he had at least 3 different ID's?
> What about the case of Anis Amri, the xmas market terrorist?
> In the UK the police would have to fake a reason for stopping him and then can't ask for ID.
It's a bit unrelated, but I would argue that's a price of freedom. Who has the right to accuse anyone of anything at anytime without proof just because they don't like the look of you? That's a long and dark rabbit hole to go down.
The thing with Anis Amri is that he was KNOWN to be a danger and had been linked to extremist and was an illegal immigrant awaiting deportation. So there's no reason to make stuff up if he'd been identified, was there? I'm sure they had plently of surveillance material on him, they just lost him, that's all. Are you saying we can stop any dark skinned man with dark hair and brown eyes and ask them for ID? Besides, wasn't there a report he had at least 3 different ID's?
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Are you suggesting that at every polling station in the country we should have passport scanning machines and staff trained to the level of customs staff at our airports and ferry terminals? To tell you the truth, I've been through ferry terminals where I could have been anyone with anything in my car. Plenty of people still slip past those systems.
Whilst I agree with this, I maintain that this problem is a lot smaller than it appears.
> I don't see why at least the level of ID required at an airport couldn't be reasonably reguired.
Are you suggesting that at every polling station in the country we should have passport scanning machines and staff trained to the level of customs staff at our airports and ferry terminals? To tell you the truth, I've been through ferry terminals where I could have been anyone with anything in my car. Plenty of people still slip past those systems.
> If one group of voters thinks that another group of voters is scamming the system how do you think they might react? I would suggest that they might decide to scam the system as well. An then the system is f*cked.
Whilst I agree with this, I maintain that this problem is a lot smaller than it appears.
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Ultimately, maybe. Don't you find it utterly mad when we are followed everywhere by surveillance cameras and ever transaction financial or otherwise checked and recorded for posterity, that we depend on an untrained and possibly biased volunteers, a pencil, and a flimsy curtain to protect our democratic system.
So let's wait until it gets bigger, by which time UKIP will have wiped out Labour on the basis of such wilful blindness.
> Are you suggesting that at every polling station in the country we should have passport scanning machines and staff trained to the level of customs staff at our airports and ferry terminals?
>Ultimately, maybe. Don't you find it utterly mad when we are followed everywhere by surveillance cameras and ever transaction financial or otherwise checked and recorded for posterity, that we depend on an untrained and possibly biased volunteers, a pencil, and a flimsy curtain to protect our democratic system.
> Whilst I agree with this, I maintain that this problem is a lot smaller than it appears.
>So let's wait until it gets bigger, by which time UKIP will have wiped out Labour on the basis of such wilful blindness.
3
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
OK. But that's gonna cost billions to safeguard against something that has never been proved to swing any election in this country
Are you suggesting that UKIP are up to fraudulent polling activities? The fact that Labour are appealing to so few at the moment is a completely different issue.
> Ultimately, maybe. Don't you find it utterly mad when we are followed everywhere by surveillance cameras and ever transaction financial or otherwise checked and recorded for posterity, that we depend on an untrained and possibly biased volunteers, a pencil, and a flimsy curtain to protect our democratic system.
OK. But that's gonna cost billions to safeguard against something that has never been proved to swing any election in this country
> So let's wait until it gets bigger, by which time UKIP will have wiped out Labour on the basis of such wilful blindness.
Are you suggesting that UKIP are up to fraudulent polling activities? The fact that Labour are appealing to so few at the moment is a completely different issue.
1
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
It would be a disaster if all those UKIP voting pensioners that can't see well enough to drive and never go abroad lost their voice.
> What about those who chose not to drive or travel?
It would be a disaster if all those UKIP voting pensioners that can't see well enough to drive and never go abroad lost their voice.
5
In reply to Hugh J:
If corruption undermines the credibility of the system then something has to be done.
I'm suggesting firstly that it is just the kind of issue to drive voters towards UKIP if not dealt with, and secondly that UKIP are more likely than, say, the LibDems, Greens or Tories, to adopt such tactics of they think they are being used by their opponents.
> OK. But that's gonna cost billions to safeguard against something that has never been proved to swing any election in this country>
>If corruption undermines the credibility of the system then something has to be done.
> Are you suggesting that UKIP are up to fraudulent polling activities? The fact that Labour are appealing to so few at the moment is a completely different issue.
>I'm suggesting firstly that it is just the kind of issue to drive voters towards UKIP if not dealt with, and secondly that UKIP are more likely than, say, the LibDems, Greens or Tories, to adopt such tactics of they think they are being used by their opponents.
Post edited at 14:57
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Well, I would suggest you're making 2 big leaps there. Firstly, this is not what will drive people towards UKIP and secondly that UKIP would be more likely to be guilty of commiting electoral improprieties. I would have thought with the "British" values platform and the fact they are more of a Tory spin off in origin, they would be less likely to do this. BTW, I hate UKIP.
With reference to your previous post. Are you also suggesting that Lutfur Rahman was the Labour candidate at Tower Hamlets? Because he wasn't.
> If corruption undermines the credibility of the system then something has to be done.
> I'm suggesting firstly that it is just the kind of issue to drive voters towards UKIP if not dealt with, and secondly that UKIP are more likely than, say, the LibDems, Greens or Tories, to adopt such tactics of they think they are being used by their opponents.
Well, I would suggest you're making 2 big leaps there. Firstly, this is not what will drive people towards UKIP and secondly that UKIP would be more likely to be guilty of commiting electoral improprieties. I would have thought with the "British" values platform and the fact they are more of a Tory spin off in origin, they would be less likely to do this. BTW, I hate UKIP.
With reference to your previous post. Are you also suggesting that Lutfur Rahman was the Labour candidate at Tower Hamlets? Because he wasn't.
Post edited at 15:07
1
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Are you suggesting that them being prevented from voting would be a good thing?
Them voting for UKIP is something which I believe to be a poor decision, however they should be allowed to make that poor decision.
Are you suggesting that them being prevented from voting would be a good thing?
Them voting for UKIP is something which I believe to be a poor decision, however they should be allowed to make that poor decision.
In reply to Hugh J:
Near as!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(politician)
> With reference to your previous post. Are you also suggesting that Lutfur Rahman was the Labour candidate at Tower Hamlets? Because he wasn't.
Near as!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(politician)
Post edited at 15:22
In reply to Oceanrower:
It was the Labour candidate he falsely branded as racist.
I would also suggest the Tower Hamlets is never, ever going to go UKIP. I think the majority of people in this country will have little knowledge of this issue and care even less.
> Near as!
It was the Labour candidate he falsely branded as racist.
I would also suggest the Tower Hamlets is never, ever going to go UKIP. I think the majority of people in this country will have little knowledge of this issue and care even less.
Post edited at 15:47
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Why do you think suspicions of electoral malfeasance by by a Rahman type character wouldn't drive people to vote UKIP?
You have seemingly agreed that if one group sees another group scamming the system they might adopt the same tactics. My suspicion would be that UKIP has an underbelly of ne'er do wells who might see it as justified, but obviously that is just an impression (based partly on the shenanigans of their own leadership elections)
He was originally a Labour candidate and then became an independent in 2010. He was supported by a number of (now corbynite) Labour members such as Ken Livingstone even after his fraud was uncovered.
> Well, I would suggest you're making 2 big leaps there. Firstly, this is not what will drive people towards UKIP and secondly that UKIP would be more likely to be guilty of commiting electoral improprieties. I would have thought with the "British" values platform and the fact they are more of a Tory spin off in origin, they would be less likely to do this. BTW, I hate UKIP.
>Why do you think suspicions of electoral malfeasance by by a Rahman type character wouldn't drive people to vote UKIP?
You have seemingly agreed that if one group sees another group scamming the system they might adopt the same tactics. My suspicion would be that UKIP has an underbelly of ne'er do wells who might see it as justified, but obviously that is just an impression (based partly on the shenanigans of their own leadership elections)
> With reference to your previous post. Are you also suggesting that Lutfur Rahman was the Labour candidate at Tower Hamlets? Because he wasn't.
He was originally a Labour candidate and then became an independent in 2010. He was supported by a number of (now corbynite) Labour members such as Ken Livingstone even after his fraud was uncovered.
In reply to Postmanpat:
See above.
Also what will drive people to UKIP is the lack of anything being done by the Labour party to uphold what is seen as typical British values (whatever that myth is), and as their traditional support will never vote for the Tories or the Liberals that doesn't leave much option. I've said it before and I'll say it again (and take the flak), there are vast amounts of the population in this country who aren't like your average UKC poster or similar forums. They are nowhere near as diversely informed and are just not interested enough to go looking into things too deeply. They will just listen to shitty sound bites like "Breaking point" innit.
Well, that's just it PMP, "just an impression". In this Brave New World of post-truth politics, I guess that'll do, won't it?
> Why do you think suspicions of electoral malfeasance by by a Rahman type character wouldn't drive people to vote UKIP?
See above.
Also what will drive people to UKIP is the lack of anything being done by the Labour party to uphold what is seen as typical British values (whatever that myth is), and as their traditional support will never vote for the Tories or the Liberals that doesn't leave much option. I've said it before and I'll say it again (and take the flak), there are vast amounts of the population in this country who aren't like your average UKC poster or similar forums. They are nowhere near as diversely informed and are just not interested enough to go looking into things too deeply. They will just listen to shitty sound bites like "Breaking point" innit.
> You have seemingly agreed that if one group sees another group scamming the system they might adopt the same tactics. My suspicion would be that UKIP has an underbelly of ne'er do wells who might see it as justified, but obviously that is just an impression (based partly on the shenanigans of their own leadership elections)
Well, that's just it PMP, "just an impression". In this Brave New World of post-truth politics, I guess that'll do, won't it?
1
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
If you make it harder to postal vote, and ask for ID, it will be much harder to coerce people into voting in a particular way. This has bi-partisan support and is totally different to the US situation.
If you make it harder to postal vote, and ask for ID, it will be much harder to coerce people into voting in a particular way. This has bi-partisan support and is totally different to the US situation.
4
In reply to Hugh J:
What above?
They are nowhere near as diversely informed and are just not interested enough to go looking into things too deeply. They will just listen to shitty sound bites like "Breaking point" innit.
>
I don't get your point. How does any of this preclude said people from thinkers ng " muslims innit. Nobody does anything about it. I'll vote UKIP"?
I don't think opinions are a new thing are they? It doesnt seem unreasonable to look the previous behaviour of people and develop an opinion on how they might behave in future.
By implication u have already accepted that by acknowledging that some people might do so. If u disagree about ukippers then fine but how is that any more than a guess?? !
> See above.
What above?
> Also what will drive
They are nowhere near as diversely informed and are just not interested enough to go looking into things too deeply. They will just listen to shitty sound bites like "Breaking point" innit.
>
I don't get your point. How does any of this preclude said people from thinkers ng " muslims innit. Nobody does anything about it. I'll vote UKIP"?
> Well, that's just it PMP, "just an impression". In this Brave New World of post-truth politics, I guess that'll do, won't it?
I don't think opinions are a new thing are they? It doesnt seem unreasonable to look the previous behaviour of people and develop an opinion on how they might behave in future.
By implication u have already accepted that by acknowledging that some people might do so. If u disagree about ukippers then fine but how is that any more than a guess?? !
2
In reply to Hugh J:
Just wondering why you would have an issue with this? Saves the police time and effort when people are deliberately misleading them about who they are and seems simple enough to be able to produce a card and say there you are and for them to quickly check it. Not really a problem if you have nothing to hide
> I think .....I would have an big issue if you could be demanded to produce one by the police for example
Just wondering why you would have an issue with this? Saves the police time and effort when people are deliberately misleading them about who they are and seems simple enough to be able to produce a card and say there you are and for them to quickly check it. Not really a problem if you have nothing to hide
1
2
In reply to winhill:
I take your point, as indeed I already acknowledged in response to a different poster earlier. But the fact still remains that this problem was not identified in the article as something that exists and would be reduced by the requirement of election day ID card showing. So either it isn't that big of a problem, or the article was seriously flawed in not explaining the real problem to be addressed, or there's more to this than personation in some ethnic minority communities. I'm really not sure which; maybe they're all true.
> But your reasoning is completely false here because the problem isn't people taking votes off people who subsequently try to vote.
> It's an extremely well known problem, as reported for several years.
I take your point, as indeed I already acknowledged in response to a different poster earlier. But the fact still remains that this problem was not identified in the article as something that exists and would be reduced by the requirement of election day ID card showing. So either it isn't that big of a problem, or the article was seriously flawed in not explaining the real problem to be addressed, or there's more to this than personation in some ethnic minority communities. I'm really not sure which; maybe they're all true.
In reply to Hugh J:
This.
> Secondly, surely a more obvious way is to get a vulnerable person to postal vote right in front of you or even do it for them yourself
This.
In reply to john arran:
The DT says they are planning legislation to stop the "block" delivery of postal votes on election day. So it seems that there may be a number of measures being considered.
The DT says they are planning legislation to stop the "block" delivery of postal votes on election day. So it seems that there may be a number of measures being considered.
Post edited at 17:57
In reply to john arran:
In the states, non-existant voter fraud was merely a pretext for making stricter ID voter laws, whose real (and explicitly stated) aim was to make it harder for poor/colored/younger people to vote.
In the states, non-existant voter fraud was merely a pretext for making stricter ID voter laws, whose real (and explicitly stated) aim was to make it harder for poor/colored/younger people to vote.
2
In reply to redjerry:
We are talking about real fraud here - at least one election result has been overturned in recent years due to fraud/coercion, and there have been many convictions.
> In the states, non-existant voter fraud was merely a pretext for making stricter ID voter laws, whose real (and explicitly stated) aim was to make it harder for poor/colored/younger people to vote.
We are talking about real fraud here - at least one election result has been overturned in recent years due to fraud/coercion, and there have been many convictions.
Post edited at 18:26
In reply to Hugh J:
To pick up a letter at the post office, to travel, to open a bank account, to be employed etc. I need ID, but to vote I don't, which is a bit strange. Asking for basic ID before affecting an election is hardly an onerous request.
To pick up a letter at the post office, to travel, to open a bank account, to be employed etc. I need ID, but to vote I don't, which is a bit strange. Asking for basic ID before affecting an election is hardly an onerous request.
3
In reply to MG:
I know, but in modern life more and more people want to vote early. In the US this has been 30-40% of the voters.
I actually don't think voter coercion is that big an issue nationally. Getting more people to vote is more important.
I know, but in modern life more and more people want to vote early. In the US this has been 30-40% of the voters.
I actually don't think voter coercion is that big an issue nationally. Getting more people to vote is more important.
1
1
In reply to MG:
You'll have to excuse me, I've been in the local Working Man's Club for a few hours (women more than welcome though a rarity ).
I have absolutely no problem with what you are saying.
My main points of argument are; Just how big an actual problem is this issue? Will producing ID be a solution to the problem? Is this another push for ID cards? Just how deep does the rabbit hole of ID cards go?
> To pick up a letter at the post office, to travel, to open a bank account, to be employed etc. I need ID, but to vote I don't, which is a bit strange. Asking for basic ID before affecting an election is hardly an onerous request.
You'll have to excuse me, I've been in the local Working Man's Club for a few hours (women more than welcome though a rarity ).
I have absolutely no problem with what you are saying.
My main points of argument are; Just how big an actual problem is this issue? Will producing ID be a solution to the problem? Is this another push for ID cards? Just how deep does the rabbit hole of ID cards go?
Post edited at 20:42
1
In reply to spenser:
My point was it would be amusing if the Tory right brought in ID to make it less likely ethnic minorities would vote and ended up making it less likely their core base of pensioners would vote.
Whether preventing UKIP-voting pensioners from voting is a good thing is a different question. I think there is an argument that when people get really old and disconnected from the world their opinion is less relevant, certainly for long term decisions like the Brexit. For example, my mother in the last 5 or 10 years of her life was basically voting in line with opinions she had formed in her 30's and 40's. It's basically the same argument about judgement and experience which leads to giving the vote at 18 rather than 10 or 12.
The other issue is that policies which benefit the old and economically unproductive generally disadvantage the young and productive and when there is a large demographic of voting pensioners those policies get locked in.
> Are you suggesting that them being prevented from voting would be a good thing?
My point was it would be amusing if the Tory right brought in ID to make it less likely ethnic minorities would vote and ended up making it less likely their core base of pensioners would vote.
Whether preventing UKIP-voting pensioners from voting is a good thing is a different question. I think there is an argument that when people get really old and disconnected from the world their opinion is less relevant, certainly for long term decisions like the Brexit. For example, my mother in the last 5 or 10 years of her life was basically voting in line with opinions she had formed in her 30's and 40's. It's basically the same argument about judgement and experience which leads to giving the vote at 18 rather than 10 or 12.
The other issue is that policies which benefit the old and economically unproductive generally disadvantage the young and productive and when there is a large demographic of voting pensioners those policies get locked in.
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I can see your reasoning Tom, but this is another very deep and dark rabbit hole, Where would you draw the line? For instance (I know he's not British but) would you say someone like Noam Chomsky should not be eligable to vote?
I can see your reasoning Tom, but this is another very deep and dark rabbit hole, Where would you draw the line? For instance (I know he's not British but) would you say someone like Noam Chomsky should not be eligable to vote?
In reply to Hugh J:
Isn't the whole concept of "fraud" something which in the main would be undetected? It wouldn't be very good 'fraud" if people were always caught.
> But why would you do that? And surely, if this is commonplace to a degree that it would have any meaningful effect, I think there would be a lot of evidence that it actually happens, which I believe there isn't.
Isn't the whole concept of "fraud" something which in the main would be undetected? It wouldn't be very good 'fraud" if people were always caught.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
http://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/11/26/what-is-the-extent-of-electoral-f...
> The emergence of evidence of electoral malpractice in English elections during the 2000s ranks among the most concerning emerging developments identified by this Audit. Evidence of malpractice began to mount from 2005 onwards, after an election court convened in Birmingham found five men guilty of large-scale electoral fraud, involving thousands of postal ballots, at local elections in June 2004. In his written judgement, the election commissioner, Richard Mawrey QC, referred to ‘evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic.’
> While the Birmingham case represented the most systematic proven case of attempted ballot rigging, there have been numerous other convictions for electoral fraud in the UK since 2000. Court cases relating to large-scale fraud in local elections in Slough in 2007 and Peterborough in 2004 resulted in six convictions each. Following a lengthy police investigation and two re-trials, five men were eventually convicted in September 2010 for electoral fraud offences in the Bradford West constituency during the 2005 general election (the first relating to fraud in a UK general election for almost one hundred years). In total, more than 100 people have been found guilty of electoral malpractice in the UK since 1994. The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties.
http://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/11/26/what-is-the-extent-of-electoral-f...
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Big enough to.change election results. That's plenty enough to act.
It's part of a solution, perhaps, hence the trials.
>
> My main points of argument are; Just how big an actual problem is this issue?
> My main points of argument are; Just how big an actual problem is this issue?
Big enough to.change election results. That's plenty enough to act.
> Will producing ID be a solution to the problem?
It's part of a solution, perhaps, hence the trials.
> Is this another push for ID cards?
Probably not.> Just how deep does the rabbit hole of ID cards go?
Not very. Many countries have them and they work fine. EG France.
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Young and economically unproductive and old and productive is what you meant Tom. Easy to get confused and assume the other way round I'm sure.
Young and economically unproductive and old and productive is what you meant Tom. Easy to get confused and assume the other way round I'm sure.
In reply to Big Ger:
Thanks Big Ger, nice info, but it begs the question, is producing ID at the polling station really addressing the main issue here? The piece you have quoted suggests that the main issue is with postal and, to a lesser extent, proxy voting. It always makes me suspicious that there could be alterior motives when some starts poking the serpent with a stick rather than cutting it's head off.
This could also be my reply to MG's post at 21:07
Thanks Big Ger, nice info, but it begs the question, is producing ID at the polling station really addressing the main issue here? The piece you have quoted suggests that the main issue is with postal and, to a lesser extent, proxy voting. It always makes me suspicious that there could be alterior motives when some starts poking the serpent with a stick rather than cutting it's head off.
This could also be my reply to MG's post at 21:07
1
In reply to Hugh J:
There are other measures proposed to clamp.down on fraudulent postal votes. Together it would appear they will make electoral fraud harder. No bad thing.
There are other measures proposed to clamp.down on fraudulent postal votes. Together it would appear they will make electoral fraud harder. No bad thing.
1
In reply to MG:
Agreed. I have no problem with producing ID at the polling station, Incidently, I actually take some every time, just in case. As I said, it just makes me suspicious that when the main issue is not being address directly and where there is potential for a back door approach to previously rejected policies.
It's sad that I have no faith, though perhaps hardly surprising.
Agreed. I have no problem with producing ID at the polling station, Incidently, I actually take some every time, just in case. As I said, it just makes me suspicious that when the main issue is not being address directly and where there is potential for a back door approach to previously rejected policies.
It's sad that I have no faith, though perhaps hardly surprising.
Post edited at 21:42
In reply to Hugh J:
See my post of 17.34. This seems to be one of a number of measures being considered.
Has anybody actually got any evidence that this government wants to re-examine the ID card issue?
> Thanks Big Ger, nice info, but it begs the question, is producing ID at the polling station really addressing the main issue here?
>See my post of 17.34. This seems to be one of a number of measures being considered.
Has anybody actually got any evidence that this government wants to re-examine the ID card issue?
Post edited at 21:45
In reply to Postmanpat:
Sorry, was in the club then drinking beer.
Someone did suggest that there was a possiblity that the government might be looking at ID cards again, but provided no proof. For me it's just suspicion. Given it was one of May's agendas and also given her authoritarian tendencies, it wouldn't come as a great surprise.
Sorry, was in the club then drinking beer.
Someone did suggest that there was a possiblity that the government might be looking at ID cards again, but provided no proof. For me it's just suspicion. Given it was one of May's agendas and also given her authoritarian tendencies, it wouldn't come as a great surprise.
Post edited at 21:54
2
In reply to MG, Postman Pat and Big Ger:
Some of the issues raised in Big Ger's last post suggest something that had occured to me, but SJW alarms were warning me against saying anything about.
Oh well, a few beers has loosened my tongue!
I wouldn't mind betting that given this appears to be a relatively new phenomenon, this is a more of a cultural issue. Bradford, Birmingham, Tower Hamlets . . . hmmmm . . . any connection there?
Perhaps you are right PMP about it playing straight into UKIP's hands, though I don't think it's an issue to do with Labour. Labour have just lost touch with the traditional core voters for other reasons. But this is another huge issue, with links to accidental or dilerate segregation and cultural values. Unfortunately, I've had too many beers to contribute effectively to that issue. The Tories are engineering things to keep or even regain there traditional vote from UKIP. The cynic in me would suggest this was their overriding plan with Brexit. I feel they are totally unconcerned with voters they will never win, let them divide themselves between Labour and UKIP, why should they care or more precisely a split vote in the traditional opposition is to their benefit.
Some of the issues raised in Big Ger's last post suggest something that had occured to me, but SJW alarms were warning me against saying anything about.
Oh well, a few beers has loosened my tongue!
I wouldn't mind betting that given this appears to be a relatively new phenomenon, this is a more of a cultural issue. Bradford, Birmingham, Tower Hamlets . . . hmmmm . . . any connection there?
Perhaps you are right PMP about it playing straight into UKIP's hands, though I don't think it's an issue to do with Labour. Labour have just lost touch with the traditional core voters for other reasons. But this is another huge issue, with links to accidental or dilerate segregation and cultural values. Unfortunately, I've had too many beers to contribute effectively to that issue. The Tories are engineering things to keep or even regain there traditional vote from UKIP. The cynic in me would suggest this was their overriding plan with Brexit. I feel they are totally unconcerned with voters they will never win, let them divide themselves between Labour and UKIP, why should they care or more precisely a split vote in the traditional opposition is to their benefit.
Post edited at 22:15
In reply to...: Several problems with ID cards...
1. Security - doesn't matter what you do, they can be faked. If you think something like retinal scans are foolproof then think again.
2. Cost - who's going to pay. Oh yes, me! I object to having to pay for something I don't particularly want or need.
3. Having to produce - I would strongly object to having to carry ID. Why should I have to carry it when I go for a run round the block for example.
1. Security - doesn't matter what you do, they can be faked. If you think something like retinal scans are foolproof then think again.
2. Cost - who's going to pay. Oh yes, me! I object to having to pay for something I don't particularly want or need.
3. Having to produce - I would strongly object to having to carry ID. Why should I have to carry it when I go for a run round the block for example.
In reply to john arran:
Any new ID card scheme will involve creating a database of photos of everyone and once you have the database you don't need a physical card. The official can get your picture off the internet based on your claimed name and address. There shouldn't be any need to require people to carry a card.
> I take your point, as indeed I already acknowledged in response to a different poster earlier. But the fact still remains that this problem was not identified in the article as something that exists and would be reduced by the requirement of election day ID card showing.
Any new ID card scheme will involve creating a database of photos of everyone and once you have the database you don't need a physical card. The official can get your picture off the internet based on your claimed name and address. There shouldn't be any need to require people to carry a card.
In reply to Big Ger:
I can access my iPhone, and workplace with a fingerprint scan ( Eye scanning us also available )
Biometrics is more secure than other forms.
I have no issue with registering my fingerprint scan to vote.
I can access my iPhone, and workplace with a fingerprint scan ( Eye scanning us also available )
Biometrics is more secure than other forms.
I have no issue with registering my fingerprint scan to vote.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Here's Fat Boy's report if anyone is interested.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5...
Here's Fat Boy's report if anyone is interested.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5...
In reply to Jim C:
You would have if you had ever done a crime which you had never been caught for where the cops could potentially have an unmatched fingerprint on record.
Realistically, if government gets a DNA database or a fingerprint database or a photo database once they have had it for a few years they'll figure out more things to do with it. If they get a photo database they'll probably hook it up to image recognition off CCTV and start tracking named people as they walk through towns. If they get a DNA database they'll use it for unsolved crimes, then to collect child support.
> I have no issue with registering my fingerprint scan to vote.
You would have if you had ever done a crime which you had never been caught for where the cops could potentially have an unmatched fingerprint on record.
Realistically, if government gets a DNA database or a fingerprint database or a photo database once they have had it for a few years they'll figure out more things to do with it. If they get a photo database they'll probably hook it up to image recognition off CCTV and start tracking named people as they walk through towns. If they get a DNA database they'll use it for unsolved crimes, then to collect child support.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Would you be voting then?
Great idea, nice one.
> You would have if you had ever done a crime which you had never been caught for where the cops could potentially have an unmatched fingerprint on record.
Would you be voting then?
> If they get a DNA database they'll use it for unsolved crimes, then to collect child support.
Great idea, nice one.
1
In reply to MG:
"We are talking about real fraud here - at least one election result has been overturned in recent years due to fraud/coercion, and there have been many convictions."
I hadn't heard that.
Who has been convicted for doing it?
"We are talking about real fraud here - at least one election result has been overturned in recent years due to fraud/coercion, and there have been many convictions."
I hadn't heard that.
Who has been convicted for doing it?
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
If they get a photo database they'll probably hook it up to image recognition off CCTV and start tracking named people as they walk through towns.
Why assume they don't already do this? The technology is already available, has been for decades.
I'm in favour of I.d. cards generally, I get crb/DBs checked at least twice per year, endless list of various i.d.S proofs of address etc in order to comply.
Preposterous to think that all that identity fraud & financial fraud crime which open borders accelerated ( sorry UKC ostriches) and you can walk into a voting station without showing I.d.
D
If they get a photo database they'll probably hook it up to image recognition off CCTV and start tracking named people as they walk through towns.
Why assume they don't already do this? The technology is already available, has been for decades.
I'm in favour of I.d. cards generally, I get crb/DBs checked at least twice per year, endless list of various i.d.S proofs of address etc in order to comply.
Preposterous to think that all that identity fraud & financial fraud crime which open borders accelerated ( sorry UKC ostriches) and you can walk into a voting station without showing I.d.
D
3
In reply to the thread:
as soon as i read this thread, i thought of this
youtube.com/watch?v=0pKEuonNf44&
as soon as i read this thread, i thought of this
youtube.com/watch?v=0pKEuonNf44&
1
In reply to Big Ger:
About 1/3 of men in the UK have a criminal conviction. The number of people who have done something but not got caught is probably in the millions. Any system which involves collecting fingerprints before voting is going to deter a lot of people from voting and since it is mainly poor people that commit the sort of crimes where fingerprints are an issue it will change the balance of the electorate.
Not really.
Democracy is more about making decisions that people will accept than making the 'best' decisions based on facts. If you wanted to make good decisions you would bias the voting system so for example the votes of educated people were weighted more highly.
But it seems to be more important to have a system that makes decisions people will accept and therefore avoids the massive costs of civil unrest. Cutting out large numbers of healthy males from voting is just going to lead to them using other ways of making their views felt when the political system moves against their interests. It would be far safer to cut out right wing pensioners.
> Would you be voting then?
About 1/3 of men in the UK have a criminal conviction. The number of people who have done something but not got caught is probably in the millions. Any system which involves collecting fingerprints before voting is going to deter a lot of people from voting and since it is mainly poor people that commit the sort of crimes where fingerprints are an issue it will change the balance of the electorate.
> Great idea, nice one.
Not really.
Democracy is more about making decisions that people will accept than making the 'best' decisions based on facts. If you wanted to make good decisions you would bias the voting system so for example the votes of educated people were weighted more highly.
But it seems to be more important to have a system that makes decisions people will accept and therefore avoids the massive costs of civil unrest. Cutting out large numbers of healthy males from voting is just going to lead to them using other ways of making their views felt when the political system moves against their interests. It would be far safer to cut out right wing pensioners.
1
3
In reply to rallymania:
One might ask if there is no apparent benefit to voter fraud, why would you risk being caught and punished if it is ineffectual ?
Is it a case of poor detection rather than, no crime being committed ?
One might ask if there is no apparent benefit to voter fraud, why would you risk being caught and punished if it is ineffectual ?
Is it a case of poor detection rather than, no crime being committed ?
Post edited at 11:40
1
In reply to Jim C:
It seems evident that there have been a few extreme cases recently, Hamlet Towers, Birmingham and Bradford. I have detailed my thoughts about those particular cases higher up the thread. My guess would be that this is either a knee jerk reaction to a new problem or as "The Newsroom" clip suggests, there's an alterior motive. It seems the aforementioned fraud cases were not cases of fraud commited at the polling station, but by other means that ID would not solve, hence my suspicion of an alterior motive.
It seems evident that there have been a few extreme cases recently, Hamlet Towers, Birmingham and Bradford. I have detailed my thoughts about those particular cases higher up the thread. My guess would be that this is either a knee jerk reaction to a new problem or as "The Newsroom" clip suggests, there's an alterior motive. It seems the aforementioned fraud cases were not cases of fraud commited at the polling station, but by other means that ID would not solve, hence my suspicion of an alterior motive.
1
1
In reply to Hugh J:
For sure, if someone voted in a particular way due to a bribe, then that would not be detected by methods used for preventing id fraud.
For sure, if someone voted in a particular way due to a bribe, then that would not be detected by methods used for preventing id fraud.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
If you commit a crime in this country and are imprisoned because of it ,( other than remand) you forfeit the fight to vote.
If you have committed a crime ( undetected ) that presumably you fear that you will be imprisoned for by means of fingerprint or biometrics used for voter fraud as, then not voting because of the id system is a case of self declaration that by not voting that you are guilty if a crime that would make you not be eligible to vote anyway so then there is no problem.
It would only be a problem if people with no criminal record , or had not committed any crimes , were not to vote, but why would they worry if they are neither a detected or an undetected criminal ?
If you commit a crime in this country and are imprisoned because of it ,( other than remand) you forfeit the fight to vote.
If you have committed a crime ( undetected ) that presumably you fear that you will be imprisoned for by means of fingerprint or biometrics used for voter fraud as, then not voting because of the id system is a case of self declaration that by not voting that you are guilty if a crime that would make you not be eligible to vote anyway so then there is no problem.
It would only be a problem if people with no criminal record , or had not committed any crimes , were not to vote, but why would they worry if they are neither a detected or an undetected criminal ?
1
In reply to Hugh J:
So, on the back of a high profile case of electoral fraud (Tower Hamlets) and number of lesser known ones the government publicly institutes an inquiry into the problem. Twelve months later the inquiry produces a publicly available report outlining the various elements of the problem. Six months after that the first measures emanating from the report are announced. These so far seem to include tightening up ID verification at the polling station and reducing the ability to rig postal votes.
During all this time nobody can produce any evidence of a government initiative to reintroduce ID cards.
Do you see why one might regard you views as entering tin foil hat territory?
> It seems the aforementioned fraud cases were not cases of fraud commited at the polling station, but by other means that ID would not solve, hence my suspicion of an alterior motive.
>So, on the back of a high profile case of electoral fraud (Tower Hamlets) and number of lesser known ones the government publicly institutes an inquiry into the problem. Twelve months later the inquiry produces a publicly available report outlining the various elements of the problem. Six months after that the first measures emanating from the report are announced. These so far seem to include tightening up ID verification at the polling station and reducing the ability to rig postal votes.
During all this time nobody can produce any evidence of a government initiative to reintroduce ID cards.
Do you see why one might regard you views as entering tin foil hat territory?
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Couple of Tory M.P.s talked about it being reintroduced on radio four in the last few weeks.
D
Couple of Tory M.P.s talked about it being reintroduced on radio four in the last few weeks.
D
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Nonsense. The sort of person who wouldn't vote for fear of being caught, your so called " healthy males" wouldn't give two stuffs about the electoral system in the first place.
> But it seems to be more important to have a system that makes decisions people will accept and therefore avoids the massive costs of civil unrest. Cutting out large numbers of healthy males from voting is just going to lead to them using other ways of making their views felt when the political system moves against their interests. It would be far safer to cut out right wing pensioners.
Nonsense. The sort of person who wouldn't vote for fear of being caught, your so called " healthy males" wouldn't give two stuffs about the electoral system in the first place.
1
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...