• This topic has 156 replies, 64 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by Cougar.
Viewing 37 posts - 121 through 157 (of 157 total)
  • Voter Suppression coming to the UK
  • Premier Icon hugo
    Free Member

    This is a huge deal and should be front page news.

    Why does voting ID mean voter suppression rather than just reducing voter fraud?

    Because the people affected would be younger, poorer and less-white (potential) voters.

    These people are less likely to vote Conservative, hence the policy.

    There is no evidence of voter fraud in the UK. This is an invented scare issue that’s being used to tip the scales.

    Hope that helps.

    Premier Icon MSP
    Full Member

    Stop answering the repeated bad faith question, just call them an idiot and suggest they read the comprehensive answers from the first time it was asked.

    They are using a technique called firehosing, answering in good faith just legitimises the question. Call them out for using a propaganda technique or don’t respond at all.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    Because the people affected would be younger, poorer and less-white (potential) voters.

    To be fair, I’d still be ranting if it somehow affected older, richer, white Tory voters as well.

    Voter suppression is voter suppression.

    Premier Icon Murray
    Full Member

    we both got asked for ID

    you don’t need either ID or your polling card to vote. I don’t think there are any ongoing pilots – they happened in 2018 and 2019.

    Premier Icon dogmatix
    Full Member

    Just because people do not currently have a form of ID does not mean they cannot get it if it is required. Simply spend the 4 years prior to an election improving the access to photo ID and encouraging people to acquire a photo ID. It seems obvious that it improves the security of an election regardless of whether that system has been proven to be broken. Fraud often goes undetected. Voter identification is not an alien concept to many established democracies, Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, all require a form of identification.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    I think you’ve missed the point we’ve been making.

    Huge cost to resolve a non issue. Why I it a priority with all the other shit we have going on?

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    that system has been proven to be broken

    Go ahead then… how is it proven to be broken, in a way that voter ID can solve? Where is that proof?

    And while this goes on, we still have a voting system where in one house of parliament a majority of seats can be won on a minority vote, and in the other house people can be appointed having been rejected by their voters and then made a minister in the government. Literally voted out at an election, only to be then gifted a seat in parliament and take up a role in the executive.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    It seems obvious that it improves the security of an election regardless of whether that system has been proven to be broken

    Do you think every UK election thus far, has been insecure? Is increased security more valuable than participation?

     Voter identification is not an alien concept to many established democracies, Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, all require a form of identification.

    Sure, but those systems rely on decades of citizen ID being normalised, and have been largely in place as the franchise in those countries has expanded over time. So the two have gone hand in hand. There’s no evidence to suggest that UK elections are less secure than those held in these other countries.

    Premier Icon dissonance
    Full Member

    It seems obvious that it improves the security of an election regardless of whether that system has been proven to be broken.

    For any security measure you have to weigh up effectiveness vs usability and then also account for the risk factor.
    If you block 1 case by using photo id but prevent 1000 people from voting it is a rather poor return on investment.

    Out of the voting options postal votes is far more vulnerable to misuse. Oddly enough though the tories dont seem interested in that. Why is that do you think?
    Why are they going for the option which most impacts people who dont vote for them regardless of the low risk vs the more risky variant which people who vote for them use?

    Premier Icon big_n_daft
    Free Member

    Out of the voting options postal votes is far more vulnerable to misuse. Oddly enough though the tories dont seem interested in that. Why is that do you think?
    Why are they going for the option which most impacts people who dont vote for them regardless of the low risk vs the more risky variant which people who vote for them use?

    Postal voting issues are significantly higher than in person voting issues, these allegedly are most likely in communities that tend to vote labour, don’t know why a conservative government isn’t tackling that issue
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47535867

    Premier Icon mjsmke
    Full Member

    I agree with needing ID. There is no downside and it prompts people to get a valid photo ID that they might need for other things. There’s plenty of time to get some form of photo ID.

    We don’t complain about showing ID to collect things from stores, to drive, to travel abroad etc.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    what if a person cannot afford a photo ID? what if they don’t drive, go abroad (have a driving license or passport?) should those people just be prevented from voting then?

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    There is no downside

    Read the thread.

    Premier Icon mjsmke
    Full Member

    £15 for a citizen card delivered within 21 days. Last for 3 years too.

    Premier Icon reluctantjumper
    Full Member

    Just because people do not currently have a form of ID does not mean they cannot get it if it is required. Simply spend the 4 years prior to an election improving the access to photo ID and encouraging people to acquire a photo ID.

    This lot in charge will wait until the last few weeks before the election, announce a scheme run by a Donor and that scheme will then have so many delays and faults that the majority of the ID’s will arrive late. There’s also the issue of it relying on people to apply, that breeds voter apathy.

    For any security measure you have to weigh up effectiveness vs usability and then also account for the risk factor.
    If you block 1 case by using photo id but prevent 1000 people from voting it is a rather poor return on investment.

    Out of the voting options postal votes is far more vulnerable to misuse. Oddly enough though the tories dont seem interested in that. Why is that do you think?
    Why are they going for the option which most impacts people who dont vote for them regardless of the low risk vs the more risky variant which people who vote for them use?

    This echo’s my thoughts. If the current system has 30m voters currently (65% turnout of 45m eligible) and only 100 attempted illegal votes in person then that ratio is so small that it’s not worth considering statistically. If the ID system reduces the voter turnout by 2-3m or more then it actually makes the effect of the odd illegal vote have more effect, but the effect is still so tiny it doesn’t matter therefore the whole scheme has just reduced the voter pool. Those voters who couldn’t vote are far more likely to be from disadvantaged, poor or ethnic households that generally don’t vote Tory. That’s straight-out voter manipulation.

    The issue of postal votes is far more open to abuse. The wife/husband can easily intercept their partner’s vote or force them to vote a certain way. Deceased votes can be cast. Forms can be forged. But making that system more robust and harder to access would potentially rule out votes from the elderly who have trouble getting to the polling station on the day or people who live abroad, all traditionally Tory voters.

    Even if it is all being introduced legitimately and without political bias (highly unlikely) it still favours Tory votes over other parties and on that point alone it should not be introduced.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    £15 for a citizen card delivered within 21 days. Last for 3 years too.

    But why insist on anyone getting one? And buying a new one for every general election?

    What if you forget to take your (otherwise utterly useless) citizen card to work that day, and so can’t vote after your late shift?

    Remember, for other people £15 matters. Other people don’t travel abroad. Other people dream of owning a car. Other people don’t do a nice easy nine to five shift.

    Far too many people here with the “it won’t disenfranchise people like me, so it’s fine” attitude… ignoring that that is the point of this move… to disenfranchise people who don’t live a life anything like yours.

    Premier Icon kerley
    Free Member

    £15 for a citizen card delivered within 21 days. Last for 3 years too.

    Good to know. I will go without food this week and buy a citizen card…

    Premier Icon mjsmke
    Full Member

    It is a lot of money to some, but photo ID can be useful for so many things. If someone is in an accident for example.

    Having to pay is not ideal. It would be great if it was cheaper or free for some but where do you draw the line?

    Premier Icon piemonster
    Full Member

    I’d draw the line at needing voter ID as it’s a pointless concept in the UK unless the objective is to discourage voters from certain sections of society

    Premier Icon doubleeagle
    Free Member

    I’ve only half read this thread because it’s moving to fast, but cross referencing a couple of points from Kelvin, would the same demographic that can’t afford to pay £15 for a card at every election be the same demographic that don’t typically register to vote? The poor/young etc. When I was skint in my younger years £15 wouldn’t be in my disposable income, and I like to vote. There shouldn’t be an economic barrier to a democratic right.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    would the same demographic that can’t afford to pay £15 for a card at every election be the same demographic that don’t typically register to vote?

    There may well be a lot of overlap…. but why make it a bigger hoop to jump though to be able to use your vote? There seem to be no case for VoterID beyond… “it doesn’t effect people like me, and I believe against all the evidence available that in person voterID is a problem that needs addressing”. VoterID effects a lot of people very unlike them, and introducing it to solve a non-existent problem is voter suppression… pure and simple.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    £15 for a citizen card delivered within 21 days. Last for 3 years too.

    Good to know. I will go without food this week and buy a citizen card…

    Beat me to it.

    If the government requires us to have ID, they can pay for it out of general taxation rather than penalise those who can afford it the least.

    VoterID effects a lot of people very unlike them, and introducing it to solve a non-existent problem is voter suppression… pure and simple.

    Nice summary of the debate.

    Premier Icon igm
    Full Member

    £15 for a citizen card delivered within 21 days. Last for 3 years too.

    Poll Tax II : Now they’re after democracy

    No, it’s not a lot of money to me, but it is a voting tax and therefore wrong.

    it may be a lot of money to others, and it’s still wrong.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    but it is a voting tax and therefore wrong.

    Can’t believe some people think that should be acceptable.

    Premier Icon sobriety
    Free Member

    There shouldn’t be an economic barrier to a democratic right.

    This puts it perfectly.

    Premier Icon sadmadalan
    Full Member

    Given the UK Government attempts on IT Projects, this is already doomed. Add GDPR plus the logistics issue in, and it is dead. It is another ‘good’ idea that simply won’t survive.

    Premier Icon gofasterstripes
    Free Member

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/05/heritage-foundation-dark-money-voter-suppression-laws/

    History is written by the winners.

    Or the referee… It seems

    Premier Icon Fudd
    Free Member

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    Nothing wrong with a members club requiring proof of membership (not a club I’d join, but hey). Utterly irrelevant to VoterID discussion.

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    Though it’s a good illustration of a card being used to keep unwanted people out.

    Paying for Tory/ Labour membership is enough to stop people voting in the respective leadership elections and paying for an ID card would be enough to stop people voting in national elections.

    Premier Icon hugo
    Free Member

    To be fair, I’d still be ranting if it somehow affected older, richer, white Tory voters as well.

    Voter suppression is voter suppression

    Totally agree, being against voter suppression isn’t a partisan issue for me. The more people that vote, the better, whomever they vote for.

    Stop answering the repeated bad faith question, just call them an idiot

    This approach led to Brexit. You were either pro EU or labeled a racist idiot. Rather than educating people and changing minds we just cemented people’s views by making them defensive.

    I’ll stick to answering questions with well reasoned and argued thoughts if that’s OK.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    This approach led to Brexit. You were either pro EU or labeled a racist idiot. Rather than educating people and changing minds we just cemented people’s views by making them defensive.

    While we’re busy agreeing with each other, this as well

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    If you read the first few hundred pages of the original Brexit thread you’ll find some of us refrained from calling people idiots, engaged with the likes of Jamba and spent a lot of time and effort systematically countering the falacies with links to reliable sources. Did that change minds? Not a jot.

    In real life the more reliable evidence I presented the more people became dismissive of anything reasoned and just barricaded themselves behind unchallengables such as racism worn as a badge of honour (edit: and giving a feeling of superiority) and contempt for foreigners.

    Premier Icon p7eaven
    Free Member

    There shouldn’t be an economic barrier to a democratic right.

    There won’t be, if the nice trustworthy Johnson & Company see fit to provide everyone of voting age with a suitable ID card at no added cost to the recipient.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Full Member

    I’ve just thought.

    If the government think that fraudulent is such a big issue as to require photo ID,

    Why are they still in power when if their own argument is true they were put there by deception?

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Full Member

    I agree with needing ID. There is no downside and it prompts people to get a valid photo ID that they might need for other things. There’s plenty of time to get some form of photo ID.

    £15 for a citizen card delivered within 21 days. Last for 3 years too.

    It is a lot of money to some, but photo ID can be useful for so many things. If someone is in an accident for example.

    You’ve answered your own ‘no downside’ claim here, plenty of people don’t have £15. In an era where we’ve been listening to people screaming about democracy and sovereignty for the last five years, you’re supporting a “pay to vote” scheme. Are you sure about that?

    Let’s unpick the rest.

    What “other things”?

    How would you define as “plenty of time” to issue 55 million photo ID cards using a system that literally does not exist yet? We’ve been issuing passports for six hundred years now and it still takes three weeks to process as a rolling concern rather than suddenly having to do the entire country.

    What good is it going to be in an accident? Are you expecting the ambulance staff to verify that you’re not an illegal immigrant before starting a blood transfusion? I can write “my name is… in case of accident please contact…” on a Post-It in my wallet, it’ll serve the same purpose and won’t cost me fifteen quid.

Viewing 37 posts - 121 through 157 (of 157 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.