- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
As the Guardian put it: "A solution looking for a problem."The id was to prevent fraud.Not a plot to stop voting.
Comparing voting to international travel is neither appropriate nor helpful.
One does not need ID to catch a bus or a train. One does not need a passport for domestic flights.
At least make some eligible comparisons.
Any form of photographic ID costs money.
The number of potential fraud votes is negligible and would make little or no difference to the result.
The number of potential voters denied a vote because they have no photographic ID is huge and will change the result.
About half a million voters potentially denied a vote in England alone!
Compare that to the hundreds of complaints and only one conviction in the last GE!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43245969Hundreds of complaints about alleged double voting in the 2017 UK general election resulted in only one conviction, according to police data.
The sums just do not add up, especially when you consider the additional expense and work required for voter ID.
It is a right-wing ruse to prevent some people voting, and to ensure that everyone who wants to vote is on an "ID" database.
The laughable point is that ID cards would not prevent 'double voting', which is the main issue of complaints.