No ID, No vote, No record...

[blup]

What's sad is labour will probably not reverse the legislation, Starmer will calculate that it will harm his chances of getting elected.

Blup

 

[Mottie]

What makes me laugh about all those who feel professionally affronted at having to produce ID to vote (which is a pretty serious thing to do), is that they produce ID at the drop of a hat when they want to dump some rubbish off at their local recycling centre or pick up a missed parcel from the post office!

 

[carmanmemoranda]

What makes me laugh about all those who feel professionally affronted at having to produce ID to vote (which is a pretty serious thing to do), is that they produce ID at the drop of a hat when they want to dump some rubbish off at their local recycling centre or pick up a missed parcel from the post office!

Under the current rules you need to ensure the electoral register is kept up to date with your details, and produce the voting card sent to you when you go to vote.

So there are checks in place all ready.

Voter fraud is not an actual problem that needed addressing

So why is it being made such an issue? Not too difficult to understand the ideas behind it. It's not to actually combat voter fraud, this Government didn't discover enough to actually consider it a problem

 

[Brigadier]

Voter fraud is not an actual problem that needed addressing

But if and when it does become a problem, it'll be a case of "closing the door after the horse has bolted".

 

[carmanmemoranda]

But if and when it does become a problem, it'll be a case of "closing the door after the horse has bolted".

So a lot of people will move to postal (and then probably online voting) which is surely more likely to be exposed to fraud than turning up in person.

 

[Brigadier]

So a lot of people will move to postal (and then probably online voting) which is surely more likely to be exposed to fraud than turning up in person.

If someone can't or won't get voter ID, they're probably unlikely to vote online either.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

If someone can't or won't get voter ID, they're probably unlikely to vote online either.

And who do you think they would be most likely to have voted for ?

The very point.

And it doesn't change the likelihood of potential fraud in future

 

[Brigadier]

And it doesn't change the likelihood of potential fraud in future

Of course it does.

Unless you think photo ID is pointless in any setting.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Of course it does.

Unless you think photo ID is pointless in any setting.

So you don't think online fraud is likely ?

Ok

 

[Brigadier]

So you don't think online fraud is likely ?

Ok

Swerve.

This thread is about photo ID for voting.

I made no comment on online voting security.

Do you think photo ID is pointless?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Swerve.

This thread is about photo ID for voting.

I made no comment on online voting security.

Do you think photo ID is pointless?

It's not pointless, for those who know it will give them an advantage

And it's not swerving to talk about the likelihood of fraudulent voting, when this is being brought in "to stop it".

Postal votes ( and most likely online voting) doesn't use photo I'd, so it's not addressing the current potential fraud issue

It's a means to an end

 

[Brigadier]

It's not pointless, for those who know it will give them an advantage

My last post on this (coz I'm trying to watch the footie).

Whenever anyone complains about a change, be it non-fossil-fuel cars, photo ID for voting, or whatever, I think about it like this:

Would you expect to be [driving a diesel car, say] in a hundred years?

Most likely, the answer will be "No".

That being the case, at some point, [driving a diesel car, say] will no longer happen.

Same for the current way of voting: it will be different in the future. And for that to be the case, change has to happen.

 

[Roy Bloom]

My last post on this (coz I'm trying to watch the footie).

Whenever anyone complains about a change, be it non-fossil-fuel cars, photo ID for voting, or whatever, I think about it like this:

Would you expect to be [driving a diesel car, say] in a hundred years?

Most likely, the answer will be "No".

That being the case, at some point, [driving a diesel car, say] will no longer happen.

Same for the current way of voting: it will be different in the future. And for that to be the case, change has to happen.

Change for the better, and can be seen to be better.
Improvements that can also be seen as gerrymandering may not be an improvement if they produce unpredictable results.

 

[noseall]

What makes me laugh about all those who feel professionally affronted at having to produce ID to vote (which is a pretty serious thing to do), is that they produce ID at the drop of a hat when they want to dump some rubbish off at their local recycling centre or pick up a missed parcel from the post office!

Garbage fraud is far more serious. There has been more than one case and is far more costly.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

My last post on this (coz I'm trying to watch the footie).

Whenever anyone complains about a change, be it non-fossil-fuel cars, photo ID for voting, or whatever, I think about it like this:

Would you expect to be [driving a diesel car, say] in a hundred years?

Most likely, the answer will be "No".

That being the case, at some point, [driving a diesel car, say] will no longer happen.

Same for the current way of voting: it will be different in the future. And for that to be the case, change has to happen.

There's change. And there's change.

This isn't being done for what we are being told.