Local elections - voter photo ID now required
Discussion
I expect to see the % vote declining even further than it’s present miserable figures, of 36% for local elections. To be frank it puts me off I can’t explain why, but a) I feel like I can’t be arsed anyway and this is another hurdle ie to make sure I have photo ID which I wouldn’t normally have with me. And b) so sick of all the w
kers in power I don’t really want to vote anyway.
So, do you reckon this will adversely affect turnout? Who will it advantage / disadvantage more?
kers in power I don’t really want to vote anyway.So, do you reckon this will adversely affect turnout? Who will it advantage / disadvantage more?
Yes, I think it may have an effect on voter turnout (or at least effective turnout, i.e. the people who turn up without ID and are sent away, and don't bother returning are where I think you'll see the loss in numbers).
As for who it benefits, I'd generally assume it benefits the incumbent for a given area to have fewer votes cast.
Note they have a free Voter Authority Certificate you can get as well, if you do not have/do not wish to apply for another recognised form of ID. Still a couple of days left to get one in time for the elections
https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-author...
As for who it benefits, I'd generally assume it benefits the incumbent for a given area to have fewer votes cast.
Note they have a free Voter Authority Certificate you can get as well, if you do not have/do not wish to apply for another recognised form of ID. Still a couple of days left to get one in time for the elections
https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-author...
CoolHands said:
I expect to see the % vote declining even further than it’s present miserable figures, of 36% for local elections. To be frank it puts me off I can’t explain why, but a) I feel like I can’t be arsed anyway and this is another hurdle ie to make sure I have photo ID which I wouldn’t normally have with me. And b) so sick of all the wkers in power I don’t really want to vote anyway.
So, do you reckon this will adversely affect turnout? Who will it advantage / disadvantage more?
About time.kers in power I don’t really want to vote anyway.So, do you reckon this will adversely affect turnout? Who will it advantage / disadvantage more?
As happens, it will be an advantage to those following the guidelines, and a disadvantage to those not following the guidelines.
With no driving licence and no passport it's £5 per year (£15 for 3 years) and a referee for a photo ID card recognised by police etc i.e. less than 2p per day for a photo ID card. If people CBA to spend 1.4p per day then don't vote.
Easier and cheaper than the price paid by those who lost their lives to preserve the privilege.
turbobloke said:
About time.
As happens, it will be an advantage to those following the guidelines, and a disadvantage to those not following the guidelines.
With no driving licence and no passport it's £5 per year (£15 for 3 years) and a referee for a photo ID card recognised by police etc i.e. less than 2p per day for a photo ID card. If people CBA to spend 1.4p per day then don't vote.
Easier and cheaper than the price paid by those who lost their lives to preserve the privilege.
Or just apply for a postal vote, which is free and will save you having to see the smacked bum face on the polling station presiding officer after the abuse (s)he will have taken for turning away the no ID brigade. Nothing pees off Joe Public more than telling them they can’t vote when they wander in on the way to the pubAs happens, it will be an advantage to those following the guidelines, and a disadvantage to those not following the guidelines.
With no driving licence and no passport it's £5 per year (£15 for 3 years) and a referee for a photo ID card recognised by police etc i.e. less than 2p per day for a photo ID card. If people CBA to spend 1.4p per day then don't vote.
Easier and cheaper than the price paid by those who lost their lives to preserve the privilege.
turbobloke said:
CoolHands said:
I expect to see the % vote declining even further than it’s present miserable figures, of 36% for local elections. To be frank it puts me off I can’t explain why, but a) I feel like I can’t be arsed anyway and this is another hurdle ie to make sure I have photo ID which I wouldn’t normally have with me. And b) so sick of all the wkers in power I don’t really want to vote anyway.
So, do you reckon this will adversely affect turnout? Who will it advantage / disadvantage more?
About time.kers in power I don’t really want to vote anyway.So, do you reckon this will adversely affect turnout? Who will it advantage / disadvantage more?
As happens, it will be an advantage to those following the guidelines, and a disadvantage to those not following the guidelines.
With no driving licence and no passport it's £5 per year (£15 for 3 years) and a referee for a photo ID card recognised by police etc i.e. less than 2p per day for a photo ID card. If people CBA to spend 1.4p per day then don't vote.
Easier and cheaper than the price paid by those who lost their lives to preserve the privilege.
t. It's deliberate and unjustifiable disenfranchisement direct from the US racist right playbook. About ten seconds thought will demonstrate why there's no evidence whatsoever of widespread voter fraud by impersonation - it's massively impractical. Do some maths and work out how you'd do it.
Retaining postal voting while doing this is just a sick joke.
E63eeeeee... said:
turbobloke said:
CoolHands said:
I expect to see the % vote declining even further than it’s present miserable figures, of 36% for local elections. To be frank it puts me off I can’t explain why, but a) I feel like I can’t be arsed anyway and this is another hurdle ie to make sure I have photo ID which I wouldn’t normally have with me. And b) so sick of all the wkers in power I don’t really want to vote anyway.
So, do you reckon this will adversely affect turnout? Who will it advantage / disadvantage more?
About time.kers in power I don’t really want to vote anyway.So, do you reckon this will adversely affect turnout? Who will it advantage / disadvantage more?
As happens, it will be an advantage to those following the guidelines, and a disadvantage to those not following the guidelines.
With no driving licence and no passport it's £5 per year (£15 for 3 years) and a referee for a photo ID card recognised by police etc i.e. less than 2p per day for a photo ID card. If people CBA to spend 1.4p per day then don't vote.
Easier and cheaper than the price paid by those who lost their lives to preserve the privilege.
t. It's deliberate and unjustifiable disenfranchisement direct from the US racist right playbook. About ten seconds thought will demonstrate why there's no evidence whatsoever of widespread voter fraud by impersonation - it's massively impractical. Do some maths and work out how you'd do it.
Retaining postal voting while doing this is just a sick joke.
InitialDave said:
turbobloke said:
If people CBA to spend 1.4p per day then don't vote.
bks. Your right to vote should not be behind a paywall, which is why it is at least good you can get a certificate for free.If some form of acceptable photo ID is free, is there still an objection? There shouldn't be, so now our democratic process will be suitably secure (about time) with no immediate financial cost to the voter.
If some people still CBA to vote due to some cutesie conspiracy notion about having photo ID then it's b
ks to them. If they want to know how it might not turn out so well, it should be easy enough to ask a remoaner, if they're not one.turbobloke said:
InitialDave said:
turbobloke said:
If people CBA to spend 1.4p per day then don't vote.
bks. Your right to vote should not be behind a paywall, which is why it is at least good you can get a certificate for free.If some form of acceptable photo ID is free, is there still an objection? There shouldn't be, so now our democratic process will be suitably secure (about time) with no immediate financial cost to the voter.
If some people still CBA to vote due to some cutesie conspiracy notion about having photo ID then it's b
ks to them. If they want to know how it might not turn out so well, it should be easy enough to ask a remoaner, if they're not one.How would you go about influencing a UK election outcome by impersonation?
It's voter supression, pure and simple.
Widespread voter fraud would be easily detectable when people turn up to vote, and find that their ballot paper has already been taken.
The Tories could not have made it any more obvious what they're doing, than by publishing a long list of accceptable forms of ID for elderly people, and omitting equivilents that young people would have.
Widespread voter fraud would be easily detectable when people turn up to vote, and find that their ballot paper has already been taken.
The Tories could not have made it any more obvious what they're doing, than by publishing a long list of accceptable forms of ID for elderly people, and omitting equivilents that young people would have.
turbobloke said:
CoolHands said:
I expect to see the % vote declining even further than it’s present miserable figures, of 36% for local elections. To be frank it puts me off I can’t explain why, but a) I feel like I can’t be arsed anyway and this is another hurdle ie to make sure I have photo ID which I wouldn’t normally have with me. And b) so sick of all the wkers in power I don’t really want to vote anyway.
So, do you reckon this will adversely affect turnout? Who will it advantage / disadvantage more?
About time.kers in power I don’t really want to vote anyway.So, do you reckon this will adversely affect turnout? Who will it advantage / disadvantage more?
As happens, it will be an advantage to those following the guidelines, and a disadvantage to those not following the guidelines.
With no driving licence and no passport it's £5 per year (£15 for 3 years) and a referee for a photo ID card recognised by police etc i.e. less than 2p per day for a photo ID card. If people CBA to spend 1.4p per day then don't vote.
Easier and cheaper than the price paid by those who lost their lives to preserve the privilege.
I don’t get the clamour for voter ID, feels like big government interference.
E63eeeeee... said:
turbobloke said:
InitialDave said:
turbobloke said:
If people CBA to spend 1.4p per day then don't vote.
bks. Your right to vote should not be behind a paywall, which is why it is at least good you can get a certificate for free.If some form of acceptable photo ID is free, is there still an objection? There shouldn't be, so now our democratic process will be suitably secure (about time) with no immediate financial cost to the voter.
If some people still CBA to vote due to some cutesie conspiracy notion about having photo ID then it's b
ks to them. If they want to know how it might not turn out so well, it should be easy enough to ask a remoaner, if they're not one.How would you go about influencing a UK election outcome by impersonation?
It's also about a reasonable deterrent / prevention.
Postal voting is something else to consider, however, this thread is about voting in person with an acceptable photo type proof of ID, which I think should have been a requirement for some time, others will disagree.
oyster said:
turbobloke said:
CoolHands said:
I expect to see the % vote declining even further than it’s present miserable figures, of 36% for local elections. To be frank it puts me off I can’t explain why, but a) I feel like I can’t be arsed anyway and this is another hurdle ie to make sure I have photo ID which I wouldn’t normally have with me. And b) so sick of all the wkers in power I don’t really want to vote anyway.
So, do you reckon this will adversely affect turnout? Who will it advantage / disadvantage more?
About time.kers in power I don’t really want to vote anyway.So, do you reckon this will adversely affect turnout? Who will it advantage / disadvantage more?
As happens, it will be an advantage to those following the guidelines, and a disadvantage to those not following the guidelines.
With no driving licence and no passport it's £5 per year (£15 for 3 years) and a referee for a photo ID card recognised by police etc i.e. less than 2p per day for a photo ID card. If people CBA to spend 1.4p per day then don't vote.
Easier and cheaper than the price paid by those who lost their lives to preserve the privilege.
I don’t get the clamour for voter ID, feels like big government interference.
turbobloke said:
E63eeeeee... said:
turbobloke said:
InitialDave said:
turbobloke said:
If people CBA to spend 1.4p per day then don't vote.
bks. Your right to vote should not be behind a paywall, which is why it is at least good you can get a certificate for free.If some form of acceptable photo ID is free, is there still an objection? There shouldn't be, so now our democratic process will be suitably secure (about time) with no immediate financial cost to the voter.
If some people still CBA to vote due to some cutesie conspiracy notion about having photo ID then it's b
ks to them. If they want to know how it might not turn out so well, it should be easy enough to ask a remoaner, if they're not one.How would you go about influencing a UK election outcome by impersonation?
It's also about a reasonable deterrent / prevention.
Postal voting is something else to consider, however, this thread is about voting in person with an acceptable photo type proof of ID, which I think should have been a requirement for some time, others will disagree.
It's not (for me) so much about whether the level of electoral fraud that takes place is influencing election outcomes, we won't know because the level is unknown given that undetected events are inevitably unknown and can only be guessed at by those who like to guess such things. It's more about crime prevention in an area of fundamental importance. This form of crime, similar in a way to perverting the course of justice, is typically sentenced harshly when detected / prosecuted / guilty verdict, due to the basis of democracy being a fundamental principle of this country, and subverting democracy matters. An essential part of this principle is that an open and legitimate democratic process is based on the concept of a person entitled to vote doing so freely, for themselves, and once only. The approach being introduced will support this, apparently at no direct financial cost to the voters currently lacking photo ID.
ETA I suspect it needs to be pointed out that freely refers to a lack of coercion in any form
ETA I suspect it needs to be pointed out that freely refers to a lack of coercion in any form
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 23 April 00:10
turbobloke said:
It's not (for me) so much about whether the level of electoral fraud that takes place is influencing election outcomes, we won't know because the level is unknown given that undetected events are inevitably unknown and can only be guessed at by those who like to guess such things. It's more about crime prevention in an area of fundamental importance. This form of crime, similar in a way to perverting the course of justice, is typically sentenced harshly when detected / prosecuted / guilty verdict, due to the basis of democracy being a fundamental principle of this country, and subverting democracy matters. An essential part of this principle is that an open and legitimate democratic process is based on the concept of a person entitled to vote doing so freely, for themselves, and once only. The approach being introduced will support this, apparently at no direct financial cost to the voters currently lacking photo ID.
Explain how it can happen. Absence of evidence can in fact be evidence of absence. The absence of evidence that there's an elephant in my garage, is pretty strong indicator that there isn't.
If there's no realistic way of doing it, and no evidence that it is happening, then you can be pretty confident that it isn't happening. In which case the primary motivation behind this change is totally unrelated to the things you're talking about.
What there is plenty of evidence for is that ID requirements reduce turnout, disproportionately among certain groups. Coincidentally, those groups are traditionally less likely to vote Tory.
Reducing turnout also has the effect of making any election fraud more likely to be effective.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff