Voter ID at polling stations: Railcards are no good, so what's the alternative for students?

[uglymonkey]

The other connected problem is that elections are lost and won by a few key "marginals" swoping sides. Unless there is a massive swing one way or the other for most voters it's almost pointless voting in a "safe" seat as whatever way you vote won't change the result! I'm glad we haven't gone down the chad machine system.
Once we were denied to vote at the booth as we had been removed from the register without our knowledge. They thought our house had been demolished ( instead of the one next door) . Wrote to MP, it even made item on Newsnight! But all rather pointless as couldn't vote at that election.

 

[brad465]

This tweet from The Electoral Reform Society has been doing the rounds recently showing apparent double standards in types of Oyster card which count/don't count as ID. Can anyone confirm this definitely to be the case:

https://twitter.com/electoralreform/status/1593226949819650049

Long-awaited details of the government’s voter ID scheme have now been released, including details of which IDs will be accepted at the polling station. The list contains plenty of options for older voters, but few for younger voters. https://electoral-reform.org.uk/voter-id-list-gives-few-options-for-younger-voters/

 

[JamesT]

This tweet from The Electoral Reform Society has been doing the rounds recently showing apparent double standards in types of Oyster card which count/don't count as ID. Can anyone confirm this definitely to be the case:

https://twitter.com/electoralreform/status/1593226949819650049

The list of ID in the article does appear to be accurate and match the official list of acceptable ID.
As noted by previous comments in this and other threads, the requirements for getting these passes differs considerably, hence one is considered acceptable as proof of ID and the other isn't.

18+ Student Oyster photocard

Find out if you're eligible for an 18+ Student Oyster photocard for discounted travel in London

tfl.gov.uk

You need an ID from an academic institution.

60+ London Oyster photocard

If you're aged 60 or over and live in a London borough, you might be eligible for a 60+ London Oyster photocard

tfl.gov.uk

You need either a current passport or driving licence, or to be able to present a selection of documents to prove age and address at a post office.

It's not double standards, it's setting a single standard for what makes an ID document acceptable.

 

[jfollows]

To continue on the more general theme of "voter ID", The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...card-delay-could-disfranchise-many-in-england) reports that:

1. Voter ID will be required for local elections in May 2023 (and any general election from October 2023 onwards)
2. As already discussed, people lacking the right sort of ID will be able to apply to their local council for a "voter authority certificate" which will then allow them to vote
3. An advertising campaign has been planned by the Electoral Commission from 9 January, although their stated position is that the timetable for introduction of voter ID has been too compressed so that the elections in May can't be conducted properly
4. There is a Web site through which people have to apply for the voter authority certificate, but it will not be ready in time to be used until at least a week after the advertising campaign starts on 9 January
5. There are concerns that even if people heed the advertising campaign, if they then go to sign up for the certificate and find that they can't, they'll be quite likely to forget about it. Obviously some of them will remember and use the Web site when it eventually starts working

I can't say I'm surprised, it does seem the sort of shambles I expected, and of course I already believe this is just about vote suppression of people less likely to vote Conservative, as we have discussed at length.

Electoral reform

Fears voter ID card delay could disfranchise many in England​

Website for those without ID to apply will not be ready in time for electoral changes publicity campaign

Peter Walker Political correspondent
@peterwalker99
Wed 21 Dec 2022 11.38 GMT

A government website allowing people to sign up for free voter ID documents will not be ready in time for a publicity campaign about the electoral changes, the Guardian has learned, increasing fears that large numbers of people could be disfranchised.
Ministers are intent on going ahead with introducing mandatory photo ID at local elections across England in May, despite a timetable so compressed that the Electoral Commission has warned the elections cannot be conducted properly.

The elections watchdog has pre-planned a large-scale advertising campaign from 9 January that will warn people they need to bring photo ID to vote and tell the estimated 2 million or more voters without the necessary documentation how to get it.
As part of the new system, people lacking the acceptable forms of ID on the list can apply to their local council for a voter authority certificate, a free document that will allow them to vote.
However, the Guardian has learned that election officials have been told the central government website through which people will have to apply will not be ready until at least a week after the campaign begins, because of the progress of the necessary legislation and the time needed for logistics.
There are concerns that people with no ID, who disproportionately come from more marginalised and harder-to-reach communities, including older people or those who are homeless or transgender, could attempt to apply when the TV, radio, social media and poster adverting campaign begins, but give up when it is not possible.
The Electoral Commission wrote to ministers to say the timetable for voter ID meant the May elections could not be conducted in a “fully secure, accessible and workable” way, according to a letter uncovered in a freedom of information request by the OpenDemocracy website last month.
Now that the decision to go ahead has been made, the commission will switch to trying to make the system work as well as possible.
The ID system will be in place for local elections in England, and police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, and across the UK for any general election from October onwards.
Another possible complication would occur if a byelection took place before October, as that would require voters to show ID – giving officials a matter of weeks to inform people and process free documents.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats are calling for a delay and say the scheme is likely to disfranchise large numbers of people at a time voter impersonation – the offence it is intended to counter – is barely a problem.
Alex Norris, Labour’s shadow levelling up minister, said: “The government’s rush to implement voter ID requirements against the advice of all those who have to run the scheme and the Electoral Commission themselves is dangerous and will close down our democracy to many.”

Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrat levelling up spokesperson,, said: “Every second that the government delays these applications, another person will lose their chance to vote in May. Every council will have thousands of these applications to process before May, with no guarantee they can process them in time – taking critical council resources during a cost of living crisis.

“The Conservative government have taken away people’s unobstructed right to vote. These delays are nothing short of voter suppression.”

A government spokesperson said: “We cannot be complacent when it comes to ensuring our democracy remains secure. Everyone eligible to vote will have the opportunity to do so and 98% of electors already have an accepted form of identification.”

Asked why ministers had opted to ignore the Electoral Commission’s warnings, they said the timetable had been backed by parliament and that the government was “working closely with the sector to support the rollout”.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

To continue on the more general theme of "voter ID", The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...card-delay-could-disfranchise-many-in-england) reports that:

1. Voter ID will be required for local elections in May 2023 (and any general election from October 2023 onwards)
2. As already discussed, people lacking the right sort of ID will be able to apply to their local council for a "voter authority certificate" which will then allow them to vote
3. An advertising campaign has been planned by the Electoral Commission from 9 January, although their stated position is that the timetable for introduction of voter ID has been too compressed so that the elections in May can't be conducted properly
4. There is a Web site through which people have to apply for the voter authority certificate, but it will not be ready in time to be used until at least a week after the advertising campaign starts on 9 January
5. There are concerns that even if people heed the advertising campaign, if they then go to sign up for the certificate and find that they can't, they'll be quite likely to forget about it. Obviously some of them will remember and use the Web site when it eventually starts working

I can't say I'm surprised, it does seem the sort of shambles I expected, and of course I already believe this is just about vote suppression of people less likely to vote Conservative, as we have discussed at length.

I note there is no indication of how this website will work ie what will be required. I once tried to create a government on-line verified account (the Pensions service IIRC) and navigated most of the process until right at the end when I was required to submit my (non-existent) passport or driving licence number (probably digital/photo versions too).

Given that this process is specifically to deal with those people who do not currently have ID, it would be self-defeating but entirely predictable to be required to have ID in order to obtain ID, such is the all encompassing shambles which is UK2022.

I await the new system with interest.

 

[jfollows]

I note there is no indication of how this website will work ie what will be required. I once tried to create a government on-line verified account (the Pensions service IIRC) and navigated most of the process until right at the end when I was required to submit my (non-existent) passport or driving licence number (probably digital/photo versions too).

Given that this process is specifically to deal with those people who do not currently have ID, it would be self-defeating but entirely predictable to be required to have ID in order to obtain ID, such is the all encompassing shambles which is UK2022.

I await the new system with interest.

Good point.
The information which needs to be provided, which can be provided online or by paper application form available (at some point) for download and completion, or paper application form of the applicant's own devising as long as it contains all the information, needs to include the following information (https://www.electoralcommission.org...ormation-must-a-voter-authority-certification). The applicant needs to be registered to vote or has to have made an application to be registered to vote. Local authorities are encouraged also to allow in-person applications, if not for everybody at least for people who have difficulty with paper or online forms.

What information must a Voter Authority Certification application contain?​

An application for a Voter Authority Certificate must contain the following information:

• the applicant’s full name
• the address at which the applicant is registered to vote, or has applied to be registered, or in the case of special category electors, their present/correspondence/BFPO number address (in each case the relevant delivery address)
• the applicant’s date of birth or, if they are not able to provide this, the reason why they are not able to do so and a statement as to whether the applicant is under the age of 18
• the applicant’s National Insurance number (NINo) or, if they are not able to provide that information, the reason why they are not able to do so
• a statement as to whether the applicant considers it necessary to collect the Voter Authority Certificate in person instead of it being delivered to the relevant delivery address and, if so, the reason why the applicant considers that collection is necessary
• an indication as to whether, if the Voter Authority Certificate application is granted, the applicant requires a Braille, easy read or large print explanation of the document issued
• a declaration that the contents of the application are true (in practice, on paper, this involves a signature or at least a mark on the form that shows that they have made the declaration)
• the date of the application

An application must also contain a suitable photograph of the applicant or give a reason why they are not able to do so.

You must consider the application incomplete if any of the above is not provided. You should follow up on the missing information with the applicant.

An application may also contain an applicant’s email address and telephone number, but this is not a requirement.

If an applicant is unable to provide a NINo they may provide with their application a copy of the documents listed in acceptable documents for the exceptions process.

If provided, these documents can be used to verify an applicant’s identity. This may be particularly useful close to the deadline for an election or petition to ensure that an application can be processed without delay.

It seems to me that this will put a lot of work onto local authorities with a significant time pressure.

 

[ainsworth74]

It seems to me that this will put a lot of work onto local authorities with a significant time pressure.

Which is presumably why they've been saying this is unworkable...

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Good point.
The information which needs to be provided, which can be provided online or by paper application form available (at some point) for download and completion, or paper application form of the applicant's own devising as long as it contains all the information, needs to include the following information (https://www.electoralcommission.org...ormation-must-a-voter-authority-certification). The applicant needs to be registered to vote or has to have made an application to be registered to vote. Local authorities are encouraged also to allow in-person applications, if not for everybody at least for people who have difficulty with paper or online forms.

It seems to me that this will put a lot of work onto local authorities with a significant time pressure.

So basically the proof of ID at 'point of issue' is two facts (Date of Birth and NI number) both of which can be reasonably easily obtained for a third party if so desired and the fact that it is posted to the registered address. A bit like the existing poll card but with a photo attached! The photo appears not to be checked against anything such as a database of photographs (not wishing to head off into conspiracy theories re facial recognition and massive databases here!) so could in reality be anyone and a 'mark'. Power of Attorney papers only require a 'mark' which can literally be an 'X' or any old squigle but most people would use their regular signature.

Are there any examples of people printing duplicate poll cards which woud presumably be easy to do nowadays with a printer, a copy of the electoral roll and an example of the real thing to get the card type (thickness etc) right?

What a waste of money.

 

[BluePenguin]

What is wrong with using their student card?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The process to apply for a Voter Authority Certificate appears to be live here on the gov.uk website. I was directed to this link from my local council website. All you require (it says) is a digital photo and your National Insurance number.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is wrong with using their student card?

I guess the issue with having too many options is that it becomes too hard for volunteer polling station staff to recognise a genuine one. There's no standard for student cards.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2023 ==

So basically the proof of ID at 'point of issue' is two facts (Date of Birth and NI number) both of which can be reasonably easily obtained for a third party if so desired and the fact that it is posted to the registered address. A bit like the existing poll card but with a photo attached! The photo appears not to be checked against anything such as a database of photographs (not wishing to head off into conspiracy theories re facial recognition and massive databases here!) so could in reality be anyone and a 'mark'. Power of Attorney papers only require a 'mark' which can literally be an 'X' or any old squigle but most people would use their regular signature.

This is quite similar to the amusing situation I had doing a DBS check a while back. The person didn't have enough ID and had lost his birth certificate, so looked at obtaining a certified copy (which is of lower value to the DBS than an original in full form, but is still useful). I assumed he'd have to apply for it and show all manner of other stuff, but it turned out I knew enough details to apply and have it sent straight to me! (I did give it to him afterwards to be fair).

 

[jfollows]

Latest figure suggest that only 4% of the 2 million people who don't have ID they can use for the May council elections will have applied for the free photo ID in time to vote, if current trends continue. To date there have been 16,000 applications for the "voter authority certificate", so either people aren't aware of the need or can't be bothered, or both.
I suspect mainly the latter - it's "only" local elections after all, isn't it?
I am not surprised in the least.
From https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-deputy-chair-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-latest:

7m ago14.38 GMT

Latest figures suggest only 4% of 2m people without useable ID under new election rule will get one before May poll​

Peter Walker
Efforts to provide free photo ID to would-be voters who lack it before new election rules are used nationally for the first time in May are still faltering, according to information passed to the Guardian.

At the start of this month, just 10,000 people had applied for a so-called voter authority certificate, issued by councils to those who do not have one of the small list of photo ID documents now needed for people to vote in person.

As of today, a source has said, the total number of applications via a central government website, which are then passed on to councils, is slightly below 16,000, indicating a continued lack of public awareness about the new rules.

Voter ID will be used nationally for the first time in the UK outside Northern Ireland at local elections on 4 May, just 12 weeks away. If the current rate of about 5,000 applications a week fails to pick up, that would mean around 75,000 certificates being issued overall, less than 4% of the official estimate of 2 million voters who do not have useable ID.

The Electoral Commission has already run an advertising campaign about the new system, which has seemingly reached few people, and will be concerned at the idea of very large numbers of people being potentially disenfranchised.

EDIT: Fuller article at https://www.theguardian.com/politic...k-have-applied-for-government-issued-voter-id:

Only 10,000 people in Great Britain have applied for government-issued voter ID​

Exclusive: number is just 0.5% of those who could need the document under new scheme


Peter Walker Political correspondent
@peterwalker99
Tue 31 Jan 2023 18.56 GMT

Only about 10,000 people in Great Britain have applied for a government-issued voter ID since the scheme opened, just 0.5% of the total who might need the document, the Guardian has learned.
The slow take-up, which could leave hundreds of thousands of people disfranchised at local elections in England on 4 May, will add to worries that the scheme is being rushed through and could cause chaos.

Subsequently, under the new scheme photo ID will need to be shown in England, Scotland and Wales for all parliamentary elections, and for police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales. Northern Ireland has a longstanding voter ID system, introduced owing to historic electoral abuse by sectarian groups.
As of last Friday, just over 10,000 people had used a central government portal to apply for one of the certificates, which are then issued for free by local councils, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities told election officials in a briefing on Tuesday.
This covered the first fortnight of the scheme to issue the so-called voter authority certificates, a period that included a major advertising campaign by the Electoral Commission to inform people about the new voting rules.
According to earlier government research, close to 2 million voters do not possess photo ID that has a recognisable picture of them, as is required under the new law. At the current rate it would take eight years to issue the documents to all those who could need them.
While the Electoral Commission has pledged to push ahead with public information efforts, the very low initial number suggests large numbers of people are ignorant about the new voting system and could be turned away from polling stations in the English local elections.
The Electoral Commission has previously written to the government saying the timetable meant the local elections could not be conducted in a “fully secure, accessible and workable” manner.
A 2021 study by the Electoral Commission found that the proportion of potential voters without usable ID was especially high among more disadvantaged groups, such as 11% for those who were unemployed, and 8% among people with a disability.
Alex Norris, the shadow minister for elections, said the rollout of the scheme was a “complete and utter shambles and reeks of government incompetence”. He added: “Not only is the Tory voter ID plan completely unworkable, it is unnecessary and set to lock millions of people out of voting.

“The Conservatives have got their priorities all wrong. During a cost of living crisis when people are struggling to make ends meet, it is an outrage that they would rather spend money on disenfranchising them.”

An Electoral Commission spokesperson said the initial statistics showed it was “encouraging that people are already aware of the voter authority certificate and are applying early”.

They added: “The commission is working closely with civil society organisations and local authorities to build awareness and support those more likely to need the free ID. The deadline for applying for free ID ahead of the May elections in England is 25 April, so there is still plenty of time, but we’re encouraging voters to check now if they need it so they can apply in good time.”

A government spokesperson said that the “vast majority of eligible voters” already had accepted ID, and that those without had until 25 April to apply. They added: “We are pleased that so many people have applied within the first two weeks and will continue to work with the Electoral Commission to ensure all voters are aware of the new requirement.”

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Latest figure suggest that only 4% of the 2 million people who don't have ID they can use for the May council elections will have applied for the free photo ID in time to vote, if current trends continue. To date there have been 16,000 applications for the "voter authority certificate", so either people aren't aware of the need or can't be bothered, or both.
I suspect mainly the latter - it's "only" local elections after all, isn't it?
I am not surprised in the least.
From https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-deputy-chair-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-latest:

Tee hee. Another well thought out and properly executed plan.

I cannot comment on the effectiveness of the advertising campaign as I don't see much in the way of advertising, not even many passing buses nowadays! Plus, as I am aware of the issue already, I may just blank them without noticing.

Many will be those that don't intend to vote anyway but I wouldn't like to put a number on it. Many people who do have the necessary ID won't intend to vote either.

The real test will be in a hotly contested area where people are more likely to try (and fail) to cast their vote, or in a General Election where turnout tends to be higher.

 

[MikeWM]

Tee hee. Another well thought out and properly executed plan.

Some of us think it is rather well thought out. As I said earlier in the thread, after the inevitable complaints of mass disenfranchisement, they'll conveniently have support for a solution in the form of digital ID, currently under consultation with the intent of making it law later this year.

 

[AlterEgo]

Some of us think it is rather well thought out. As I said earlier in the thread, after the inevitable complaints of mass disenfranchisement, they'll conveniently have support for a solution in the form of digital ID, currently under consultation with the intent of making it law later this year.

The people who will be disenfranchised are the sort of people who don't have a smartphone or access to digital services, so how this can be used as justification to bring in Digital ID is beyond me.

Not everything is some giant 4D chess game.

 

[MikeWM]

The people who will be disenfranchised are the sort of people who don't have a smartphone or access to digital services, so how this can be used as justification to bring in Digital ID is beyond me.

Since when do inconvenient things like facts stop people in power trying to justify doing things 'for our own good' that they just want to do anyway? There's been precious little of that going on for years now.

In any event, I'm not sure this is entirely true. Many people don't have photo ID who do have internet and smartphone access - my mother for example. Yes, she can use her local authority bus pass *now* because she's old enough to get one, but that wouldn't have been the case a few years back.

 

[Pete_uk]

I see 'issues' at some polling stations come election day.

 

[Parjon]

Having ID to vote is such a basic ingredient to prevent fraudulent elections it's hard to believe people can object. It's long overdue, as is addressing the security of postal votes and the security of ballot boxes themselves.

Crossing a student's CBA threshold does not equal disenfranchising them.

 

[geoffk]

Having ID to vote is such a basic ingredient to prevent fraudulent elections it's hard to believe people can object. It's long overdue, as is addressing the security of postal votes and the security of ballot boxes themselves.

Crossing a student's CBA threshold does not equal disenfranchising them.

There are extremely low levels of electoral fraud in the UK. In 2019, there were only 33 allegations of personation at the polling station, out of over 58 million votes cast (this must include general and local elections). This scheme is in the sledgehammer/nut category, will cost millions to implement and will be a barrier to participation in the democratic process, with fewer options for young voters than older people. As has been said above, this is all about voter suppression. What will it take to get the great British public off their backsides and out into the streets? The French have been out recently demonstrating against a rise in the pension age from 62 to 64!

 

[AlterEgo]

There are extremely low levels of electoral fraud in the UK.

Because we put zero measures in place to detect personation!

In 2019, there were only 33 allegations of personation at the polling station, out of over 58 million votes cast (this must include general and local elections).

I had several ballot papers for my property, including two for inhabitants that had gone back to their home country. I could very well have used those people’s votes and nobody would have been any the wiser. Personation is no doubt more common than anyone thinks because we take no steps at all to detect the offence. Like having ID.

It’s so incredibly basic a requirement to a secure democracy.

This scheme is in the sledgehammer/nut category, will cost millions to implement and will be a barrier to participation in the democratic process, with fewer options for young voters than older people. As has been said above, this is all about voter suppression. What will it take to get the great British public off their backsides and out into the streets? The French have been out recently demonstrating against a rise in the pension age from 62 to 64!

The French have voter ID. British objections to it are tiresome and rooted in reverse exceptionalism.

 

[Cdd89]

I had several ballot papers for my property, including two for inhabitants that had gone back to their home country. I could very well have used those people’s votes and nobody would have been any the wiser. Personation is no doubt more common than anyone thinks because we take no steps at all to detect the offence. Like having ID.

ID is not proposed for postal voting. I agree that is the most likely avenue of electoral fraud, but it is not one addressed by this proposal.

Because we put zero measures in place to detect personation!

In-person personation can be identified by the expedient of the actual voter turning up, with the crime either detected during commission or after the fact. I know a few events like this would be written off as clerical mistakes, or some people would be 100% confident the person would not turn up; but nevertheless I would expect some higher numbers of incidents like this if this were occurring on a wide scale (i.e. wide enough to influence the outcome, which includes needing to be disproportionately concentrated on any one side politically).

NB: I don’t actually object to Voter ID, I think an argument can be made for it “on principle” regardless of the scale of the purported problem. The arguments need to be balanced against disenfranchisement and friction to participation.

 

[PsychoMouse]

Having ID to vote is such a basic ingredient to prevent fraudulent elections it's hard to believe people can object. It's long overdue, as is addressing the security of postal votes and the security of ballot boxes themselves.

Crossing a student's CBA threshold does not equal disenfranchising them.

It's also an easy way of stopping poor or foreign people voting (who strangely enough are left leaning).

Completely unnecessary in a country where voter fraud is vanishingly small and the results of an election being compromised is next to impossible.

 

[DelayRepay]

I've always been a bit surprised that I can vote just by giving my name and address, and being ticked off a list. The system feels very insecure for something so important but I accept that it would be very difficult for fraudsters to influence the result unless it was a very marginal area. I'm not sure if my area follows the rules but they take my address then ask 'is it DelayRepay?' so I don't even need to give my name! Perhaps it would be different if there was more than one male voter registered at my address.

I don't strongly object to this proposal but I think it needs more publicity. Perhaps the first election under these rules should be run as a trial - people are asked to show ID but allowed to vote even if they don't have any, and given a leaflet explaining what they need to do. Statistics could be recorded showing how many people had ID and how many didn't, before deciding whether to introduce it fully for the next election.

 

[AlterEgo]

ID is not proposed for postal voting. I agree that is the most likely avenue of electoral fraud, but it is not one addressed by this proposal.


In-person personation can be identified by the expedient of the actual voter turning up, with the crime either detected during commission or after the fact.

But there are literally hundreds of thousands of voters - perhaps millions - which are “gone away” every year, and who don’t and can’t use their votes on the electoral roll.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2023 ==

It's also an easy way of stopping poor or foreign people voting (who strangely enough are left leaning).

Are they?

You’d be surprised how right wing many foreigners are.

 

[JamesT]

I don't strongly object to this proposal but I think it needs more publicity. Perhaps the first election under these rules should be run as a trial - people are asked to show ID but allowed to vote even if they don't have any, and given a leaflet explaining what they need to do. Statistics could be recorded showing how many people had ID and how many didn't, before deciding whether to introduce it fully for the next election.

I’m not sure what running a nationwide trial would gain over the limited trials in 2018 and 2019 that were used to decide to go ahead with the scheme.

 

[Parjon]

There are extremely low levels of electoral fraud in the UK. In 2019, there were only 33 allegations of personation at the polling station, out of over 58 million votes cast (this must include general and local elections).

This is what the electoral commission will tell you. But they don't actively look for, seek out or indeed seek to prevent voter fraud. In fact, I'm really not sure what their purpose is!

If you suspect electoral fraud you have to convince the police to take you seriously first and that's just to make an allegation.

Do we know how many votes were cast by people who just had no idea? We don't. Does the electoral commission think that's a question worth knowing the answer to?... Ask them and you'll just get an answer back like the above.

That Tower Hamlets could have been so brazenly perpetrated shows the system isn't as rock solid as you're being led to believe.

 

[geoffk]

I’m not sure what running a nationwide trial would gain over the limited trials in 2018 and 2019 that were used to decide to go ahead with the scheme.

The main issue seems to be that young people have fewer options than the older generation. For example, a 60+ Oyster card is acceptable, an 18+ card is not. An amendment to the legislation backed by the Electoral Reform Society to extend the range of acceptable ID was repealed at the final stage of the bill. Why?

 

[ainsworth74]

The French have voter ID.

Though of course it is a requirement in France to have a valid government ID so everyone has an identity document of some description already. They don't specifically only require ID for elections. A major part of the problem with this is that our Government want to behave as if we're a country which has mandatory ID requirements (which might not be a bad idea in the round) but without actually implementing a proper scheme.

I had several ballot papers for my property, including two for inhabitants that had gone back to their home country. I could very well have used those people’s votes and nobody would have been any the wiser. Personation is no doubt more common than anyone thinks because we take no steps at all to detect the offence. Like having ID.

That sounds like an issue with postal voting rather in-person voting? Yet there appears to be very little being done to tighten up on postal votes (happy to be corrected!) which I would absolutely agree is clearly open to abuse and should be reviewed much more tightly.

 

[AlterEgo]

Though of course it is a requirement in France to have a valid government ID so everyone has an identity document of some description already. They don't specifically only require ID for elections. A major part of the problem with this is that our Government want to behave as if we're a country which has mandatory ID requirements (which might not be a bad idea in the round) but without actually implementing a proper scheme.

That is true but the way I look at it is:

1) Yes we should have a free, mandatory-to-own-but-not-carry ID card, and
2) We should have people prove their identity and right to vote if they turn up to vote in our elections, which are important.

That the British public is not in a political space to implement 1) doesn't mean 2) shouldn't be implemented, because it is important.

That sounds like an issue with postal voting rather in-person voting? Yet there appears to be very little being done to tighten up on postal votes (happy to be corrected!) which I would absolutely agree is clearly open to abuse and should be reviewed much more tightly.

No, this is also a problem with in-person voting.

What, actually, stops me from voting as Mr A N Italiano (now living back in Italy) at my polling station in the morning, and then going back in the evening to vote again?

What stops anyone from putting false electors onto the roll in the first place? Sorry, I just think it's mad I, along with everyone else, am expected to simply be honest and remove those gone-away electors from the roll.

It's also quite mad my vote is counted by someone with a ruler and pen at the polling station crossing my name off.

I find the arguments "well nobody tries this sort of crime very often" completely unpersuasive. There are hundreds of thousands of gone away or deceased electors on the roll which wouldn't require very much ingenuity at all to "steal" their vote, simply by saying their name and address (which, if it is on the open register, is public info!). The system is designed to undertake no verification at all of someone's actual entitlement to vote at the polling booth.

 

[ainsworth74]

That is true but the way I look at it is:

1) Yes we should have a free, mandatory-to-own-but-not-carry ID card, and
2) We should have people prove their identity and right to vote if they turn up to vote in our elections, which are important.

That the British public is not in a political space to implement 1) doesn't mean 2) shouldn't be implemented, because it is important.

I would actually agree with you on points 1) and 2) but just take the opposite way round that we shouldn't do 2) until we've done 1)!

No, this is also a problem with in-person voting.

What, actually, stops me from voting as Mr A N Italiano (now living back in Italy) at my polling station in the morning, and then going back in the evening to vote again?

What stops anyone from putting false electors onto the roll in the first place? Sorry, I just think it's mad I, along with everyone else, am expected to simply be honest and remove those gone-away electors from the roll.

It's also quite mad my vote is counted by someone with a ruler and pen at the polling station crossing my name off.

I find the arguments "well nobody tries this sort of crime very often" completely unpersuasive. There are hundreds of thousands of gone away or deceased electors on the roll which wouldn't require very much ingenuity at all to "steal" their vote, simply by saying their name and address (which, if it is on the open register, is public info!). The system is designed to undertake no verification at all of someone's actual entitlement to vote at the polling booth.

See to me that sounds like what we should be addressing first is issues with the electoral register and how that is maintained rather than waiting until we get to the polling station where it will be too late to correct any errors which mean that someone cannot vote who should be able to do. I do actually agree that it seems quaint to the point of insecurity that it is just some council worker with pencil and ruler crossing people off a list but I am more concerned about preventing people who should be able to vote from doing so than the reverse because it doesn't seem to me like we're the victim of a wave of electoral fraud.

Which isn't to say that I don't think we shouldn't do anything about it. But I'd rather start with fixing the electoral register, making registration a bit more secure, making postal and proxy voting more secure whilst building up to requiring voter ID in person at polling stations. My problem with what is being done is that it feels rushed, half-baked and I'm suspicious that it appears to be potentially making it harder to vote for people who are less likely to vote Tory.