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

[swt_passenger]

Just received a letter from Winchester electoral registration reminding me about photo ID and allowing a further opportunity to update the register, basically a repeat of last years annual canvas.

 

[DelayRepay]

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.

My suggestion was more about using it as an opportunity to warn voters who don't have ID when they go to vote, that they will need it next time. The only drawback I can see is that polling stations would need more staff as they'd probably spend a lot of time explaining the new rules to people. This will happen anyway though - the first election where these rules apply is likely to be a difficult one for the staff.

 

[JamesT]

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 An amendment to the legislation backed by the Electoral Reform Society to extend the range of acceptable ID was repealed at the final stage of the bill.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?

As mentioned previously in the thread, the difference between the two Oyster cards is the nature of the application process for each. To get a 60+Oyster you need to provide proof of age and address from a limited set of official documents. Whereas the Student Oyster needs an email address and something that looks like student id.
I think this was also the issue with most of the additional forms of ID being proposed by the Electoral Roll Society, that they don't have robust verification. The election staff at the polling station mostly won't be able to do confirmation checks on the ID, they'll be checking that it looks correct and the details match what's on the electoral roll and the person standing in front of them. There's a reliance on the organisation issuing the ID that they've done their process correctly.
But this is what the free voter ID addresses, if you don't have an acceptable form of photo ID already, you go through that process and you will do. It appears to work in Northern Ireland, why can't it work here?

 

[DelayRepay]

When I worked in a bank, we accepted student ID cards, but only those issued by our local college and universities. We knew how to verify they were genuine, and also had the option of calling the college/uni to verify the card was genuine and hadn't been reported as lost/stolen. We wouldn't accept cards from other universities or collages because we weren't familiar with them. Polling stations could do similar, i.e. teach the staff to recognise locally issued student IDs, and only accept those.

Having said that, my experience tells me that if someone is going to commit a crime by impersonating someone else at a polling station, they won't struggle to get hold of convincing fake ID. If we are relying on the polling station doing a quick visual check, I'm afraid this change won't stop fraud. It might stop the odd chancer but will be fairly easy for a committed criminal to get round. Most of the fake ID's I've handled look convincing on a quick glance. It is only under close scrutiny, or with the aid of a UV lamp or ID checking device that you can spot fakes.

Even then, if I had to confiscate a fake ID I was able to do so from behind a bullet proof glass screen. Not sure I'd really want to challenge someone in a polling station unless the police were present.

 

[najaB]

Explained beautifully here:

 

[jfollows]

Discussed in parliament yesterday (Tuesday 21 February) (https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...D6-4EB8-B3E2-46059027B909/VoterIdentification).
Main points seem to be:

• 98% of electorate have ID, but the 2% who haven't aren't all going to vote, so the government claims that 2 million people who don't is overstated either because they don't have local elections in their area to vote in or can't be bothered to vote at all.
• 1% of the disputed 2 million have so far applied for the free Voter Authority Certificate, and at the current rate of application it would take ten years to cover the entire 2 million. The local elections are 10 weeks away.
• We are more likely to be struck by lightning 54 times than to be queueing behind somone committing vote fraud at a polling station.
• Government claims that it's a myth that this is some form of suppression.
• Oyster cards for over-60s acceptable as ID, but not some types of student ID and Oyster cards for the under-30s.
• Potential voters can't afford £82 for a passport or £40 for a driving license if they don't have one already.
• The campaign for awareness hasn't worked in that many people still don't know of the new requirement. "Not one (constituent) has known about the requirement and not one has been in favour of it."
• 505 people over 75 have applied for the Voter Authority Certificate - fewer than the number of MPs.
• Government keeps responding that 2 million is too great a number for people without ID who won't be able to vote, but also goes on about the fact that 98% of the electorate has suitable ID.
• The Voter Authority Certificate process is made much easier with access to a computer, printer, and camera, but the government stresses that there is no requirement to use a computer and that alternative processes are available.

All highly predictable and inevitable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Potential voters can't afford £82 for a passport or £40 for a driving license if they don't have one already.

This is of no relevance whatsoever because these are not the only options available.

 

[najaB]

This is of no relevance whatsoever because these are not the only options available.

It's not of zero relevance, since the alternatives aren't necessarily easily accessible either.

 

[ainsworth74]

98% of electorate have ID, but the 2% who haven't aren't all going to vote, so the government claims that 2 million people who don't is overstated either because they don't have local elections in their area to vote in or can't be bothered to vote at all.

Oh well that's okay then

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not of zero relevance, since the alternatives aren't necessarily easily accessible either.

The voter certificate is easily accessible. If you don't have a computer you can go to a public library and use one, though how many young people don't have Internet access? Older people can use a bus pass which all should have or if not can easily obtain.

I accept the argument that it's of limited benefit, but not that it is in any way hard to obtain proper ID for negligible cost.

 

[Ediswan]

Attached is the sheet which came with the annual voter registration letter. It would be hard not to spot the upcoming requirement for photo ID.

I do think more could have been done to advertise Voter Authority Certitificates. They are shown last on the list of accepted forms of ID (by which time some may have stopped reading). The note on how to apply is elsewhere on the page, before the explanation of why you might want one. It would be better if there were a separate line-separated section covering these certificates starting along the lines of "If you have none of the above ...".

For reference, Stevenage Borough Council has been Labour since it was founded in 1973.

 

[nw1]

First of all, there are almost no 18 year olds without a driving licence or passport, as they generally need one or the other to purchase alcoholic beverages, cigarettes and/or vapes. Things are much stricter than when I was a kid. It's even common to get a provisional even if you have no intention to learn to drive, though obviously some are excluded from holding one on medical or criminal grounds.

Is that definitely the case? When I was typical student age (early 90s) I had neither a passport nor a driving licence for much of the time; do pubs really check the ID of all student-age people these days? (Not denying it, just seems surprising). I looked young for my age yet never had a problem in pubs; I only obtained a passport aged 20 (needed for an overseas trip; stayed in UK when I was 18 and 19) and have not yet learnt to drive.

 

[najaB]

Is that definitely the case? When I was typical student age (early 90s) I had neither a passport nor a driving licence; do pubs really check the ID of all student-age people these days?

They are definitely supposed to. And in my experience they generally do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that definitely the case? When I was typical student age (early 90s) I had neither a passport nor a driving licence; do pubs really check the ID of all student-age people these days?

Yes. If you're under 25 (or under about 30 if you look young) you will be checked every single time now. It's really strict as getting it wrong can mean loss of licence and a fine for both the company and the individual member of staff. I've never been asked purely because they thought I looked young, only by establishments who just check everyone regardless even if they're 80 (usually because they want a register of who is on the premises to check against CCTV in the event of an incident), but curiously my sister has been checked in her late 30s.

Of course many young people now don't drink, but it seems to me that those who don't are slightly more likely to drive, plus give or take the pandemic low cost airlines have made international travel more accessible to young people. Thus the number of 18 year olds with neither passport nor driving licence is going to be very small, and of those the number who are incapable of going online to register for one of these certificates is going to be so close to zero it basically doesn't matter. There will be those who can't be bothered, but they'll be the same ones who can't be bothered voting anyway.

If you wanted to enfranchise those people, online voting would be the way, I reckon. Or a responsible parent may be able to encourage them to get a postal vote and make sure they complete it.

 

[nw1]

For reference, Stevenage Borough Council has been Labour since it was founded in 1973.

An aside: but that's quite remarkable given it normally returns a Tory MP.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An aside: but that's quite remarkable given it normally returns a Tory MP.

As I've said a number of times when pushing the idea that Council Tax capping is antidemocratic, the idea that people might vote for cost cutting in national politics (because most of the services it involves are quite distant from them) but for a quality package of services locally (because they use the buses and have their bins emptied, and might have a family member in care) is not in the slightest bit surprising nor unusual.

 

[nw1]

As I've said a number of times when pushing the idea that Council Tax capping is antidemocratic, the idea that people might vote for cost cutting in national politics (because most of the services it involves are quite distant from them) but for a quality package of services locally (because they use the buses and have their bins emptied, and might have a family member in care) is not in the slightest bit surprising nor unusual.

Maybe, but one has to remember that council cuts are frequently at the behest of central government, who can cut funding to councils.

So many of us believe that if you vote for a Tory government, you are in effect voting for cuts to local public services too, because generally the Tories tend to be less generous in funding local services; all part of the "low tax, low public spending" ethos of economic conservatism.

For example, since 2010 rural bus services in Hampshire have been drastically slashed. Partly down to the (Tory) council, but also partly down to the Tory government's cuts to council funding, I suspect.

 

[SHD]

Is it actually being abused, though?

Personally as I said I'd like to be able to vote online. If it was offered as an option only to holders of current biometric passports and smartphones capable of reading one via NFC*, it could be done pretty securely, too - certainly much more securely** than a postal vote. The tech was developed for the "application for leave to remain" app for EU citizens.

Obviously those without biometric passports and/or smartphones could still vote traditionally if they preferred. But I bet uptake would be VERY high - it might even improve turnouts.

* Scan the passport, verify the biometrics using the phone camera, and send some sort of encrypted report of veracity back.

** Remember, any replacement system just needs to be "at least as secure as the present system", it doesn't have to be perfect. As I like to, I remind posters of my proposal for a system for e-ticketing on here a while back, which was rubbished as being too insecure, but was, it turns out, very close to the one that was actually implemented - indeed, in some ways my design was more secure than the one that was implemented.

Online voting, even more so than electronic voting, raises a major concern that you miss with this focus on "safety": the auditability of voting results by all citizens, which is a fundamental democratic principle. No technical skill of any kind (*) is required to observe ballots being discharged from a transparent box and counted. The audit of electronic or online voting systems, however secure they are and even if the source code is made public, requires highly specialized knowledge and capabilities. Besides, publicizing the source code does not guarantee that it was actually running at the time of the vote.

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

Voter ID is only required in communes with more than 1,000 inhabitants. And the list of accepted voter ID documents is much larger than government-issued national identity cards and passports; it notably includes drivers' licenses, national health insurance cards, disabled persons' card, civil servant professional ID, and hunting licenses (!)

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.

No, contrarily to a common misconception among the British, there is no such legal requirement in France, much less a requirement to carry one at all times. It is true that, as an adult, life is quite complicated without a government-issued ID (National identity card or passport) - opening a bank account for instance is pretty impossible without either - but voting is possible.

(*) beyond basic reading and arithmetic skills, obviously

 

[Bletchleyite]

Online voting, even more so than electronic voting, raises a major concern that you miss with this focus on "safety": the auditability of voting results by all citizens, which is a fundamental democratic principle. No technical skill of any kind (*) is required to observe ballots being discharged from a transparent box and counted. The audit of electronic or online voting systems, however secure they are and even if the source code is made public, requires highly specialized knowledge and capabilities. Besides, publicizing the source code does not guarantee that it was actually running at the time of the vote.

We trust IT for all manner of things more important than choosing between Labour and Tory, which is what most elections mostly do. A massive vote for some sort of minority extremist party would be a bit obvious.

Voter ID is only required in communes with more than 1,000 inhabitants. And the list of accepted voter ID documents is much larger than government-issued national identity cards and passports; it notably includes drivers' licenses, national health insurance cards, disabled persons' card, civil servant professional ID, and hunting licenses (!)

Just as it is here. Passport, driving licence, bus pass and free voter ID are the most common, but there are a few others. There's really nobody who can't get one - those who won't are those who are too apathetic to vote anyway.

Very, very few people will, I predict, be turned away, and most of those who are will just have to go home and get their relevant ID.

No, contrarily to a common misconception among the British, there is no such legal requirement in France, much less a requirement to carry one at all times. It is true that, as an adult, life is quite complicated without a government-issued ID (National identity card or passport) - opening a bank account for instance is pretty impossible without either - but voting is possible.

(*) beyond basic reading and arithmetic skills, obviously

It varies by country. I'll take your word on France. In Germany you do have to prove who you are but it doesn't have to be an ID card, if you have nothing you can be arrested until your identity can be verified another way. The Netherlands is full compulsory carry of a very limited range of documents (I think just ID card or passport, but may also be driving licence) with a fine for simply not carrying.

 

[najaB]

Online voting, even more so than electronic voting, raises a major concern that you miss with this focus on "safety": the auditability of voting results by all citizens, which is a fundamental democratic principle. No technical skill of any kind (*) is required to observe ballots being discharged from a transparent box and counted. The audit of electronic or online voting systems, however secure they are and even if the source code is made public, requires highly specialized knowledge and capabilities. Besides, publicizing the source code does not guarantee that it was actually running at the time of the vote.

I'm in tech by profession and by passion and I'm totally against online voting. In a world where in-person voting is seen by some as insecure, despite a person having to physically go to a polling place with all the risk of detection that brings, online voting is too easy to manipulate by bad-actors, be they foreign or domestic.

Not to mention that the fact that it can be manipulated is enough for some people to believe that it has been manipulated if the result goes against their preferred candidate.

 

[DC1989]

It's going to be a disaster isn't it? Most people don't know about it so even if they have ID, the amount of people who won't think to take their passport with them to the polling station before work will be great.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Feb 2023 ==


According to a poll today -

Are you aware you will now need to show approved Photo ID to vote?
% saying Yes...
All Britons - 33%
2019 Con Voters - 33%
2019 Lab Voters - 49%
Over 40's - 29%
Under 40's - 39%

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's going to be a disaster isn't it? Most people don't know about it so even if they have ID, the amount of people who won't think to take their passport with them to the polling station before work will be great.

I suspect there will be a lot of:

Can I see ID please?
You need ID?
Yes, have you got your driving licence or free bus pass?
Sure, here it is.

You need ID often enough in daily life that most adults who have a photo driving licence just keep it in their wallet. I'm sure the conspiracy mob on here will start shouting about how it breaches their privacy to carry it as it somehow impinges on their freedom to pay cash for their bread and milk anonymously at Tesco in case the nasty Government want to do something with that rather useless piece of data, but I doubt I know anyone who drives and doesn't. It's a de facto national ID card.

FWIW if fewer Tories know about it than Labour voters, then that rather blows the "influence the vote to the right" conspiracy babble out of the water, doesn't it?

 

[ainsworth74]

No, contrarily to a common misconception among the British, there is no such legal requirement in France, much less a requirement to carry one at all times. It is true that, as an adult, life is quite complicated without a government-issued ID (National identity card or passport) - opening a bank account for instance is pretty impossible without either - but voting is possible.

I wasn't suggesting carriage was compulsory at all times but I was under the impression that having a government issued ID, of some sort, was required. Interesting that it isn't. Though seeing as you cannot open a bank account without one (from what you've said) I would say that that basically does make it mandatory! In which case my wider point stands. A country which has an effective requirement (whether explicit or not) for you to have some sort of official ID is in a very different position to the UK where it is perfectly possible to get by without any sort of recognisable ID when it comes to imposing voter ID requirements.

I'm in tech by profession and by passion and I'm totally against online voting. In a world where in-person voting is seen by some as insecure, despite a person having to physically go to a polling place with all the risk of detection that brings, online voting is too easy to manipulate by bad-actors, be they foreign or domestic.

Not to mention that the fact that it can be manipulated is enough for some people to believe that it has been manipulated if the result goes against their preferred candidate.

Not in tech but agreed electronic or online voting gives me serious concerns. The most I'd be willing to do is either using machines to tally the paper ballots or electronic machines (not online) to register the vote for counting purposes but still print a completed ballot paper that the voter can check and deposit in a ballot box which is handled just as the current ballots would be. In both cases this speeds the counting but ensures there is a paper trail so in the event of any disputes you can go in and count by hand. I'd be willing to make that level of concession to electronic voting. But that's it! Though personally I have no real issue with it taking the six or seven hours or so that it currently takes to count enough votes to know the broad results of an election.

It's a de facto national ID card.

Which isn't the same thing as de jure.

If they want to introduce this, I'm not necessarily opposed. @AlterEgo is right it is comically simple to try and get away with voter impersonation. I'm not convinced it could happen on a large enough scale to actually influence anything but he isn't wrong that we don't look that hard (as far as I'm aware) and there aren't many security measures in place. But personally I'd much rather start with making sure that our actual electoral register is properly and accurately updated so we've only got people who should be registered on there and in the right place. I'd rather we start by looking at the security of postal ballots and proxy votes. Then we can start tackling voting in person and how we secure that.

Personally I'd quite like the idea of a National ID card that was solely for the proof of identity (my issue with the previous National ID scheme was it's scope was far to broad) which was available for free. But until we've got one I'm concerned by the new arrangements. To be honest they smack of behaviour that is typical of this government. Here's a problem we've invented that will play well with certain sections of our base but is basically irrelevant, and here's a cheapo solution to the non-existent problem which we can even blame someone else for (the Councils that have to issue the alternative) when it goes wrong whilst not actually tackling other potential problems (such as the accuracy of the electoral register).

 

[DC1989]

FWIW if fewer Tories know about it than Labour voters, then that rather blows the "influence the vote to the right" conspiracy babble out of the water, doesn't it?

Yes it will be quite ironic if it backfires on them in that way !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Feb 2023 ==

We live in a digital age - why oh why can we not have a digital ID card that we can all carry around with us on our phones on. Why can we not have a digital driving license - it's madness

 

[Bletchleyite]

We live in a digital age - why oh why can we not have a digital ID card that we can all carry around with us on our phones on. Why can we not have a digital driving license - it's madness

The need for a physical driving licence is more about going abroad and similar. There's already a digital record of it which can be looked up if you don't have it on you but do have other proof of identity, but it's about the easiest piece of UK identity to carry anyway.

 

[DC1989]

The need for a physical driving licence is more about going abroad and similar. There's already a digital record of it which can be looked up if you don't have it on you but do have other proof of identity, but it's about the easiest piece of UK identity to carry anyway.

My point is - why should we need to carry a pointless bit of plastic around. For those of an older generation I can understand - they've maybe always carried a wallet with bank cards and cash in it. I'm not exactly at the bleeding edge of technology but I haven't carried a wallet or a bank card in a few years now. I've had to get my driving license and put it in the back of my phone case nowadays in case one of the assistants in supermarkets wants to play silly beggers

I can't imagine many people under 30 carry around wallets, it's keys/phone, keys/phone, keys/phone. And remember many young people don't drive nowadays (Around 40%), many don't drink (Around 40%) and about a quarter of Brits have never been abroad so won't have a passport. So if you don't drink, don't drive or have not been abroad why would you pay out for a driving license or passport? It's a mess.

 

[bleeder4]

I can't remember the last time I was asked for ID. My driving licence has been gathering dust at the back of my wallet since I put it in there in 2015.

 

[AM9]

My point is - why should we need to carry a pointless bit of plastic around.

You don't have to because you regard it as "pointless". You will of course have to forgo the "pointless" benefits that carrying it might bring (like the right to vote in the case of this discussion), but the choice is yours.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My point is - why should we need to carry a pointless bit of plastic around. For those of an older generation I can understand - they've maybe always carried a wallet with bank cards and cash in it. I'm not exactly at the bleeding edge of technology but I haven't carried a wallet or a bank card in a few years now.

I think I'd argue you are at the bleeding edge of technology! I pay by card when possible, and do use phone payments a lot, but am not yet willing to rely on only carrying my phone, not because it might break but because phone payment doesn't always work everywhere, though it's better than it was. For instance the M6 Toll doesn't presently take it but is in the process of modifying their systems so they do (it was of questionable legality anyway until the recent change in the law on phone use which specifically allows use for contactless payment in this way) - though I must admit to being surprised they don't switch to "freeflow" tolling like Dartford did years ago.

The vast majority of adults check for KWP - keys, wallet, phone - on leaving the house. And as you say if you don't just putting the driving licence in the back of your phone case isn't hard.

It's not happened often, but I've had phone payments refer to chip and PIN before, the reader not working or even cash only. And once is enough for it to be a problem, so my wallet is, for the time being, an essential.

I can't imagine many people under 30 carry around wallets, it's keys/phone, keys/phone, keys/phone. And remember many young people don't drive nowadays (Around 40%), many don't drink (Around 40%) and about a quarter of Brits have never been abroad so won't have a passport. So if you don't drink, don't drive or have not been abroad why would you pay out for a driving license or passport? It's a mess.

Of those people who are technically advanced enough for it to be keys/phone only, there will be precisely 0 who can't use that phone to obtain a voting certificate.

 

[MikeWM]

You need ID often enough in daily life that most adults who have a photo driving licence just keep it in their wallet. I'm sure the conspiracy mob on here will start shouting about how it breaches their privacy to carry it as it somehow impinges on their freedom to pay cash for their bread and milk anonymously at Tesco in case the nasty Government want to do something with that rather useless piece of data, but I doubt I know anyone who drives and doesn't. It's a de facto national ID card.

I'm sure I'm down as one of the 'conspiracy mob' you mention, but I've no particular objection to carrying ID around with me. Indeed I have my (provisional) driving licence with me at all times.

The objections most people have to such things is if (a) carrying ID becomes compulsory when generally out-and-about, and/or (b) a record of you having produced it, along with when/where, is logged in some central database and/or (c) the ID starts aggregating data about you beyond the necessary minimum required to prove your id.

I'd strongly disagree with the idea that 'you need ID often enough in daily life' though. I think I've had to show it precisely once in the past year.