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

[Howardh]

If a ballot is refused by the teller that is recorded. People turned away at the door aren't recorded giving a false count of attempts to vote without id.

There was no-one at the door when I voted, just walked in and straight to the desk. As it was local elections, got the opportunity to cast three votes on the one ballot!

 

[Typhoon]

Interesting article on the Voter Authority Certificate (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...p&cvid=c389a002baf14b5e9357f2ea5cfd38e1&ei=39)

Some councils are rejecting up to 15 per cent of applications for the new voter authority certificate, an investigation has shown.

The local elections taking place in England on Thursday will require a form of ID to cast a vote for the first time – but one in 18 applications for the government’s free form of voter ID have been rejected.

There are around 2 million people without photographic ID, and of those around 86,000 have applied for the new certificate, research by The Big Issue has found.

However data obtained through Freedom of Information requests found there have been hundreds of rejected applications, with one local authority rejecting more than a quarter of the applications it received.

Tom Brake, a former Liberal Democrat MP who is now director of Unlock Democracy, said: ‘This investigative work confirms that the photo voter ID story is even worse than expected.
‘We already knew the take up of the government’s alternative photo voter ID scheme was appallingly low.
‘Now we also know that for those who did apply, a relatively high percentage have had their applications rejected.
‘With council election results often hanging on a handful of votes, it is unavoidable not only that the introduction of photo voter ID will depress turnout, but also distort election results.’

76 out of the 230 councils holding elections on Thursday responded to FOI requests and provided data on 16,000 applications – about one in six of the total submitted.
Overall, 889 applications, or 5.55%, were rejected, however the rejections were unevenly spread with some councils not rejecting a single application while others rejected around one in six.
However, while a photo ID or certificate is required to vote in person at the local elections, those voting by post or proxy don’t need to provide any ID.

The Electoral Reform Society calls the findings ‘deeply concerning’, with Jess Garland from the group adding: ‘For many voters who lack photographic ID the voter authority certificate is their only route to being able to cast a vote in this week’s elections.
‘To find that the application process has such a high rate of rejection in some areas is deeply concerning.
‘With the government putting so many hurdles up between voters and the ballot box, it’s clear that these new voter ID rules remain a threat to democratic participation and free and fair elections.’

Of course, some of these may have been rectified in the time but this does seem like there is still work to do. In particular picking up the inconsistency between rejections between local authorities.

There was no-one at the door when I voted, just walked in and straight to the desk. As it was local elections, got the opportunity to cast three votes on the one ballot!

When I passed by my nearest polling station, the only person at the door was one of the candidates. I have no idea whether she was checking whether people have ID, no-one went in, in fact she smiled at me possibly hoping I was a prospective voter (too late, I voted last week). According to someone I spoke to later, it was empty when she went in and no-one joined her. A fairly safe prediction: a pretty poor turn out, at least locally.

 

[Trackman]

There was no-one at the door when I voted, just walked in and straight to the desk. As it was local elections, got the opportunity to cast three votes on the one ballot!

So the desk is not doing it, but rather some official at the entrance? (I've not been yet)

 

[Typhoon]

So the desk is not doing it, but rather some official at the entrance? (I've not been yet)

Polling stations in England will have extra staff to help voters on 4 May as the government introduces its new rules on photographic ID, the Electoral Commission has said.

Craig Westwood, the director of communications at the commission, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that workers had been preparing for months to put plans in place.

The change in voting rules will mean people turning up at polling stations are required to show photographic identification for the first time.

Westwood said: “There will be more staff. Some polling stations, particularly larger ones, where there are more people who will be registered in that area, will have greeters – people who are outside the polling station that can just make sure that people are definitely aware of the ID requirement – that they’d got it with them, they’ve got it out of their purse, wallet, bag, and have got it ready, just to make sure that any queues are being eased through.”

So, in some cases, yes!

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ring-in-extra-staff-as-voter-id-changes-begin

What happens if the person insists on going in (so their willingness to vote but inability to do so is recorded), I don't know.

 

[BrummieBobby]

Went to vote earlier and handed over my passport for the polling staff to inspect; as I did so I said something along the lines of "I know you don't make the law, you just comply with it, but this ID law is a load of tosh."

To my surprise, the staff then produced a form which I could complete (Name, council, voting ward and comments) to register my displeasure with the new law.

 

[geoffk]

Just read this - "Scores of hopeful voters are being turned away at polling stations because they have not got valid photographic ID, ITV News has been told. Polling station tellers in Oxfordshire have told ITV News "large numbers" are being turned away, reporting that between 10-25% have been unable to vote."

I had my driving licence ready and showed it to the person inside the door. There were also two poll clerks and the presiding officer, so four officials in all, usually only two. I asked if anyone had been turned away (this was late morning) and she said she thought not. We'll have to see what the figures are like tomorrow. My concern is not with ID per se but the limited range of acceptable documents for young people compared with those of my age (retired).

 

[MikeWM]

Nothing remarkable at my polling station, just the people at the desk that ask you who you are, rule out your name on the register and hand you the ballot, asked to check my id while they were doing those things, and seemed fine with a fairly cursory glance at my (provisional) driving licence.

I then got to (once again) spoil my ballot, given the only options were LibLabConGreen, and after the last three years it will be a very long time indeed before I consider voting for any of those.

 

[Matey]

The rules about postal ballots need significant tightening (in my opinion, unless you are physically unable to get to a polling station, you shouldn't be able to get a postal ballot - having to spend a few minutes once a year or so in order to get to a polling station and back is hardly a major inconvenience).

You obviously don't live in the countryside.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What happens if the person insists on going in (so their willingness to vote but inability to do so is recorded), I don't know.

The Gerrymandering Electoral Commission have made it best practice for people to “help manage queues” at the door for a reason. People won’t be formally turned away unless they are really really belligerent. Which most people who don’t have ID won’t be.

 

[MikeWM]

You obviously don't live in the countryside.

Fair enough, add an exception for those who live more than 2 miles from the nearest polling station and don't own a car. That's not going to be *that* many people.

 

[Ediswan]

The Gerrymandering Electoral Commission have made it best practice for people to “help manage queues” at the door for a reason. People won’t be formally turned away unless they are really really belligerent. Which most people who don’t have ID won’t be.

Does this come from the Electoral Commission ? I can't find it in their "Handbook for polling station staff":
https://www.electoralcommission.org...23-02/Polling Station Handbook - LGE 2023.pdf

 

[adc82140]

I showed by driving licence- which looks not much like me, as since the photo was taken I've had a major hair cut and now wear glasses. No comment at all, it was the equivalent of showing the ticket inspector on the train something vaguely orange.

 

[Typhoon]

100% agree.

The rules about postal ballots need significant tightening (in my opinion, unless you are physically unable to get to a polling station, you shouldn't be able to get a postal ballot - having to spend a few minutes once a year or so in order to get to a polling station and back is hardly a major inconvenience).

But, outside historic issues in Northern Ireland, the number of issues of fraud *at the polling station* has always been as close to zero as to not be worth remotely worrying about.

I originally signed up for a postal vote when I was working. I used to work until 21:00 on a Thursday and it took me over an hour to get back home so I needed to vote in the morning. One time I turned up just after 07:00, polling station empty; by quarter past the staff were getting in, twenty past they were setting up, there was actually a queue outside. I couldn't see the door opening before half past so I would struggle to get to work on time unless I left then without voting. There will be more extreme cases than me, those who don't know what their work patterns will be weeks in advance for a start - including those who may be away from home, some of those who work for the emergency services, and, doubtless, others. (I don't know this would count as 'physically unable' but at my age, 70s, I don't go out if it is icy, I've broken one arm a few years ago, I don't want a repeat.)

We have a right to vote, there are enough impediments put in the way of doing so as it is, without adding more. Checking dates of birth is not exactly rigorous, asking for something less easy to obtain than that as well as signature might be better.

 

[Snow1964]

65% of young adults do not hold a driving license (under 21). Passport data by age is hard to access but around 14% of the total population do not hold a passport, I would imagine that mainly young adults would have a higher percentage of not having one

My own daughter now 20, still has a provisional driving licence (was originally booked to take test Easter 2020), then after multiple covid cancellations, went to University and hasn't yet got around to doing test.

She said polling staff (in Sheffield) weren't happy and commented as photo (which was taken when she was 15 or 16) is not upto date and exactly how she now looks, but was accepted apparently begrudgingly.

I am intrigued as nowhere did I read out out licences or passports where photo is obviously not new might be moaned at.

 

[dangie]

You obviously don't live in the countryside.

But those who live in the countryside don’t spend every day marooned in the countryside. I’m sure they leave it frequently to travel to a nearby village or town. Just adding one extra journey per year is not really too much to ask.

 

[jfollows]

I am intrigued as nowhere did I read out out licences or passports where photo is obviously not new might be moaned at.

The documentation does not need to be new, in fact it can be "out of date" (https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/voter-id/accepted-forms-photo-id):

Out of date photo ID​

You can still use your photo ID if it's out of date, as long as it looks like you.
The name on your ID should be the same name you used to register to vote.

The issue can be if the picture no longer looks like the bearer. At the end of the day, that's the point, isn't it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

100% agree.

The rules about postal ballots need significant tightening (in my opinion, unless you are physically unable to get to a polling station, you shouldn't be able to get a postal ballot - having to spend a few minutes once a year or so in order to get to a polling station and back is hardly a major inconvenience).

But, outside historic issues in Northern Ireland, the number of issues of fraud *at the polling station* has always been as close to zero as to not be worth remotely worrying about.

I'd rather see us move mostly to remote voting, ideally online. Yes, it has its own risks, but we have terrible voter engagement in this country. As such it should be made EASIER to vote, not harder.

 

[jfollows]

100% agree.

The rules about postal ballots need significant tightening (in my opinion, unless you are physically unable to get to a polling station, you shouldn't be able to get a postal ballot - having to spend a few minutes once a year or so in order to get to a polling station and back is hardly a major inconvenience).

Some of this is going to happen later this year (https://www.electoralcommission.org...-research/elections-act/changes-postal-voting):

Changes for voters​

The changes to postal voting include:

• A maximum period of three years on voters’ application to hold a postal vote. Voters would need to re-apply at the end of that time.
• Allowing voters to apply online for a postal vote and requiring a voter’s identity to be checked as part of the process. Both online and paper applications will require ID verification.

I don't agree with you, I think postal voting should remain an option for anyone, I used it when you had to provide an "excuse" (along the lines of "my job requires me to travel") but now it's open to all and I agree with that. Currently I re-affirm my desire to vote by post by doing nothing with the annual electoral register reminder, but if I have to re-apply every 3 years it's only a minor pain.

 

[Snow1964]

Some of this is going to happen later this year (https://www.electoralcommission.org...-research/elections-act/changes-postal-voting):

I don't agree with you, I think postal voting should remain an option for anyone, I used it when you had to provide an "excuse" (along the lines of "my job requires me to travel") but now it's open to all and I agree with that. Currently I re-affirm my desire to vote by post by doing nothing with the annual electoral register reminder, but if I have to re-apply every 3 years it's only a minor pain.

Just out of interest to apply to renew a postal vote, do you have to have a physical photo ID checked against yourself in person, as you do in a polling station.

Or is it just send a copy of a photo that could be anyone, without it being checked it matches the applicant.

I suspect that postal votes are up for abuse as mail could be intercepted, so bad idea.

 

[ainsworth74]

I suspect that postal votes are up for abuse as mail could be intercepted, so bad idea.

Yes but Tory voters are more likely to use postal votes than Labour voters (on the basis that those that are older are more likely to vote Tory and use postal votes) so we cannot possibly take steps to make it harder for them to vote!

 

[yorksrob]

I'm glad I wasn't officiating at this election. Sounds like a bit of a hash !

 

[najaB]

But those who live in the countryside don’t spend every day marooned in the countryside. I’m sure they leave it frequently to travel to a nearby village or town. Just adding one extra journey per year is not really too much to ask.

Objectively, it is not, but you're still putting an impediment in the way of exercising their right to vote.

 

[MikeWM]

We have a right to vote, there are enough impediments put in the way of doing so as it is, without adding more. Checking dates of birth is not exactly rigorous, asking for something less easy to obtain than that as well as signature might be better.

I appreciate you had difficulties in your specific circumstances, but I'd point out that most people seemed to manage voting in person perfectly well before postal voting became open to everyone. Turnout was higher in the past, not lower.

There's a good reason everyone in the polling station gets an individual ballot and their own booth to fill it in. Conversely, with widespread postal voting, there's more than enough evidence in some communities that the 'head of household' requires all the members of the family to fill in their postal votes the way he tells them to. That needs to be stopped, and the only way to do that is to return to the 'norm' being attending a polling station in order to vote.

--

I'd rather see us move mostly to remote voting, ideally online. Yes, it has its own risks, but we have terrible voter engagement in this country. As such it should be made EASIER to vote, not harder.

Absolutely not. As well as the issues with 'head of household' mentioned above, that would send us directly down the line of people losing confidence in the veracity of the electoral process, as we see in the USA. Which is partly political (which we don't need) but also partly with some merit (which we *really* don't want).

Perhaps the political parties could actually give us proper choices at the ballot box, then more people may be enthusiastic to vote in the first place? How many people are like me and want none of the above, but don't go to the effort of spoiling the ballot? I'd imagine quite a large number. Low turnout and voter apathy is itself a political statement.

 

[AM9]

I appreciate you had difficulties in your specific circumstances, but I'd point out that most people seemed to manage voting in person perfectly well before postal voting became open to everyone. Turnout was higher in the past, not lower.

There's a good reason everyone in the polling station gets an individual ballot and their own booth to fill it in. Conversely, with widespread postal voting, there's more than enough evidence in some communities that the 'head of household' requires all the members of the family to fill in their postal votes the way he tells them to. That needs to be stopped, and the only way to do that is to return to the 'norm' being attending a polling station in order to vote.

--



Absolutely not. As well as the issues with 'head of household' mentioned above, that would send us directly down the line of people losing confidence in the veracity of the electoral process, as we see in the USA. Which is partly political (which we don't need) but also partly with some merit (which we *really* don't want).

Perhaps the political parties could actually give us proper choices at the ballot box, then more people may be enthusiastic to vote in the first place? How many people are like me and want none of the above, but don't go to the effort of spoiling the ballot? I'd imagine quite a large number. Low turnout and voter apathy is itself a political statement.

Not sure what you mean by "proper choices at the ballot box", as even with a large number of candidates, there will still be some who might claim that they don't want any of them. That's their choice and they should indicate that by returning their ballot paper with no candidates voted for, as per that preference.
Apathy is always going to be an issue unless there is a penalty for not entering a ballot paper into the count. I suspect that apathy against voting is more often just pure indolence, i.e. why should I get off my backside, - let all the mugs do it. In their view that also entitles them to whinge about anything the winning candidates subsequently do when in power.

 

[The exile]

Again it begs the question why isn't the documentation required to get the ID not good enough in the first place to allow you to vote??

There isn’t time (or the equipment) to run verification checks at a polling station. The various documents required for passport etc need to be cross checked- one of the reasons why it takes the time it does.

 

[AM9]

There isn’t time (or the equipment) to run verification checks at a polling station. The various documents required for passport etc need to be cross checked- one of the reasons why it takes the time it does.

Which I suspect is one of the main drivers for this Government, knowing that it will limit the right to vote for more of the opposition's demographic than their own. This is gerrymandering 21st century style.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sorry to read of the huge Conservative victory yesterday with millions disenfranchised.

 

[MikeWM]

Not sure what you mean by "proper choices at the ballot box", as even with a large number of candidates, there will still be some who might claim that they don't want any of them. That's their choice and they should indicate that by returning their ballot paper with no candidates voted for, as per that preference.

I think there's an awful lot of people who feel politically homeless right now. Prior to 2020 I always felt that one or other of the 'big 4' parties were closer to my opinions than the others, and so voted for that party. But now none of them have policies that I remotely agree with, and I don't believe that any of them have my best interests at heart. I'd closely look at the policies of the smaller parties or independents and consider voting for one of those, but none stood here.

 

[DC1989]

The documentation does not need to be new, in fact it can be "out of date" (https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/voter-id/accepted-forms-photo-id):

The issue can be if the picture no longer looks like the bearer. At the end of the day, that's the point, isn't it?

Indeed - what makes it so bad is that it's at someone's discretion. "I don't think that looks like you" is then a subjective opinion that potentially can prevent someone from their legal right to vote.

What a mess!

Off topic but my girlfriends provision expired a couple of months ago - she got turned down in Sainsburys for a bottle of wine because the ID was out of date (She's 33!) Well what do they expect to happen? That someone's starts going backwards in age when a driving license expires? Ridiculous!

 

[jfollows]

Indeed - what makes it so bad is that it's at someone's discretion. "I don't think that looks like you" is then a subjective opinion that potentially can prevent someone from their legal right to vote.

What a mess!

Off topic but my girlfriends provision expired a couple of months ago - she got turned down in Sainsburys for a bottle of wine because the ID was out of date (She's 33!) Well what do they expect to happen? That someone's starts going backwards in age when a driving license expires? Ridiculous!

Although it's subjective, it's the one sensible part of this legislation - I may have posted up-thread but I was once told that my "drivers license" had expired to which, of course, my response was along the lines of "but I haven't", but I fortunately had my passport with me (this was some years ago, and in the USA).