• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,645
Which I suspect at a family level is more prevalent in Asian communities thereby benefitting Conservative candidates. Maybe that's why the party is so keen to put up a system to address a probelm that hardly exists, that is more likely to disenfranchise left of centre voters, yet happy to ignore the arrangements that have demonstrably allowed dominant right leaning members of the family to misrepresent the rest of their cohabitor's voting intentions. I stand by my 21st century gerrymandering suggestion.
If wider postal voting benefits the Conservatives, why did Labour open it up?
I think you’re also painting a very wide brush talking about Asian communities. Ethnic minorities have traditionally leaned towards Labour. https://www.britishfuture.org/ethnic-minority-votes-up-for-grabs/ is a little old, but shows a clear split along religious lines, which may map to different subgroups amongst British Asians.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsand...legations-of-electoral-fraud-in-peterborough/ lists several instances of electoral fraud committed by Labour politicians from the Asian community.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
15,308
Location
St Albans
If wider postal voting benefits the Conservatives, why did Labour open it up?
Problems with postal voting have only recently been an issue, so maybe had the issues been apparent, it might not have been changed.
I think you’re also painting a very wide brush talking about Asian communities. Ethnic minorities have traditionally leaned towards Labour. https://www.britishfuture.org/ethnic-minority-votes-up-for-grabs/ is a little old, but shows a clear split along religious lines, which may map to different subgroups amongst British Asians.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsand...legations-of-electoral-fraud-in-peterborough/ lists several instances of electoral fraud committed by Labour politicians from the Asian community.
This thread is about ID to prevent voter fraud, not electoral fraud by politicians.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,645
Problems with postal voting have only recently been an issue, so maybe had the issues been apparent, it might not have been changed.
Postal voting was made “on-demand” in 2000, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/apr/05/politics.localgovernment is a report of convictions for postal vote fraud in 2005. It’s been an apparent problem for quite some time. Richard Mawrey KC, who seems often to be the judge in this cases often points out how little has changed in the intervening time.

This thread is about ID to prevent voter fraud, not electoral fraud by politicians.
Voter fraud is often instigated by political candidates. In the Birmingham 2005 case, it was the candidates and their agents that organised mass postal ballot fraud, both intercepting legitimate ballots and changing them, and also inventing ghost voters and collecting their votes.

The poster child for corrupt elections is the 2014 Tower Hamlets mayoral election. Pick an electoral offence and it seemed to have occurred. This includes instances of Personation, the offence that Voter ID requirements address.

But the point of my response was to address your statement that this is gerrymandering for the Conservatives, when actually the majority of these groups have tended to vote Labour. So cracking down on postal voting would be more likely to swing things for the Tories as their voters tend to actually get out and vote.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
15,308
Location
St Albans
Postal voting was made “on-demand” in 2000, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/apr/05/politics.localgovernment is a report of convictions for postal vote fraud in 2005. It’s been an apparent problem for quite some time. Richard Mawrey KC, who seems often to be the judge in this cases often points out how little has changed in the intervening time.
Given that postal fraud would have been increasing from a low during the naughties, there would be relatively little time to deal with it, especially compared with the 13 years that the Conservatives have had the opportunity, especially as that period encapsulates the Rahman offence, its two complete investigations and the resulting trial.


Voter fraud is often instigated by political candidates. In the Birmingham 2005 case, it was the candidates and their agents that organised mass postal ballot fraud, both intercepting legitimate ballots and changing them, and also inventing ghost voters and collecting their votes.

The poster child for corrupt elections is the 2014 Tower Hamlets mayoral election. Pick an electoral offence and it seemed to have occurred. This includes instances of Personation, the offence that Voter ID requirements address.

But the point of my response was to address your statement that this is gerrymandering for the Conservatives, when actually the majority of these groups have tended to vote Labour. So cracking down on postal voting would be more likely to swing things for the Tories as their voters tend to actually get out and vote.
I don't agree that the benefit of postal vote fraud is necessarily more labour biased, but that it is more practiced by family 'leaders' where small businesses predominate. The voters that "get out and vote" aren't necessarily from that demographic. But those who are unlikely to have the now required photo ID definitely are from the section of the community that that requires the type of support that a more centrist government normally provides.
There will be an Electoral Commission review of the impact of the new ID rules and their poor implementation, however, the Conservative candidates did so poorly in the elections last week that the difference in actual ward results would have little political impact.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
I'm afraid the following quote contains emotive language but if those with valid ID have been turned away, then this needs sorting out. I would have thought that there would have been examples valid ID would have been available; or there was someway that staff could send an image of the ID to have it assessed by an expert. Of course, they could apply for the alternative Voter certificate but that will not help those who didn't vote this time but rely on it next time. My main concern would be whether this experience will deter those turned away from voting in the future.

Youngsters were barred from voting at the local elections despite having the correct ID, researchers reveal today.

Some would-be electors holding Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) cards were denied the right to cast a ballot last Thursday - even though the photo identification is an acceptable form of ID, according to Unlock Democracy.

The campaign group said new voter ID rules had led to a “total disenfranchisement of the youth”.

One would-be voter posted on Twitter: “Despite having a Citizen card photo ID with the PASS hologram I've been denied my vote.”

Paul Monk, who is a vicar in Oldham, Gtr Manchester, said: “My daughter was turned away from the voting booth.

“She felt absolutely humiliated.

“This same ID is accepted everywhere and was advertised as voting compliant.”

Others told how polling station officials were “confused” by the ID, which was among several forms of identification voters could use.

Another said: “When I presented it to them they told me it wasn’t a valid form of ID and I therefore couldn’t use it.”

Unlock Democracy warned there had been “many incidents in which the polling staff were unaware that this form of ID, which tends to be used more by young people, should be accepted”.

The group said there had been “many examples of voters having to prove the eligibility of the PASS cards themselves and waiting until the polling staff confirmed the information, while there have been reports of other voters being turned away and unable to cast their vote, as the polling staff did not confirm the rules”.
source https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...p&cvid=885a9c536f754368b33b8f35a9e6fd42&ei=40]
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,222
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If this has happened then in my view the result should be invalidated from that polling station, and the election rerun if it could have affected the result. That is very, very serious indeed.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
If this has happened then in my view the result should be invalidated from that polling station, and the election rerun if it could have affected the result. That is very, very serious indeed.
The 'If' is important but it must be easy for any media sources who doubt it to check. It takes about 30 seconds to find that Dr Paul Monk is indeed a priest in charge of two churches in the Oldham area, from that he can be contacted. There were elections for Oldham council.

Numbers may be exaggerated but even if there are very few, it appears that not many people cast votes when they were not entitled to under the old scheme. We seem to have simply swapped a scheme where some people voted who shouldn't for one where some people were denied the vote who should have been permitted to exercise it.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,311
I'm afraid the following quote contains emotive language but if those with valid ID have been turned away, then this needs sorting out. I would have thought that there would have been examples valid ID would have been available; or there was someway that staff could send an image of the ID to have it assessed by an expert. Of course, they could apply for the alternative Voter certificate but that will not help those who didn't vote this time but rely on it next time. My main concern would be whether this experience will deter those turned away from voting in the future.


source https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...p&cvid=885a9c536f754368b33b8f35a9e6fd42&ei=40]
I feel an undertone here, someone with a whole bag of chips on each shoulder, or at least a media outlet desperate to whip up some clicks.

Throughout this issue (real world, not this thread) there has been a clear attempt to set young against old. It is NOT a generational issue. The issue is about the need to prove your identity (when it has not been previously required), the ease of securing photo ID (for those who do not have any items on the list) and the impact this may have on election results specifically in favour of one political party (generally seen as the one currently in power also making the new rules).

Old people have been disenfranchised, middle-aged people have been disenfranchised, young people have been disenfranchised. Ditto race, religion, creed, gender, whatever. Divide and conquer the disenfranchised seems to be the order of the day.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
I feel an undertone here, someone with a whole bag of chips on each shoulder, or at least a media outlet desperate to whip up some clicks.

Throughout this issue (real world, not this thread) there has been a clear attempt to set young against old. It is NOT a generational issue. The issue is about the need to prove your identity (when it has not been previously required), the ease of securing photo ID (for those who do not have any items on the list) and the impact this may have on election results specifically in favour of one political party (generally seen as the one currently in power also making the new rules).

Old people have been disenfranchised, middle-aged people have been disenfranchised, young people have been disenfranchised. Ditto race, religion, creed, gender, whatever. Divide and conquer the disenfranchised seems to be the order of the day.
I don't disagree but if we are going to have Photo ID and they establish rules for what they are, then it is down to those administering elections to ensure that those producing that ID are permitted to vote. I would be interested in numbers, and the reasons why these were rejected. There seem to be a number of providers of the PASS cards but this is not the potential voters fault, they were told it was a valid method of identification.

My concern is for democracy long term. I have voted in almost all elections in which I had the opportunity (only ones I didn't was a couple of times when I was working, and when I was a student as I was registered at my home address); I haven't got many more General Elections in me, but younger people tend not to vote - certainly if my relatives are anything to go by (much less than 50%, probably less than 25%). Mostly it is apathy and 'they are all the same' but to have a situation where barriers are put in front of people (any people) and when they clear them, be told they haven't, is hardly encouraging. Someone needs to find out why these were declined and make it known, whether it be these young people or some little old lady (or man) who is denied. Incidentally, every time my bus pass is renewed, the same photo is always used, I wonder whether anyone was declined for having a bus pass picture which has stopped looking like them.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,266
Its worth saying cards like Citizen Card and other similar ones with the PASS logo have always been a massive mixed bag in terms of places actually accepting them. Even when the place has the logo / card in a poster of ID's they accept!
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,311
I don't disagree but if we are going to have Photo ID and they establish rules for what they are, then it is down to those administering elections to ensure that those producing that ID are permitted to vote. I would be interested in numbers, and the reasons why these were rejected. There seem to be a number of providers of the PASS cards but this is not the potential voters fault, they were told it was a valid method of identification.

My concern is for democracy long term. I have voted in almost all elections in which I had the opportunity (only ones I didn't was a couple of times when I was working, and when I was a student as I was registered at my home address); I haven't got many more General Elections in me, but younger people tend not to vote - certainly if my relatives are anything to go by (much less than 50%, probably less than 25%). Mostly it is apathy and 'they are all the same' but to have a situation where barriers are put in front of people (any people) and when they clear them, be told they haven't, is hardly encouraging. Someone needs to find out why these were declined and make it known, whether it be these young people or some little old lady (or man) who is denied. Incidentally, every time my bus pass is renewed, the same photo is always used, I wonder whether anyone was declined for having a bus pass picture which has stopped looking like them.
I would agree.

I'm too old to understand the concept of needing to prove my age to buy alcohol! Back in the bad old days etc. Basically I wouldn't know what a PASS card / logo looked like. I would hope that the polling station staff were given some training on this new photo ID requirement, however it was all (in local government terms) a bit hurried. I would suggest having a 'crib sheet' of all the PASS types (and other accepted ID too) available to which the clerk could refer, but perhaps some could have slipped through the net with there being a wide range of PASS cards.

It is unnaceptable that someone was prevented from voting who was entitled to do so but it is probably inevitable. I guess there are people prevented from voting at every election for some reason or other. I shall await factual information from an authoritative source before making my mind up. The squawks of a few people on social media and a political campaign group whipping up inter-generational hatred doesn't do it for me. Lets see the 'research' that they have undertaken, so far there are less than a handful, mostly un-named, individuals.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
32,345
Location
Scotland
Lets see the 'research' that they have undertaken, so far there are less than a handful, mostly un-named, individuals.
And, while we're at it, lets see the research that shows there was a problem that needed to be solved in the first place.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
8,178
Location
Wilmslow
I would agree.

I'm too old to understand the concept of needing to prove my age to buy alcohol! Back in the bad old days etc. Basically I wouldn't know what a PASS card / logo looked like. I would hope that the polling station staff were given some training on this new photo ID requirement, however it was all (in local government terms) a bit hurried. I would suggest having a 'crib sheet' of all the PASS types (and other accepted ID too) available to which the clerk could refer, but perhaps some could have slipped through the net with there being a wide range of PASS cards.

It is unnaceptable that someone was prevented from voting who was entitled to do so but it is probably inevitable. I guess there are people prevented from voting at every election for some reason or other. I shall await factual information from an authoritative source before making my mind up. The squawks of a few people on social media and a political campaign group whipping up inter-generational hatred doesn't do it for me. Lets see the 'research' that they have undertaken, so far there are less than a handful, mostly un-named, individuals.
You make a good point, I'm 61 and I've never seen or needed to use a PASS card, and only know of their existence in passing because they're mentioned in places like this forum. But at least I've also read the legislation and they're mentioned there, so I'd hope that if I were staffing a polling station I'd also be aware of them. The fact that someone wasn't is bad, as you say. Poor training or inappropriate staff - the latter could be because apparently people who used to be willing to do the job were no longer willing because of the requirement to validate ID - you could say they self-selected themselves out I guess.
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
7,480
Location
Elginshire
There are different PASS (proof of age standards scheme) providers, but the one thing they should all have in common is the PASS hologram. As long as polling station staff are trained to recognise this it shouldn't matter if it's a Citizencard, Post Office card, etc.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
8,178
Location
Wilmslow
Jacob Rees-Mogg, who voted for the legislation when he was part of the government, is now describing (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...es-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live) the photo ID requirement as "gerrymandering", apparently in a bad way because it ended up killing the Conservative vote. He also says that "we upset a system that worked perfectly well". Why has he now seen the light?
4m ago11.50 BST

Rees-Mogg criticises photo ID voting law, calling it move to 'gerrymander' elections​

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory former business secretary, has described the requirement for people to need photo ID to be allowed to vote as “gerrymandering”.

The law, which came into force following the Elections Act 2022, will apply throughout the UK at the next general election, and took effect for the first time at the English local elections earlier this month.

In his speech to the NatCon conference, Rees-Mogg (who defended the legislation when he was a minister and it was going through parliament) said:

Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections.
We found the people who didn’t have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well.
Ministers insist that the legislation was not introduced for party political advantage, and the Electoral Commission originally called for people to have to show ID when they voted. But the system actually chosen by the government – compuslory photo ID, with the list of acceptable photo ID cards appearing to favour pensioners – did fuel opposition suspicions that the move was, at least in part, intended to suppress the anti-Tory vote.

At the weekend the Tory peer Lord Cruddas told the Conservative Democratic Organisation that Labour policies, including abolishing voter ID, would make it impossible for the Tories to win an outright majority again. That confirms that, even if photo ID was not intended as a gerrymandering measure by ministers, at least some Tories saw it as achieving that.

In fact, Labour is not committed to repealing the voter ID law.

Starmer says he wants to consider review of how photo ID voting law worked before deciding whether or not to keep it​

Q: Would you get rid of the photo ID law for voting?

Starmer says he wants to see what the review of how it worked says.

But the government should have publicised the new rule more effectively, he says.
I think that Labour will keep the legislation but expand the range of ID that will be allowed.
 
Last edited:

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Jacob Rees-Mogg, who voted for the legislation when he was part of the government, is now describing (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...es-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live) the photo ID requirement as "gerrymandering", apparently in a bad way because it ended up killing the Conservative vote. He also says that "we upset a system that worked perfectly well". Why has he now seen the light?
The Parable of the Prodigal Son comes to mind.

I have no problem with Starmer's approach. Dumping legislation just because the other lot passed it is rarely a decent strategy. Meet up with groups representing young people and find out what would be acceptable to them, also with Age UK or other groups. We want people to vote, be they young or old, or somewhere in between.

As regards Cruddas, he has probably worked out that many people, particularly young people, were never taken in by the Johnson buffoonery so his champion will not be heading back to No. 10 unless he can ensure the grey vote (which includes me) gets out to vote in numbers.
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,664
"More than 1% of voters, half of whom appeared to be from minority ethnic backgrounds, were turned away from polling stations because of ID requirements at the local elections, according to a group of democracy observers.
Democracy Volunteers, a group of election observers, said it conducted snapshot surveys in 118 councils on 4 May. The group said observers saw 1.2% of those attending polling stations turned away because they lacked the relevant ID, or were judged to not have it. Of those turned away, 53% were identified by observers as appearing to be “non-white”. The group said its teams saw others allowed to vote despite not having ID." This is from the Guardian - don't know how reliable the survey results are.


I read that at least one police officer and nurse were turned away as police/NHS IDs were not on the list of acceptable documents. While it's hard to argue against photo ID on principle, there should be a wider choice of documents, especially for young people and those working in the public sector who carry easily identifiable ID. Hopefully Labour will take this on board if elected to government.
 
Last edited:

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,311

ID rules stopped 14,000 people voting, watchdog finds​

Note: This is an interim report, the full report is due in September.

Link: BBC News

ID rules stopped 14,000 people voting, watchdog finds

About 14,000 people were prevented from voting because they could not show an accepted form of photo ID during England's local elections, according to the Electoral Commission.


Ethnic minorities and unemployed voters were more likely to be turned away, research by the watchdog suggests.

"Significantly more" were put off voting by the requirement to show ID at polling stations, the report found.

The policy was rolled out for the first time in Britain in May's elections.

Data collected at polling station showed 0.25% of those who went to a polling station were not able to vote as a result of not being able to show ID, approximately 14,000 voters in total.

The true figure is thought to be higher as some of those who wanted to vote at polling stations might have turned away after reading the requirements at the entrance but were not formally recorded, the Commission said.

The figures are also based on incomplete data received from 226 of the 230 councils where polls were held this year.

The policy will be widened to cover all UK elections, meaning it will apply to voters in the by-elections to replace Boris Johnson, Nigel Adams and David Warburton on 20 July.

It is also set to be in force for the next general election, expected next year.

Data collected by the Electoral Commission, the independent body that oversees elections, found "some correlation" between the numbers turned away and "specific socio-demographic factors, such as ethnicity and unemployment".

Craig Westwood, director of communications at the commission, said "it is too soon to draw conclusions", but added "some of the emerging evidence is concerning".

No cases of personation - where someone pretends to be another person, in order to vote - were reported during this year's elections. In 2022, there were 13 cases recorded by police, including seven at polling stations, none of which led to prosecutions.

Research published by the commission on Friday found 0.7% of voters were initially turned away from polling stations in May. Around two-thirds of these returned later in the day and were able to vote.

Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner said the rules were having a "chilling effect on democracy" and called for a "comprehensive review into this discredited policy".

Ms Rayner said: "No legitimate voter should be locked out of democracy but that has been the effect of the Tories' failed voter ID regulations.

Lib Dem spokesperson Helen Morgan said the policy "looks like a transparent attempt at voter suppression by Conservative ministers who are desperate to stop people from holding them to account".

"It is an outrage that thousands of people were denied a voice at the local elections because of the Conservative Party's Voter ID rules," she added.

Gerrymandering claim

The government announced the voter ID move in 2021, arguing it would tackle voter fraud and boost public confidence in elections.

Passports, driving licences and blue badges are among the IDs permitted. Only 25,000 of the 90,000 free Voter Authority Certificates applied for before May's election were used as a form of ID.

There have been only a handful of convictions for electoral fraud in recent years - but ministers argue a lack of evidence could be masking the true level.

They also point out that voter ID has been a requirement in Northern Ireland since 2003, as well as in many other European countries.

Opposition parties voted against it, arguing it was unnecessary and would hit turnout among marginalised groups. In April, shadow foreign secretary David Lammy said Labour would get rid of the rule if it won power.

Conservative MP Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was in the Cabinet when the measure was introduced, recently said the voter ID policy had been an attempt at gerrymandering - fixing rules to gain electoral advantage.

High awareness

He said the measure had come "back to bite them," claiming his party's vote had been hit because older people, who were more likely to vote Tory, were also more likely to lack an accepted form of identity.

Before the election, 87% of people in England were aware that they needed to show photo ID to vote at a polling station, according to a survey carried on behalf of the commission. The polling excluded London, which did not hold local elections in May.

Mr Westwood said: "The evidence suggests that the vast majority of voters were able to present an accepted form of ID at the May elections.

"But it also shows that some people were prevented from voting in polling stations due to the requirement, and significantly more did not attempt to because they lacked the required ID.

"Overall awareness was high and achieved in a matter of months, but we can see that people who lacked ID were less likely to know they needed to show it.

The commission plans to publish its full election report in September.
 

BluePenguin

On Moderation
Joined
26 Sep 2016
Messages
1,605
Location
Kent

ID rules stopped 14,000 people voting, watchdog finds​

Note: This is an interim report, the full report is due in September.

Link: BBC News
This is deeply concerning news, although not surprising at the same time. Anyone who does not drink alcohol, drive a car or travel on holiday abroad probably does not vote either though, as typically this niche are not particularly worldly people and prefer to keep themselves to themselves
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent

ID rules stopped 14,000 people voting, watchdog finds​

Note: This is an interim report, the full report is due in September.

Link: BBC News
There is one sentence which, to me. stands out as requiring a change. Instead of:
Data collected at polling station showed 0.25% of those who went to a polling station were not able to vote as a result of not being able to show ID, approximately 14,000 voters in total.
I would have written:

Data collected at polling station showed 0.25% of those who went to a polling station were not able to vote as a result of not being able to show acceptable ID, approximately 14,000 voters in total.

I was going to include 'valid' but I am sure somewhere, I believe upthread, there were people with '18+' PASS cards who were turned away. There are three by-elections in less than four weeks, the clerks in those constituencies need to be made aware (with examples) of what all valid cards look like so we don't have a repetition. The press will be out in force, particularly in Uxbridge, so examples of voters being turned away (complete with photos of 'voters' with sad faces) will doubtless fill a few columns during the day. Every example undermines the opinion that voter ID enhances democracy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

This is deeply concerning news, although not surprising at the same time. Anyone who does not drink alcohol [tick, medical reasons], drive a car [tick, I would be a useless driver and there are already enough of them on the roads] or travel on holiday abroad [tick, what is the point when there are so many great places to go in this country, and no faff - no customs, I've got my holiday money, booking transport is pretty simple and once there 'Bus Pass, will travel' - OK there are exceptions] probably does not vote either though [!], as typically this niche are not particularly worldly people and prefer to keep themselves to themselves
Why would people like me not vote? Policies affect us as much as anyone else? I've been permitted to vote for over half a century; I have missed one election. The polling station opened late (I don't know how late as I had to get to work but over 20 minutes and they were still setting up tables), rushed back after work (late on a Thursday) but too late so I then got a postal vote which I've had ever since.

There must be a fair few people in the large cities who haven't got much cash - particularly with sky high rents, who don't holiday abroad, don't find it worthwhile to spend out on a car if there are regular, cheap buses, and don't drink These are the very people that need to vote. If you are loaded, moving the band at which you start to pay income tax is not going to make a fat lot of difference regarding your lifestyle, at the bottom end of the spectrum it is a different story. My grandmother instilled in me the need to vote and she was born in the slums of Merseyside, when they had nothing.

I will admit to keeping myself to myself but I will talk to people I don't know, particularly if I think I can be helpful; I am fairly up-to-date on current affairs, as are many that I know who are in a similar position to me, as we don't tend to get involved in tittle-tattle so have time to concentrate on what is going on in the world and locally.
 
Last edited:

Lloyds siding

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2020
Messages
515
Location
Merseyside
There is one sentence which, to me. stands out as requiring a change. Instead of:

I would have written:

Data collected at polling station showed 0.25% of those who went to a polling station were not able to vote as a result of not being able to show acceptable ID, approximately 14,000 voters in total.

I was going to include 'valid' but I am sure somewhere, I believe upthread, there were people with '18+' PASS cards who were turned away. There are three by-elections in less than four weeks, the clerks in those constituencies need to be made aware (with examples) of what all valid cards look like so we don't have a repetition. The press will be out in force, particularly in Uxbridge, so examples of voters being turned away (complete with photos of 'voters' with sad faces) will doubtless fill a few columns during the day. Every example undermines the opinion that voter ID enhances democracy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


Why would people like me not vote? Policies affect us as much as anyone else? I've been permitted to vote for over half a century; I have missed one election. The polling station opened late (I don't know how late as I had to get to work but over 20 minutes and they were still setting up tables), rushed back after work (late on a Thursday) but too late so I then got a postal vote which I've had ever since.

There must be a fair few people in the large cities who haven't got much cash - particularly with sky high rents, who don't holiday abroad, don't find it worthwhile to spend out on a car if there are regular, cheap buses, and don't drink These are the very people that need to vote. If you are loaded, moving the band at which you start to pay income tax is not going to make a fat lot of difference regarding your lifestyle, at the bottom end of the spectrum it is a different story. My grandmother instilled in me the need to vote and she was born in the slums of Merseyside, when they had nothing.

I will admit to keeping myself to myself but I will talk to people I don't know, particularly if I think I can be helpful; I am fairly up-to-date on current affairs, as are many that I know who are in a similar position to me, as we don't tend to get involved in tittle-tattle so have time to concentrate on what is going on in the world and locally.
Polling Stations are not allowed to 'open late'. If you turn up to vote at the polling place in voting hours the you MUST be able to vote...as a Presiding Office at a Polling Station I've been told to sit in my car with the ballot box and get the Polling Clerks to direct people to me if the key holder doesn't turn up.
I only have one acceptable piece of photo ID myself: my passport...and I only have that because 5 years ago I had to buy it to get divorced, because I had no other form of valid ID!
And, yes, some older people in Merseyside were unable to vote because the bus pass they had was unacceptable, unlike older people in some other areas who could.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Polling Stations are not allowed to 'open late'. If you turn up to vote at the polling place in voting hours the you MUST be able to vote...as a Presiding Office at a Polling Station I've been told to sit in my car with the ballot box and get the Polling Clerks to direct people to me if the key holder doesn't turn up.
Thank you, I wish I had known that, I was not the only one outside (in fact I was surprised how many, probably just over half a dozen, were ahead of me) and it was clear there were people inside setting up (you could see and hear them). It would have been about 20 years ago.

I gather the problem with the 'PASS' cards is there are several different designs (but all have the same hologram).
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,152
I gather the problem with the 'PASS' cards is there are several different designs (but all have the same hologram).
There's several different designs of driving license as well, and even valid UK passports come in more than one colour.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
15,308
Location
St Albans
There's several different designs of driving license as well, and even valid UK passports come in more than one colour.
It seems that the desperation to force voters to show photo ID was more important than training presiding officers to recognise the approvedtypes of ID. It's almost as if that was intentional. :|
 

Lloyds siding

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2020
Messages
515
Location
Merseyside
It seems that the desperation to force voters to show photo ID was more important than training presiding officers to recognise the approvedtypes of ID. It's almost as if that was intentional. :|
We all had the same training, but very close to the event, with a lot to take in. We normally do this training on the same timescale...it has to be fairly close to the event in case emergency changes take place...this year I believe that the 'acceptable list' of ID was changing until not long before the election. My poll clerks and I received documents showing the extensive list of acceptable ID. Using my own initiative I printed these out in colour and laminated them to help the staff and I with identifying the ID. I know this was appreciated, and it would have been useful if the council had provided them.
It was new for us, and new for the voters....I was pleasantly surprised at how smoothly it went.
However, the changes brought about a significant reduction in staff willing to work at the polling station...I was lucky to continue with my experienced poll clerks at my station, and I've been working on elections, latterly as Presiding Officer, for decades. I do know some stations had mainly new staff, and we had cries of help from neighbouring authorities to provide staff. I ended up counting votes the day after the election in an adjacent authority.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
We all had the same training, but very close to the event, with a lot to take in. We normally do this training on the same timescale...it has to be fairly close to the event in case emergency changes take place...this year I believe that the 'acceptable list' of ID was changing until not long before the election. My poll clerks and I received documents showing the extensive list of acceptable ID. Using my own initiative I printed these out in colour and laminated them to help the staff and I with identifying the ID. I know this was appreciated, and it would have been useful if the council had provided them.
It was new for us, and new for the voters....I was pleasantly surprised at how smoothly it went.
However, the changes brought about a significant reduction in staff willing to work at the polling station...I was lucky to continue with my experienced poll clerks at my station, and I've been working on elections, latterly as Presiding Officer, for decades. I do know some stations had mainly new staff, and we had cries of help from neighbouring authorities to provide staff. I ended up counting votes the day after the election in an adjacent authority.
Thank you for this. Very helpful.

I appreciate that the training has to be close to the event but the need for prospective voters to provide ID was new so there would need to be more time in explaining this. I hope that was provided (it might be wise not to answer that). I have been on fairly similar panels where training is required , where the 'old lags' recognise the cue for the familiar jokes sentences away but where there is something new they have to 'unlearn' what happened before, but that is not necessarily easy. Here, I don't think it was helpful that the need to combat fraud was emphasised as it may have caused polling station staff to err on the side of caution (fearing an outcry when someone was permitted to vote with unacceptable ID; I half expected one of the less scrupulous media sources to try it on so that they could proclaim 'Brexit-hating, Extinction Rebellion supporting, Corbynista, Woke council allows fraudulent voting' because one person slips through the net). In situations where the procedure follows year after year, 'newbies' can always ask the 'old lags' but that would have been more difficult here.
I am gratified that your resourcefulness was welcomed by your colleagues, but can only agree that this needs to provided to all staff, everywhere, not just in your authority - there needs to be consistency if trust in the electoral system is to be maintained. I hadn't got a clue what a PASS card looks like until I started contributing to this thread and I don't suppose I am unique.
 

Buzby

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2023
Messages
1,169
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Isn’t it well known that fraud AT polling stations is practically non-existent, so the whole process is tainted that it is simply another hurdle to vote? In my 60-odd years as a voter I have lost count of the stories regarding misuse of postal voting where landlords hoover up the envelopes and arrange for their preferred candidate to win. Indeed, (Baroness) Ruth Davidson was reported as noting voting ‘trends’ in postal votes that supposedly had not even been counted yet. How long to go before DNA is required? By that time I’ll have decided it’s not worth it anymore.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
32,345
Location
Scotland
No, because actually the system is designed to not even detect it.
That's not fair. The system isn't designed to detect it, rather than being designed not to detect it.

Subtle difference but quite important.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Isn’t it well known that fraud AT polling stations is practically non-existent, so the whole process is tainted that it is simply another hurdle to vote? In my 60-odd years as a voter I have lost count of the stories regarding misuse of postal voting where landlords hoover up the envelopes and arrange for their preferred candidate to win. Indeed, (Baroness) Ruth Davidson was reported as noting voting ‘trends’ in postal votes that supposedly had not even been counted yet. How long to go before DNA is required? By that time I’ll have decided it’s not worth it anymore.
Is this the referendum? If not, do you have a source as that is the one that came up when I searched?

As a postal voter, I regard this is serious as there seems to be no way to check whether it has been counted (unless others know better).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top