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

[Buzby]

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).

As was I (due to my job, for almost 25 years) then, you needed a reason to obtain a postal vote and I was satisfied by this right up to Davidson’s statement at the Referendum. After it, I requested cancellation of my postal vote and every election since then I had the inconvenience of schlepping round to a local primary school to vote - which I do to this day as a direct result of her revelatio. If she was lying, that’s bad enough but if she wasn’t it was this that needed sorting, NOT faffing round requiring voters to jump through hoops for a possible problem.

 

[bahnause]

The election watchdog sees some problems with voter ID. The government doesn't. What a surprise...

The Guardian: Electoral Commission says policy could exclude hundreds of thousands of voters in a general election.

Hundreds of thousands of people could be excluded from voting in a UK general election because of voter ID laws, the government’s election watchdog has said.

The laws could have a disproportionate effect on poorer people, those with disabilities and people from minority ethnic backgrounds, the Electoral Commission warned.


It said ministers should take urgent action to alleviate these impacts, including drawing up a wider list of documents that people can show to vote and allowing people without ID to have someone else vouch for their identity.

Such a damning verdict from the official body for elections risks considerable embarrassment for ministers, who have repeatedly refused to engage with similar concerns from charities and other groups about the impact of voter ID.

However, in its own statement about the report, the Department for Levelling Up, which has responsibility for elections, failed to mention any of the criticisms and said the rollout of voter ID had instead been “very encouraging”.

The commission’s report, based on a detailed study of the May local elections in England, the first mass use of voter ID in the UK outside Northern Ireland, said the disfranchising effect of the law was very likely to be proportionately greater in a general election.

Among people who did not vote in May, 4% said this was because of voter ID. If this figure went up to 5%, it could mean about 800,000 people staying away from the polls at a general election.

The study additionally found a disproportionate impact on certain demographic groups. In May, there tended to be a higher proportion of people turned away for lacking ID in more deprived areas than in more prosperous places.

The survey of people who did not vote in May found that while 3% overall said this was because they lacked the required ID. This rose to 8% for those who were unemployed and 9% for people with a significant disability.

Similarly, young voters or those from minority ethnic backgrounds were five times as likely as the overall average to say they were unable to vote because they took the wrong ID to a polling station.

Ministers have faced significant criticism over the limited number of acceptable forms of ID, which include a series of documents issued to older people but almost none issued to younger ones, such as travel passes and student documents.

One of the report’s key recommendations is that the current list should be expanded in a way that would help excluded groups to vote. Another proposal is to allow a voter who does have ID to make an “attestation” at a polling station, vouching for the identity of someone who lacks the necessary documents.

Any changes should happen “at the earliest opportunity” given the prospect of a general election this year or next year, the commission said, warning more generally that a mass of changes had left the electoral system creaking badly.

Although election teams carried off the May local elections without significant hitches, this was only done because of “exceptional efforts and commitment” and in some cases by borrowing staff from neighbouring areas not holding a vote, which would not be possible in a general election, the report said.

It reiterated previous warnings from electoral officers that pressures including ID enforcement had made it increasingly hard to recruit polling station staff, with almost a quarter reporting “significant issues”.

Florence Eshalomi, the shadow democracy minister, called for a review of the policy. She said: “This extremely concerning report brings into sharp focus the consequences of the Tories’ failed photo ID regulations. It’s wrong that the Conservatives have snatched the ability of legitimate voters to have a say in their services and society.”

Rishi Sunak’s official spokesperson said the government would consider the findings of the report, adding: “We have said that we would learn any lessons from this initial rollout.”

 

[najaB]

The election watchdog sees some problems with voter ID. The government doesn't. What a surprise...

Yeah. But they're just experts. And know what they are like.

 

[Buzby]

Even worse up here - no ID required for Scottish elections but a must for Westminster. I have a feeling this disparity will cause problems down the line as I have no currently accepted valid ID and am in no mood to apply for any. The tories have invented a problem and it will hopefully work against them….

 

[jfollows]

For me, the telling comment, reported in https://www.theguardian.com/politic...al-and-disability-discrimination-report-finds is

The current voter-ID system is, as it stands, a ‘poisoned cure’ in that it disenfranchises more electors than it protects.

I have always believed this would turn out to be the case, but what I didn't expect is that it seems less discriminatory than I first believed in the sense that more potential Conservative voters were excluded by the legislation than had been anticipated.
Be that as it may, I think that Labour will fiddle with the legislation and implement acceptance of a greater range of ID documents (as originally proposed by the House of Lords, but thrown out by the Conservatives in the Commons) and maybe do something about the lack of training (presumably lack of money) by local authorities to people who need to validate ID.

 

[sor]

I don't think this shambles is ever going to be repealed (it'll be too easy for the Tories to scream about how Labour wants to make elections insecure, no matter what the actual facts around fraud are), but they'd do well to move to the Canadian style system. It is essentially how you'd do it in a country without universal government photo ID.

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e - you can see it essentially includes everyone, right down to homeless people who can have their shelter or soup kitchen vouch for them. Another essential difference is that anyone who votes at the same polling station and who knows you can also vouch for you.

 

[geoffk]

I must say I find it hard to argue against voter ID but there needs to be a wider range of acceptable documents. The Canadian system appears to provide that. I was amused though when Rees-Mogg more or less admitted that the plan, intended to disenfranchise non-Tory voters, had backfired. “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" he said (allegedly).

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think this shambles is ever going to be repealed (it'll be too easy for the Tories to scream about how Labour wants to make elections insecure, no matter what the actual facts around fraud are), but they'd do well to move to the Canadian style system. It is essentially how you'd do it in a country without universal government photo ID.

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e - you can see it essentially includes everyone, right down to homeless people who can have their shelter or soup kitchen vouch for them. Another essential difference is that anyone who votes at the same polling station and who knows you can also vouch for you.

Having someone you know vouch for you is ridiculous and you wouldn't even be allowed to withdraw a single pound from your bank account in this way. The government must simply provide better documentation to identify people.

 

[najaB]

Having someone you know vouch for you is ridiculous and you wouldn't even be allowed to withdraw a single pound from your bank account in this way.

I'd say that, depending on who is doing the vouching, it is safer and more reliable than photographic ID.

 

[ainsworth74]

I must say I find it hard to argue against voter ID but there needs to be a wider range of acceptable documents.

Agreed, broadly, it is a little mad that we could vote without ID but I still maintain this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and a half-baked policy which has far more to suggest an attempt at voter suppression than one aimed at dealing with an actual problem (for which there remains little evidence, and even less of fraud which could have had a material impact on the outcome of a vote).

To me the starting point should have been to thoroughly review the process and procedures behind postal and proxy voting (the main sources of actual issues in recent years), whilst ensuring that Councils are better keeping on top of their voter registration rolls (funding!) and providing plenty of time for people to sign up for their necessary IDs (again funding for Council's to make it happen).

Of course, the reality is, what we should do is be like most other places and just provide everyone with a free Government ID rather than relying on a hodgepodge of Driving Licences, Passports or combinations of documents like birth certificates, bank statements, bus passes, Oysters and whatnot that we appear to be relying on to interact with the Government and other businesses and organisations that need to verify people's ID.

 

[sor]

This country has a huge aversion to ID cards, but it seems like there could be a reasonable compromise that doesn't turn into a surveillance state toy, eg the "passport card" as issued in Ireland or the US, or do as many US states do and issue ID cards using the same systems as driving licences but without conferring any driving privileges

Having someone you know vouch for you is ridiculous and you wouldn't even be allowed to withdraw a single pound from your bank account in this way. The government must simply provide better documentation to identify people.

I think it's far better than arbitrary selections of bus passes and specific types of oyster cards, or passports that could be long expired and look nothing like you anymore but are still OK for voting purposes.

I would assume the Canadian vouching process requires you to sign something to that effect (you'd have to show your own ID of course) and would make any fraud investigation a slam dunk. I also assume there's a reason why Canada included this, eg intended for use in isolated communities rather than central Toronto

 

[Ediswan]

I think it's far better than arbitrary selections of bus passes and specific types of oyster cards, or passports that could be long expired and look nothing like you anymore but are still OK for voting purposes.

Not permitted as voter ID.

 

[sor]

Not permitted as voter ID.

Expired ID is permitted, though the government suggests it has to look like you. Who determines this? What happens if the poll worker decides it's not you? It becomes a subjective matter that some poor volunteer has to decide on. I don't believe there's a hard cutoff in terms of how expired it can be.

It shouldn't really be permitted, you can't use it for other government interactions and that's why passports and photocard driving licences have expiry dates, but it is yet another concession that had to be granted to make this wretched policy vaguely workable.

 

[jfollows]

Expired ID is permitted, though the government suggests it has to look like you. Who determines this? What happens if the poll worker decides it's not you? It becomes a subjective matter that some poor volunteer has to decide on. I don't believe there's a hard cutoff in terms of how expired it can be.

It shouldn't really be permitted, you can't use it for other government interactions and that's why passports and photocard driving licences have expiry dates, but it is yet another concession that had to be granted to make this wretched policy vaguely workable.

The problem was exacerbated by the inadequate training given to poll workers, and it certainly occurred to me prior to the election that although I might have volunteered for the role in previous elections there was no way I was going to subject myself to potential disputes because of voter ID this time. I suspect that finding people to fill the role will continue to be a problem.

 

[JamesT]

I think it's far better than arbitrary selections of bus passes and specific types of oyster cards, or passports that could be long expired and look nothing like you anymore but are still OK for voting purposes.

I would assume the Canadian vouching process requires you to sign something to that effect (you'd have to show your own ID of course) and would make any fraud investigation a slam dunk

The selection of voter id wasn't arbitrary. The allowed types of bus pass etc. were those where you'd had to prove your identity to get the pass to a robust standard. If you don't look like your id, then it's not usable for voting purposes either.

 

[sor]

The selection of voter id wasn't arbitrary. The allowed types of bus pass etc. were those where you'd had to prove your identity to get the pass to a robust standard. If you don't look like your id, then it's not usable for voting purposes either.

For oyster cards it absolutely was - the standard for the student oyster is much higher than the government led people to believe (TfL limits applications to students of approved establishments, those applications must be approved by someone at your college/uni and they already have established your identity as a condition of enrolment), and arguably higher than the process for getting the old age oyster if not applying online

I'm not convinced that the process for an English council bus pass is really all that more rigorous than most of the railcards (my local council even says the NI number is optional), but the latter are not accepted

 

[takno]

Expired ID is permitted, though the government suggests it has to look like you. Who determines this? What happens if the poll worker decides it's not you? It becomes a subjective matter that some poor volunteer has to decide on. I don't believe there's a hard cutoff in terms of how expired it can be.

I had to spend 10 minutes arguing about whether my passport looked like me with an absolute idiot Border Force goon at 6am once, and her argument as somebody who had presumably received training in this was that "your hair isn't the same colour". I'm inclined to just get a postal vote for the next GE rather than deal with that. People aren't good at this kind of thing, even when they've had training.

 

[Buzby]

I had planned to go down the Postal Vote route until I discovered they wanted my NI number along with in date Driving Licence and/or Valid passport. We know there’s no secrecy of your vote, but let’s link it to your DoB (mandatory) and National Insurance data. Previously is was OK to attest you were ‘Over 21 (or 18’) but no longer it is prove it to our satisfaction or you don’t get to vote!

 

[jfollows]

The Guardian reports (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...k-cards-expansion-electoral-commisison-report) that we may get more forms of acceptable ID, presumably in time for the next election, however "unlikely to cover documents used by younger people such as 18-plus travel passes". So presumably Labour will argue that more "documents used by younger people" should be included.

Electoral Commission

More forms of ID may be allowed for UK voters after damning report​

Ministers to review policy but any change unlikely to cover documents used by younger people such as 18-plus travel passes

Peter Walker Deputy political editor
@peterwalker99
Thu 14 Sep 2023 13.39 BST


The government has indicated it could expand the list of ID people can use to vote after a damning Electoral Commission report about the rollout of the new rules, but has said this is unlikely to cover documents used by younger people such as 18-plus travel passes.
Addressing MPs about the report, which warned that hundreds of thousands of people could be excluded from a general election, with a disproportionate impact on more disadvantaged communities, levelling up minister Rachel Maclean said ministers would now review the scheme.

However, while the Electoral Commission and a group representing electoral officials have called for rapid action to ensure any changes are in place before a general election, Maclean declined to give any details for the review.
The commission’s study, based on the impact of voter ID in May’s local elections across England, made a series of recommendations including a broader list of possible documents and methods to allow people without ID to vote.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...dog-issues-damning-verdict-on-voter-id-impact
Answering an urgent question from the Liberal Democrats in the Commons, Maclean reiterated the government’s insistence that the scheme had worked very well, despite evidence it stopped a number of people from voting, particular those who were younger, poorer, with disabilities, or from minority ethnic backgrounds.

Asked by Labour’s Andrew Gwynne if the government would consider including more young people’s ID cards – the current list includes seven types of documents for older people, and one for younger age groups – Maclean hinted that while expansion was being considered more generally, this was unlikely.
“I would like the honourable gentleman to look very carefully at the eligibility for 18-year-olds’ Oyster cards and the eligibility for 60+ Oyster cards. They are different,” Maclean told Gwynne, referring to a travel card used in London.
“The eligibility for the 60+ card involves significantly more requirements, including a passport or a driving licence. And of course, it will be the case when we try to expand the level of identification that can be used, we are going to say yes in some instances and no in others, if that eligibility is different.”
The commission’s report found that among people who did not vote in May, 4% said this was because of voter ID, and that this disfranchising effect was very likely to be proportionately greater in a general election.
If it went up to just 5%, it could mean about 800,000 people staying away from the polls at a general election.

The study additionally found there tended to be a higher proportion of people turned away for lacking ID in more deprived areas.

With a general election due this or next year, with a maximum of six weeks’ notice for a snap poll, both the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators have called for rapid efforts to make sure the new system works effectively.

But asked by Labour’s Andrew Western who would conduct the government’s review of the Electoral Commission’s report, and to set out its terms of reference, Maclean said she could do neither yet. “We will make further statements on that process in due course,” she said.

In an often pugnacious appearance, Maclean brushed aside Labour, Lib Dem and SNP concerns about the new voting system as political posturing, saying previous elections had contained a “staggering vulnerability”, despite the lack of evidence about in-person voter fraud.

At one point, Maclean prompted derision from the SNP’s Kirsten Oswald for arguing that the previous voting system might have allowed “international actors” to manipulate elections, citing recent worries about Chinese spying.

“Which international actors are pretending to be Mrs McLaughlin from the high street and trying to vote?” Oswald asked.

 

[takno]

The Guardian reports (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...k-cards-expansion-electoral-commisison-report) that we may get more forms of acceptable ID, presumably in time for the next election, however "unlikely to cover documents used by younger people such as 18-plus travel passes". So presumably Labour will argue that more "documents used by younger people" should be included.

Anybody can see that the aim of the existing set-up is to disenfranchise the young. If the addition of documents is used as an opportunity to further embed that then it will be a disgrace to democracy. If 18+ bus passes are good enough to offset the high risk of of misuse on the buses, then they are certainly good enough to offset the non-existent risk of voter impersonation

 

[Busaholic]

Having someone you know vouch for you is ridiculous and you wouldn't even be allowed to withdraw a single pound from your bank account in this way.

But it lets you apply for a U.K. passport!

 

[PeterC]

Having someone you know vouch for you is ridiculous and you wouldn't even be allowed to withdraw a single pound from your bank account in this way. The government must simply provide better documentation to identify people.

That used to be how you opened a bank account.

 

[SynthD]

Rees-Mogg more or less admitted that the plan, intended to disenfranchise non-Tory voters, had backfired. “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" he said (allegedly).

Two videos where he said it: https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1658122224136597504 and https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1658086782905221120

 

[Baxenden Bank]

That used to be how you opened a bank account.

Or 'we' could stop having this obsession with people proving who they are for an ever increasing number of activities. Particularly where there is an irrelevant number of occurrences. OMG one person (may have) impersonated in an election, barcode every individual immediately!

I realise I should have been replying at @AlterEgo at this point!

 

[najaB]

Or 'we' could stop having this obsession with people proving who they are for an ever increasing number of activities. Particularly where there is an irrelevant number of occurrences. OMG one person (may have) impersonated in an election, barcode every individual immediately!

I both agree with you, and disagree. Though it doesn't happen often, elections can and have been swung by a very small number of votes - there's even one historic incident of a tie in a UK general election - so it's important to try to take all reasonable steps to ensure that only people who are eligible to vote do so. On the other hand, it's more also important to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote has every opportunity to do so. And, on balance, I think that disenfranchisement is the less-favourable outcome.

Perhaps for in-person voting, we should take the approach used in some US states which have voter ID: rather than turning people away, they allow them to cast a provisional ballot and then the person has x number of days to satisfy identity requirements for the vote to be counted. While this could result in delays in determining winners, that would only be a consideration if the number of provisional ballots could potentially affect the result, which one would expect to be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I both agree with you, and disagree. Though it doesn't happen often, elections can and have been swung by a very small number of votes - there's even one historic incident of a tie in a UK general election - so it's important to try to take all reasonable steps to ensure that only people who are eligible to vote do so. On the other hand, it's more important to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote has every opportunity to do so. And, on balance, I think that disenfranchisement is the less-favourable outcome.

Perhaps for in-person voting, we should take the approach used in some US states which have voter ID: rather than turning people away, they allow them to cast a provisional ballot and then the person has x number of days to satisfy identity requirements for the vote to be counted. While this could result in delays in determining winners, that would only be a consideration if the number of provisional ballots could potentially affect the result, which one would expect to be the exception rather than the rule.

It's about proportionality. 'Reasonable steps' being the key phrase, as with risk assessment being 'as low as reasonably practicable' and not 'eliminate the risk entirely', the latter being many peoples* reaction when there is said to be a risk in some activity or other. The loss of the activity having a greater impact on a greater number of people than the risk eliminated.

Disenfranchising, or at least inconveniencing 'millions' (by them having to obtain a voter ID card) for the sake of less than a handful of fraudulent votes is not proportionate.

*'many peoples' may be taken as a hysterical media desperate for easy copy and higher sales/viewing figures or those wholly untrained in risk analysis. If only more people knew that a human life actually has a £ value attached to it!

 

[AM9]

I both agree with you, and disagree. Though it doesn't happen often, elections can and have been swung by a very small number of votes - there's even one historic incident of a tie in a UK general election - so it's important to try to take all reasonable steps to ensure that only people who are eligible to vote do so. On the other hand, it's more important to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote has every opportunity to do so. And, on balance, I think that disenfranchisement is the less-favourable outcome.the number of provisional ballots could potentially affect the result, which one would expect to be the exception rather than the rule.

I assume that the tie that you refer to was just for one constituency in an election rather than the actual general election result. So the level of fraudulent votes cast in a general election is far less likely to impact on which party actually becomes the government.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

This is what a rigged election looks like:

Although the constitution allowed for the existence of a second party, the MPR was the only party allowed to nominate candidates. As a result, Mobutu ran unopposed, with the election taking the form of a referendum on whether to confirm him in office. Voting was not secret; voters had the choice of casting a green ballot paper for a "yes" vote, or a red paper for a "no" vote. There was considerable public pressure to endorse Mobutu's candidacy; a "yes" vote was deemed a vote for hope, while a "no" vote was deemed a vote for chaos, anarchy and foreign ideologies.

The published results showed only 157 'no' votes, with 10,131,669 voting in favour. The total number of votes (10,131,826) was almost 30,500 more than the number of registered voters (10,101,330).

Source: Wikipedia, 1970 Zaire election

 

[najaB]

I assume that the tie that you refer to was just for one constituency in an election rather than the actual general election result. So the level of fraudulent votes cast in a general election is far less likely to impact on which party actually becomes the government.

Yes, it was Ashton-under-Lyne in 1886.