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

[Bletchleyite]

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

I agree with those objections and did object to Labour's National Identity Register on those grounds.

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

It might be fairer to say that if you're under about 30 and drink alcohol it's fairly likely you'll need it all the time

 

[AM9]

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

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

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

This thread about ID for voting in elections, so if voting is the only thing that one does that needs such ID then once a year is of the right order.

 

[MikeWM]

I agree with those objections and did object to Labour's National Identity Register on those grounds.

Good

It might be fairer to say that if you're under about 30 and drink alcohol it's fairly likely you'll need it all the time

I'm not and I don't, but when I was and I did (let's say 20 years ago or so I very rarely found I had to show ID. So this is a change, and despite the fact the basic laws about the legal age for drinking haven't changed, have things really improved as a result?

--

This thread about ID for voting in elections, so if voting is the only thing that one does that needs such ID then once a year is of the right order.

I'm not particularly opposed to needing to show ID for voting *if implemented correctly*, but it does seem like an awful lot of effort to solve a problem that doesn't appear to exist in any meaningful way. Going back to restricting postal votes to be only for those who can't make it to a polling station would be a far more useful move.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not and I don't, but when I was and I did (let's say 20 years ago or so I very rarely found I had to show ID. So this is a change, and despite the fact the basic laws about the legal age for drinking haven't changed, have things really improved as a result?

Depends what you mean by "improved". Underage drinking has near enough been wiped out, if that's seen as an improvement, plus the number of young people who consume it has reduced? In the eyes of the law it certainly is.

 

[Ediswan]

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

Stevenage had a Labour MP from 1997-2010.

 

[nw1]

Stevenage had a Labour MP from 1997-2010.

True, though that is a clear minority of the entire period since 1983.

Having said that, looking into the voting patterns in more detail, the majorities have been, in the main, pretty small, no more so than in 1983 with a majority of just 1755. Suggests Labour could have won it in 1979 had the constituency existed.

The biggest majority was in 2019, and the Tories also got more than 50% of the vote in 2017, suggesting the seat has been moving rightwards in recent times (going against the grain of the typical Blue Wall pattern); they fell a long way short of that figure in both 1983 and 1987. In 1983, progressive parties achieved 60% and in 1987, 58% - while in 2019 the Tories got 53% and the progressives just 47%.

 

[507020]

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

Everyone who doesn’t carry around a wallet but does carry their keys and phone always puts a photo drivers license in the back of a phone case in case they need to show it…

Note that you do not actually need to learn to drive. You can simply apply for a provisional license which is equally valid as ID and nowhere near as bad to lose one of those as it is a passport.

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

I’ve been required to show it probably over 100 times just since the start of this year. It really is ridiculous that how you are unable to purchase random everyday household items without it now and not obvious things like alcohol/vapes.

There is nothing you can do about it other than carry around photo ID 100% of the time to avoid being inconvenienced, or reach state pension age at which point you might be lucky enough to stop being asked.

Young people are disproportionately much, much more likely not only to be in possession of photo ID, but to have it on them when asked, than older people, however much people disagree with the fact. It is the Tories disenfranchising

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I suspect there will be a lot of:

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

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

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

Really?

I know I lead a simple life but I cannot recall the last time I had to provide any kind of ID and never one bearing a photograph*. The most likely reason will have been collecting an item at the Post Office (Amazon pick-up) or Local Delivery Office (too large for letter box) where showing a bank card is quite sufficient.

The post by @nw1 shows how society has 'improved'. As students at a Further Education College (ie 16-18 sort of ages) we habitually went into the pub just down the road for a pint. No-one said a thing, no-one asked for ID. It was quite normal and quite widespread. Never in my life, even as a student, was I asked for ID in a supermarket or pub.

True, if I had a driving licence I may well carry it around in my wallet, but I wouldn't carry a passport around.

* or at least since I was a Higher Education Student and we had a field trip abroad, Amsterdam of all places, when I had one of those one year passports you got from a main post office.

 

[nw1]

Really?

I know I lead a simple life but I cannot recall the last time I had to provide any kind of ID and never one bearing a photograph*. The most likely reason will have been collecting an item at the Post Office (Amazon pick-up) or Local Delivery Office (too large for letter box) where showing a bank card is quite sufficient.

The post by @nw1 shows how society has 'improved'. As students at a Further Education College (ie 16-18 sort of ages) we habitually went into the pub just down the road for a pint. No-one said a thing, no-one asked for ID. It was quite normal and quite widespread. Never in my life, even as a student, was I asked for ID in a supermarket or pub.

I never visited a pub with peers when aged under 18, I will admit. Had no desire to either; my philosophy aged 16 and 17 was that you had the rest of your life to be an adult, so why rush into it? Me, I was just interested in walking, computing and.... erm... public transport. Some might say geeky, but there you are.

 

[XAM2175]

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

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

Not in tech but agreed electronic or online voting gives me serious concerns. The most I'd be willing to do is either using machines to tally the paper ballots or electronic machines (not online) to register the vote for counting purposes but still print a completed ballot paper that the voter can check and deposit in a ballot box which is handled just as the current ballots would be. In both cases this speeds the counting but ensures there is a paper trail so in the event of any disputes you can go in and count by hand. I'd be willing to make that level of concession to electronic voting. But that's it!

I'm in tech too, and I'm fully agreed on this.

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

I'm also mostly aligned on this.

 

[Hadders]

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

The Stevenage constituency includes a number of villages like Codicot, Knebworth, Datchworth and Walkern that aren't part of the Stevenage Borough Councuil area.

Historically it has been a bellwather of the national result.

 

[Magdalia]

Stevenage had a Labour MP from 1997-2010.

Stevenage also had a Labour MP from 1964 to 1979, and a famous one, Shirley Williams.

From 1974-83 Stevenage was part of the Stevenage and Hertford constituency, from 1964-74 part of the Hitchin constituency.

Since 1964, the only time when Stevenage has not elected an MP from the biggest party is 1970-74.

In the 1960s and 1970s Stevenage was much more "London Overspill" than commuterland, with a large industrial estate on the west side of the town, between the railway and the A1M bypass. Older readers will remember the big Geo W King factory next to the new 1973 station, the site of which is now the leisure park.

 

[PsychoMouse]

Stevenage also had a Labour MP from 1964 to 1979, and a famous one, Shirley Williams.

From 1974-83 Stevenage was part of the Stevenage and Hertford constituency, from 1964-74 part of the Hitchin constituency.

Since 1964, the only time when Stevenage has not elected an MP from the biggest party is 1970-74.

In the 1960s and 1970s Stevenage was much more "London Overspill" than commuterland, with a large industrial estate on the west side of the town, between the railway and the A1M bypass. Older readers will remember the big Geo W King factory next to the new 1973 station, the site of which is now the leisure park.

So what you're saying is Stevenage is a good indicator of who is going to win the election?

Be interesting to see how early they normally declare on election night.

 

[jfollows]

Like others, I can't remember the last time I had to prove my ID when I was out and about, I've recently provided a copy of my passport to the people who manage some of my investments but that sort of thing isn't what I'm thinking about. However I do always travel with my wallet which contains my driving licence.

Last time I can remember was the bar departing JFK airport in which they had a policy of checking everyone's ID. And that was more than 10 years ago.

I'm old enough now not to need age verification; like many also when I was younger it wasn't generally possible for pubs to check your age so they just went on what you looked like, and plenty of us used them when we were 17. I was once in a group when I was asked if we were all 18, to which I replied (truthfully) something like "I am 18, I can't vouch for everyone else" and we were all served, in truth I knew the majority were still 17. I was last "seriously" asked in a US supermarket on the eve of my 30th. birthday which amused me rather than annoyed me.

I don't like the insidious trend to expect to have to prove who you are when you're out and about. I was once asked to do so when I visited a potential supplier - I was a potential customer and had an appointment. I refused to comply with the request.

As others have also said, with voting there's probably more of a problem with postal voting, which doesn't need ID verification in the same way.

There are arguments to be made for ID verification for voting, but I don't think any of them stand up. I think this stems from a "task force" in Conservative Central Office to maximise the vote at the next election - so we have voter ID, we have overseas voting and we have boundary changes. All legal and all will have a positive effect on the Conservative vote. And - to the specific topic of this thread - it ends up making it harder for students and other young people to vote than would have been the case, but does not significantly affect the votes of older people.

I hope this law gets amended when Labour gets into power, it's in its interests to do so of course. I think there will be a lot of negative press after the local elections in May.

And, of course, the reality is that it won't affect me - if I voted in person then I always carry my driving license anyway, but in fact I vote by post and I'd be far more annoyed if my right to vote by post were taken away.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Like others, I can't remember the last time I had to prove my ID when I was out and about, I've recently provided a copy of my passport to the people who manage some of my investments but that sort of thing isn't what I'm thinking about. However I do always travel with my wallet which contains my driving licence.

Some bars and clubs, particularly in large cities, are required by their licence to scan everyone's ID so they know who is in the premises so they can tell who has committed a crime by way of a combination of that and the CCTV. But I suppose if you don't go to those places that won't affect you.

 

[jfollows]

Some bars and clubs, particularly in large cities, are required by their licence to scan everyone's ID so they know who is in the premises so they can tell who has committed a crime by way of a combination of that and the CCTV. But I suppose if you don't go to those places that won't affect you.

Interesting, I've never encountered this. I don't imagine I would comply, so I would leave, unless I knew in advance of the requirement. But you're right, I probably don't tend to go to such places myself these days. I wonder what sort of ID is adequate for the licence - I bet it's less restrictive than the voting legislation, that's to say I bet "student ID" would be allowed in the bars and clubs whereas it's not good enough for voting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting, I've never encountered this. I don't imagine I would comply, so I would leave, unless I knew in advance of the requirement. But you're right, I probably don't tend to go to such places myself these days. I wonder what sort of ID is adequate for the licence - I bet it's less restrictive than the voting legislation, that's to say I bet "student ID" would be allowed in the bars and clubs whereas it's not good enough for voting.

I've not been to them often, but I suspect it'd be passport, driving licence or Portman Group proof of age card. Normally those three are the only ones accepted in alcohol-serving situations.

 

[nw1]

Like others, I can't remember the last time I had to prove my ID when I was out and about, I've recently provided a copy of my passport to the people who manage some of my investments but that sort of thing isn't what I'm thinking about. However I do always travel with my wallet which contains my driving licence.

Last time I can remember was the bar departing JFK airport in which they had a policy of checking everyone's ID. And that was more than 10 years ago.

I'm old enough now not to need age verification; like many also when I was younger it wasn't generally possible for pubs to check your age so they just went on what you looked like, and plenty of us used them when we were 17. I was once in a group when I was asked if we were all 18, to which I replied (truthfully) something like "I am 18, I can't vouch for everyone else" and we were all served, in truth I knew the majority were still 17. I was last "seriously" asked in a US supermarket on the eve of my 30th. birthday which amused me rather than annoyed me.

I was "seriously" asked in a US bar aged over 40 !

And once I was completely denied access to a club in California aged a little over 30, due to having no passport with me. The people I was with (who were significantly older) were allowed in. I waited outside for around an hour before the bar management eventually relented and let me in without ID.

By contrast, I've never had any problem at all in the UK. The US's excessive concern about this (banning thirty-somethings from nightclubs if they don't have ID) is certainly at odds with their libertarian image!

There are arguments to be made for ID verification for voting, but I don't think any of them stand up. I think this stems from a "task force" in Conservative Central Office to maximise the vote at the next election - so we have voter ID, we have overseas voting and we have boundary changes. All legal and all will have a positive effect on the Conservative vote. And - to the specific topic of this thread - it ends up making it harder for students and other young people to vote than would have been the case, but does not significantly affect the votes of older people.

I had my suspicions about this. If the Tory Party have done this to attempt to minimise the anti-Tory vote (which tends to be particularly high amongst young people) then that smacks of (legal) pseudo-corruption, and the law needs to be changed. But it's yet another reason why the current post-2019 Tory Party is rotten to the core and needs to be given the boot as soon as possible.

 

[jfollows]

I was "seriously" asked in a US bar aged over 40 !

And once I was completely denied access to a club in California aged a little over 30, due to having no passport. The people I was with (who were significantly older) were allowed in. I waited outside for around an hour before the bar management eventually relented and let me in without ID.

I was certainly accustomed to being asked for ID in the US in my 20s and early 30s, I was once asked for ID for which I showed my state driving license, and was told that it wasn't valid because it had expired. "Yes, but I haven't expired" was my response, but it wasn't good enough .... fortunately enough I also had my passport on meat the time.
I also had a colleague who visited me in Colorado, decided to hire a car to drive to California, picked up a hitch-hiker en route, had a gun pulled on him, lost the car and all his papers. Sorted out a new car and so on, but when he arrived in Huntington Beach he wasn't allowed to buy a beer because he had no ID. Oh well.
EDIT Oh yes, the point of this off-topic ramble was that at least the voter ID legislation allows for "expired" ID, which I think is sensible.

 

[nw1]

I was certainly accustomed to being asked for ID in the US in my 20s and early 30s, I was once asked for ID for which I showed my state driving license, and was told that it wasn't valid because it had expired. "Yes, but I haven't expired" was my response, but it wasn't good enough .... fortunately enough I also had my passport on meat the time.
I also had a colleague who visited me in Colorado, decided to hire a car to drive to California, picked up a hitch-hiker en route, had a gun pulled on him, lost the car and all his papers. Sorted out a new car and so on, but when he arrived in Huntingdon Beach he wasn't allowed to buy a beer because he had no ID. Oh well.

Huntington Beach... not a million miles away from the club I mentioned above! Definitely somewhere in Orange County, but a few miles inland, just off one of the freeways.

 

[duncanp]

I was certainly accustomed to being asked for ID in the US in my 20s and early 30s, I was once asked for ID for which I showed my state driving license, and was told that it wasn't valid because it had expired. "Yes, but I haven't expired" was my response, but it wasn't good enough .... fortunately enough I also had my passport on meat the time.
I also had a colleague who visited me in Colorado, decided to hire a car to drive to California, picked up a hitch-hiker en route, had a gun pulled on him, lost the car and all his papers. Sorted out a new car and so on, but when he arrived in Huntingdon Beach he wasn't allowed to buy a beer because he had no ID. Oh well.
EDIT Oh yes, the point of this off-topic ramble was that at least the voter ID legislation allows for "expired" ID, which I think is sensible.

Sometimes in the United States they ask you for ID on entry to a bar or club if they don't like the look of you and want an excuse to stop you coming in.

In my four visits to the US I have never been asked for ID in a bar or pub.

They can also be a law unto themselves as to what ID they accept. eg. a nightclub in New York might pretend not to recognise a driving licence from Arizona, etc.

 

[najaB]

They can also be a law unto themselves as to what ID they accept. eg. a nightclub in New York might pretend not to recognise a driving licence from Arizona, etc.

To be fair to them, out of state ID can be a nightmare. Not so much for recognising the data but more for not being familiar with the anti-counterfeiting measures.

 

[JamesT]

As others have also said, with voting there's probably more of a problem with postal voting, which doesn't need ID verification in the same way.

Yet. According to https://www.electoralcommission.org...-research/elections-act/changes-postal-voting

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.

There are arguments to be made for ID verification for voting, but I don't think any of them stand up. I think this stems from a "task force" in Conservative Central Office to maximise the vote at the next election - so we have voter ID, we have overseas voting and we have boundary changes. All legal and all will have a positive effect on the Conservative vote. And - to the specific topic of this thread - it ends up making it harder for students and other young people to vote than would have been the case, but does not significantly affect the votes of older people.

I hope this law gets amended when Labour gets into power, it's in its interests to do so of course. I think there will be a lot of negative press after the local elections in May.

And, of course, the reality is that it won't affect me - if I voted in person then I always carry my driving license anyway, but in fact I vote by post and I'd be far more annoyed if my right to vote by post were taken away.

This has been in the works for a while, it's not something that's been drummed up recently by the Tories to hang onto the vote.
https://www.electoralcommission.org..._file/Electoral-fraud-review-final-report.pdf is a report by the independent Electoral Commission in 2014 where they call for Voter ID amongst other measures to improve the security of UK elections. This was then taken on by Eric Pickles in 2016 where he recommended implementing the recommendations.
Overseas voting has been around for decades, I believe that the proposal to extend the franchise beyond 15 years of no longer being a resident which was promised by a previous PM have been dropped.
Boundary changes shouldn't be contentious. Demographic shifts mean it does need to happen periodically unless you throw out the constituency system.

In what way would you want to see it amended? More forms of id acceptable that have weaker validation requirements?

One of the reasons the Electoral Commission give for in-person Voter ID is that if some of the weaknesses in absentee voting are addressed it may make in-person fraud relatively more attractive. The previous Labour government added the requirement for signatures to be collected for postal vote applications which are then checked against the vote. Apparently they also legislated for the same for in-person voting but it was never implemented.

 

[MikeWM]

One of the reasons the Electoral Commission give for in-person Voter ID is that if some of the weaknesses in absentee voting are addressed it may make in-person fraud relatively more attractive.

Well, it *may*, but in practice I don't believe that was the case before Labour made postal votes available to everyone, so I'm not sure why it would necesarily become the case if that were reversed. Are people more inclined to be fraudulent now than they were say 25 years ago?

 

[Man_with_beard]

Introducing photo ID is just cruel ideology from the Torys they just want to make it hard as possible for the poorest to vote because they know the poorest don't have passports or driving licenses hence them won't bother voting for Labour so it's just more gain for the Torys. Through my eyes this is cheating their way to another five years in Westminster. There are far more better ways to stop "fraud voters stealing other peoples vote cards" such as using biometric technology but i can't imagine a self loathing government implementing a fairer system like this.

 

[bleeder4]

Introducing photo ID is just cruel ideology from the Torys they just want to make it hard as possible for the poorest to vote because they know the poorest don't have passports or driving licenses hence them won't bother voting for Labour so it's just more gain for the Torys. Through my eyes this is cheating their way to another five years in Westminster. There are far more better ways to stop "fraud voters stealing other peoples vote cards" such as using biometric technology but i can't imagine a self loathing government implementing a fairer system like this.

Crikey, talk about conspiracy theories!

The poorest don't vote though, which throws your whole argument up in the air. For example - Kingston upon Hull is routinely cited as being the most deprived city in England, and in the 2019 election 3 of the top 4 lowest constituency turnouts were all in Kingston upon Hull.

 

[najaB]

This has been in the works for a while, it's not something that's been drummed up recently by the Tories to hang onto the vote.

ISTR that the Tories have been in power since 2010...

 

[Man_with_beard]

Crikey, talk about conspiracy theories!

The poorest don't vote though, which throws your whole argument up in the air. For example - Kingston upon Hull is routinely cited as being the most deprived city in England, and in the 2019 election 3 of the top 4 lowest constituency turnouts were all in Kingston upon Hull.

Conspiracy theories or Conspiracy Theorists? Is that a the term used to discredit someone who has their own ideas and speaks about things others can't bare to look at? Because if it was true it would reveal a darkness in the world that your simply not ready to accept.

 

[DelW]

I've had a flyer through the door this morning (I think delivered with the post), issued by the Electoral Commission, which announces that photo ID will be needed for local elections on 4th May.

Though it doesn't give much in the way of details, just referring me either to their website, or a phone line, for more information. If they're printing an A5 size sheet, why not put some of that information (e.g. acceptable forms of ID, which is all most people will want) on the flyer itself?

 

[Trackman]

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

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

Do you know what? I only found out today as there a leaflet in my council tax bill letter.
I skimmed over this thread for some reason.

Hopefully they'll print this on the polling cards, still it's going to be chaos as I reckon no-one will bother reading it then it will kick off at the polling station.