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

[najaB]

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

Perhaps the focus should be helping people get out of those kind of controlling situations (which will affect them 365 days a year) rather than on worrying about the fact that once every five years they might be forced to vote for a candidate that they don't support.

To my mind the massive impact on their lives and freedoms trumps the almost immeasurable impact on the democratic process for everyone else.

 

[MikeWM]

Perhaps the focus should be helping people get out of those kind of controlling situations (which will affect them 365 days a year) rather than on worrying about the fact that once every five years they might be forced to vote for a candidate that they don't support.

To my mind the massive impact on their lives and freedoms trumps the almost immeasurable impact on the democratic process for everyone else.

Those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Either way, I still believe that if you care at all about the democratic process, it is hardly too much to ask for the vast majority of people that they take 30 minutes or so to wander along to the polling station once a year (or less). And if you can't be bothered to do that, do you really care about voting?

 

[najaB]

Either way, I still believe that if you care at all about the democratic process, it is hardly too much to ask for the vast majority of people that they take 30 minutes or so to wander along to the polling station once a year (or less). And if you can't be bothered to do that, do you really care about voting?

In my previous job I had to spend two to three weeks at a time away from home delivering training from 9am to 5pm daily.

How was I supposed to get from say Plymouth at 5pm on a Thursday afternoon to Dundee before 10pm and then back to Plymouth by 9am on Friday? I guess I don't care about democracy...

 

[DC1989]

Exactly, there's plenty of people that I know that simply didn't have the time to vote on a particular Thursday due to work, getting the kids to school, cooking etc. If you have a half hour journey either way (Let's not forget the long queues that already form at many stations) then I can see why you just wouldn't bother.

IMO elections should be held on a Sunday as they are in most other democracies - though I know this is possibly seen as heretically and unbritish. Due to errr 'tradition'

The same when I make the argument that perhaps we should have a parliament where's there enough space for everyone to sit down : )

 

[WelshBluebird]

Either way, I still believe that if you care at all about the democratic process, it is hardly too much to ask for the vast majority of people that they take 30 minutes or so to wander along to the polling station once a year (or less). And if you can't be bothered to do that, do you really care about voting?

Plenty of people have to travel away from where they live for work, or work odd shifts so that going out in the daytime isn't really feasible for them, or have other plans and events that they don't control the timing of (funerals, weddings, having a child, etc etc). Why should they be denied a vote? You are actively wanting groups of people to be denied a vote - and yet they are the ones who don't care about democracy!

 

[MikeWM]

In my previous job I had to spend two to three weeks at a time away from home delivering training from 9am to 5pm daily.

How was I supposed to get from say Plymouth at 5pm on a Thursday afternoon to Dundee before 10pm and then back to Plymouth by 9am on Friday? I guess I don't care about democracy...

There were mechanisms in place before universal postal voting was introduced that covered such eventualities. We don't need universal postal voting to cover such things.

 

[Enthusiast]

Perhaps the focus should be helping people get out of those kind of controlling situations (which will affect them 365 days a year)...

Good luck with that. Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely not. As well as the issues with 'head of household' mentioned above

Heck of a lot less likely than with a paper ballot which can be intercepted. If a young person has their phone they can do it how they like in the dead of night and fake a screenshot or something.

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

Only Luddites would lose that confidence. If I trust it with my finances I definitely trust it for my vote.

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

It would help if we had PR and so wasted votes ceased to be a thing, certainly.

 

[MikeWM]

Heck of a lot less likely than with a paper ballot which can be intercepted.

Not in the polling station! With universal postal voting, yes, but I think it is pretty clear I'm strongly against that.

Only Luddites would lose that confidence. If I trust it with my finances I definitely trust it for my vote.

But as important as they are to *you* specifically, there's little to be gained politically by interfering with your finances. There's a lot to be gained politically by interfering with vote counts.

It would help if we had PR and so wasted votes ceased to be a thing, certainly.

I'd agree we need some form of electoral reform, but I'm not sure what is best. I'm concerned about losing the connection between having a specific person who directly represents me if we moved to a PR system.

 

[najaB]

There were mechanisms in place before universal postal voting was introduced that covered such eventualities. We don't need universal postal voting to cover such things.

Easy (or universal) postal voting increases participation. How is that a bad thing?

I'd agree we need some form of electoral reform, but I'm not sure what is best. I'm concerned about losing the connection between having a specific person who directly represents me if we moved to a PR system.

As it stands today we have a government which enjoy(ed) a massive majority in Parliament despite the fact that almost 60% of the electorate voted for other parties.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd agree we need some form of electoral reform, but I'm not sure what is best. I'm concerned about losing the connection between having a specific person who directly represents me if we moved to a PR system.

While electoral reform is probably a wider thread, there are ways and means, e.g. electing part of the Commons as PR and part as representatives, larger multimember constituencies or giving the "Lords" more power (i.e. such that the Commons cannot overrule it - if it rejects a Bill that's it - at present it passes on the third reading whether they like it or not) and electing that by PR.

 

[MikeWM]

Easy (or universal) postal voting increases participation. How is that a bad thing?

Does it? Every general election between 1922 and 1997 had turnout over 70%. Then postal voting for all was introduced in 2000, and since then not a single general election has managed to reach 70% turnout.

Of course you may well argue that the turnout would be lower still without postal voting, and I'd probably agree, but it does seem that other factors are affecting turnout rather more.

As it stands today we have a government which enjoy(ed) a massive majority in Parliament despite the fact that almost 60% of the electorate voted for other parties.

It has regularly been so, of course. The Blair/Brown government of 2005-10 had the same with almost 65% of the electorate having voted for other parties.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm concerned about losing the connection between having a specific person who directly represents me if we moved to a PR system.

Sounds like STV is the solution if that's your concern (and I'd tend to agree, I like a local link):

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even AV reduces wasted votes, because it enables you to say "I would prefer Green, second choice Lib Dem, but if it comes to it then Labour", for example, or on the other side of the spectrum "I would prefer Reform UK, then UKIP, then the Tories".

It was rejected before but my view is that that was because people didn't really understand it.

 

[brad465]

Apologies if this has been mentioned in this large thread already: if we had a National ID card then voter ID requirements wouldn't be so bad, as is the case across Europe. But the Coalition scrapping the plans for them introduced by Blair essentially meant that voter ID is flawed without them. As an aside ID cards would also help our immigration policies for those complaining about boats and high numbers overall.

 

[DC1989]

Apologies if this has been mentioned in this large thread already: if we had a National ID card then voter ID requirements wouldn't be so bad, as is the case across Europe. But the Coalition scrapping the plans for them introduced by Blair essentially meant that voter ID is flawed without them. As an aside ID cards would also help our immigration policies for those complaining about boats and high numbers overall.

Agreed - but then the loons would come out and say that the government are trying to control us etc.

 

[najaB]

Apologies if this has been mentioned in this large thread already: if we had a National ID card...

You can stop right there, really. It isn't going to happen.

 

[MikeWM]

Apologies if this has been mentioned in this large thread already: if we had a National ID card then voter ID requirements wouldn't be so bad, as is the case across Europe. But the Coalition scrapping the plans for them introduced by Blair essentially meant that voter ID is flawed without them. As an aside ID cards would also help our immigration policies for those complaining about boats and high numbers overall.

I expect to see this argument quite a bit in the coming weeks. I said so back in post #39:

Of course those of us with a more conspiracy-theory-minded approach to such things, consider part of the reason behind things like this to be somewhat of a Trojan Horse for the introduction of ID cards and/or digital ID, and of course the messier the way in which the voter ID laws are implemented and the more problems they throw up, the greater the call for such things will be, 'for convenience'.

--

Agreed - but then the loons would come out and say that the government are trying to control us etc.

I fail to see what is 'loony' about thinking so, given what happened over the last 3 years.

 

[DC1989]

I fail to see what is 'loony' about thinking so, given what happened over the last 3 years.

What do you think they would do to you with your ID card

 

[MikeWM]

What do you think they would do to you with your ID card

This isn't really the thread to discuss it, but the issue is far more related to the databases behind the id card that would log where it is used and for what purposes. Which quickly leads to having to get 'permission' from central authorities in order to do things, as happens in China.

In any event, I fail to see that our society has been improved in any particular way whatever by this modern obsession with 'proving' we are who we say we are, continually, to all and sundry. The world seemed to work perfectly well beforehand.

 

[Trackman]

So, in some cases, yes!

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

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

Yes, there was a security guy on the door last night who asked if I had ID. I immediately challenged them to show and ID and they said there is no need to show ID to themselves but to the polling clerks.
Going back to security guards, years ago there was normally a police officer(s) in the polling station when I went to vote- no way that's going to happen these days!

 

[Typhoon]

Yes, there was a security guy on the door last night who asked if I had ID. I immediately challenged them to show and ID and they said there is no need to show ID to themselves but to the polling clerks.
Going back to security guards, years ago there was normally a police officer(s) in the polling station when I went to vote- no way that's going to happen these days!

But others may have slinked off. It is important that we get an idea of the impact of ID and, perhaps more importantly, of whether it was a lack of ID or lack of acceptable ID, and whether those without ID had applied for the voting certificate but that had been declined. If people get used to not being able to vote they won't try.

I do remember coppers on the door, made you think about your behaviour.

A fairly safe prediction: a pretty poor turn out, at least locally.

Not so bad - over 30%.

Nearby ward had over 40% turnout to see off the council leader (who would have needed over 170% more votes to get elected).

Completely different point:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/othe...p&cvid=71f3785f005f47aebf47681f8e8f25ff&ei=10
(Why does the Express over-use words like 'furious')

Half way down the story there is a graphic which includes 'Photo ID quick reference' and includes 'Travel Pass'. I understood that this covered the ENCTS cards, but little else. There is a photo ID card which students at the University of Kent can use to demonstrate that they have purchased as annual or weekly ticket at a discounted rate. It would be not unreasonable for a student to assume that this is a 'Travel Pass'. They really do need to shrpen these things up.

 

[brad465]

I expect to see this argument quite a bit in the coming weeks. I said so back in post #39:

Well my first preference is to revert back to how things were before, with no voter ID requirements. A National ID card and voter ID requirement would be second, what we currently have is the worst of both worlds.

 

[XAM2175]

How was I supposed to get from say Plymouth at 5pm on a Thursday afternoon to Dundee before 10pm and then back to Plymouth by 9am on Friday? I guess I don't care about democracy...

IMO elections should be held on a Sunday as they are in most other democracies - though I know this is possibly seen as heretically and unbritish. Due to errr 'tradition'

I may have mentioned this already previously, but the Australian approach seems to cover this reasonably well - elections are held on Saturdays and people who'll be unable to vote as normal can do so in person at an early voting centre in the fortnight prior.

Voting options

This page describes the options available to help you cast your vote.

www.aec.gov.au

 

[najaB]

I may have mentioned this already previously, but the Australian approach seems to cover this reasonably well - elections are held on Saturdays and people who'll be unable to vote as normal can do so in person at an early voting centre in the fortnight prior.

Voting options

This page describes the options available to help you cast your vote.

www.aec.gov.au

Early voting is an easy answer, but people who object to postal voting are almost certain to object to the poll being extended.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I may have mentioned this already previously, but the Australian approach seems to cover this reasonably well - elections are held on Saturdays and people who'll be unable to vote as normal can do so in person at an early voting centre in the fortnight prior.

Voting options

This page describes the options available to help you cast your vote.

www.aec.gov.au

Early voting is an easy answer, but people who object to postal voting are almost certain to object to the poll being extended.

I would suggest that the longer the period between ballot papers;
a) being issued;
b) being completed / returned; and
c) all being counted;
the greater the opportunities for corruption of the ballot to occur.

Send out postal ballot papers weeks in advance, then you create an opportunity for people to 'harvest' them and fill them out as they wish, or 'misplace' those known / suspected to be filled out 'incorrectly'.
Wait for a period between the ballot and counting (and that includes postal votes being opened and counted before polling day itself and/or full counting day) and you create the opportunity for additional ballot papers to be completed to swing the result, for example when opinion polls or exit polls show a likely unfavourable outcome.

Obviously decent, honest people wouldn't do any of those things but do we live in a country where decent, honest people are in charge?

Early voting gives rise to the same potential problems as postal voting.

 

[najaB]

That didn't take long.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

That didn't take long.

PS, I don't object to postal voting, not even the current more relaxed version. I do object to the system being so wide open to potential abuse yet not many seem that bothered. Perhaps postal votes should be returned in person (in a similar way to the Australian early voting system) where identity could be verified or at least recorded. A person then presenting a whole household (or more) of completed papers / proxy votes may then be deterred / arouse suspicion.

I'm not sure how early voting makes it easier if you are remote from a polling station as, presumably, there are even fewer polling stations open in the two weeks prior to polling day itself.

As an aside, I often wondered whether my postal vote actually got counted. There is no way of knowing whether your signature on the ballot paper matches the one suppied when you applied for a postal vote. Now there's a scam to be deployed if you know that postal votes are more likely to be used by a cohort of the population who may not vote the way you want them to!

 

[AM9]

As an aside, I often wondered whether my postal vote actually got counted. There is no way of knowing whether your signature on the ballot paper matches the one suppied when you applied for a postal vote. Now there's a scam to be deployed if you know that postal votes are more likely to be used by a cohort of the population who may not vote the way you want them to!

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.

 

[najaB]

Perhaps postal votes should be returned in person (in a similar way to the Australian early voting system) where identity could be verified or at least recorded. A person then presenting a whole household (or more) of completed papers / proxy votes may then be deterred / arouse suspicion.

Which just turned it into early voting.

Unless your suggestion is that postal votes are all returned, in person, to the polling place, on the polling day. Wait a second...