LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

kingstongraham

Has there been any details on how the voter ID will work with postal voting? As this is the area most vulnerable to fraud, I assume this is where the main focus will be on ensuring the person who cast the ballot is the correct voter.

pinkbikini

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

A more immediate scandal is the Tory plan to make photo ID compulsory to vote.

Roughly 3.5m UK adults don't have appropriate photo ID.

I assume you have been outraged for the past 20 years or so about Northern Ireland, where this has been in operation, no?
Free voter id cards are available, as will be the case under the new proposal.

This thread has just become a parody. "I blame Wiggle! Boris!"

There’ll be the cost of implementation, so not free. To stamp out fraud at a rate of less than 1 in 1.7m cases.

Waste of money, unless there is revenue from the harvested data (shock).

Perhaps a contract awarded to Sunak’s father-in-law?

surrey_commuter

By restricting the place of voting, minimising the time to vote and requiring pre-registration on an annual basis you restrict voting to those who care.

You can see why the incumbent parties would not want a system whereby anybody could vote over a week long period in any one of multiple locations or even online.

Anyway compared to the monarchy, HoL and FPTP this is insignificant

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

By restricting the place of voting, minimising the time to vote and requiring pre-registration on an annual basis you restrict voting to those who care.

You can see why the incumbent parties would not want a system whereby anybody could vote over a week long period in any one of multiple locations or even online.

Anyway compared to the monarchy, HoL and FPTP this is insignificant

No but the message is clear.

The gov't is putting someone in charge of overseeing 'free speech' in universities, can you imagine?

State sanctioned speeches. It's mad.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

By restricting the place of voting, minimising the time to vote and requiring pre-registration on an annual basis you restrict voting to those who care.

You can see why the incumbent parties would not want a system whereby anybody could vote over a week long period in any one of multiple locations or even online.

Anyway compared to the monarchy, HoL and FPTP this is insignificant

No but the message is clear.

The gov't is putting someone in charge of overseeing 'free speech' in universities, can you imagine?

State sanctioned speeches. It's mad.

Remember that I think he is acting like somebody who is actively trying to harm the UK economy and that I am somebody who believes that everything else comes from the well of economic prosperity.

I really can't get worked up about free speech in universities or ID cards for our fvcked up electoral system. To me they are Bannonesque policies to delight your supporters and enrage the opposition

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

By restricting the place of voting, minimising the time to vote and requiring pre-registration on an annual basis you restrict voting to those who care.

You can see why the incumbent parties would not want a system whereby anybody could vote over a week long period in any one of multiple locations or even online.

Anyway compared to the monarchy, HoL and FPTP this is insignificant

No but the message is clear.

The gov't is putting someone in charge of overseeing 'free speech' in universities, can you imagine?

State sanctioned speeches. It's mad.

Not sure that's a massive deal is it? Probably another thing that didn't need fixing via legislation but not likely to do any major harm. Designed to get you riled up so you look out of touch thinking it's important, really. Once actual nazis start suing universities, obviously it will look a bit misguided.

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

By restricting the place of voting, minimising the time to vote and requiring pre-registration on an annual basis you restrict voting to those who care.

You can see why the incumbent parties would not want a system whereby anybody could vote over a week long period in any one of multiple locations or even online.

Anyway compared to the monarchy, HoL and FPTP this is insignificant

No but the message is clear.

The gov't is putting someone in charge of overseeing 'free speech' in universities, can you imagine?

State sanctioned speeches. It's mad.

Not sure that's a massive deal is it? Probably another thing that didn't need fixing via legislation but not likely to do any major harm. Designed to get you riled up so you look out of touch thinking it's important, really. Once actual nazis start suing universities, obviously it will look a bit misguided.

I guess so. I am offspring of a uni lecturer so it's on my radar.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

By restricting the place of voting, minimising the time to vote and requiring pre-registration on an annual basis you restrict voting to those who care.

You can see why the incumbent parties would not want a system whereby anybody could vote over a week long period in any one of multiple locations or even online.

Anyway compared to the monarchy, HoL and FPTP this is insignificant

No but the message is clear.

The gov't is putting someone in charge of overseeing 'free speech' in universities, can you imagine?

State sanctioned speeches. It's mad.

Not sure that's a massive deal is it? Probably another thing that didn't need fixing via legislation but not likely to do any major harm. Designed to get you riled up so you look out of touch thinking it's important, really. Once actual nazis start suing universities, obviously it will look a bit misguided.

I guess so. I am offspring of a uni lecturer so it's on my radar.

I suspect it will have to be drafted in a way that pretty much guarantees unexpected consequences.

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

A more immediate scandal is the Tory plan to make photo ID compulsory to vote.

Roughly 3.5m UK adults don't have appropriate photo ID.

I assume you have been outraged for the past 20 years or so about Northern Ireland, where this has been in operation, no?
Free voter id cards are available, as will be the case under the new proposal.

This thread has just become a parody. "I blame Wiggle! Boris!"

So you're happy with the extra £20million spent on these 'free' ID cards to tackle the handful of instances where voter fraud is alleged and single conviction, I take it? That's £3 million or so a pop.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

Has there been any details on how the voter ID will work with postal voting? As this is the area most vulnerable to fraud, I assume this is where the main focus will be on ensuring the person who cast the ballot is the correct voter.

No. Obviously there's no issue with that, but the scourge of in-person voter fraud must be dealt with, with whatever it takes.

kingstongraham

Outstanding

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1392410163190108162

ballysmate

kingstongraham said:

Has there been any details on how the voter ID will work with postal voting? As this is the area most vulnerable to fraud, I assume this is where the main focus will be on ensuring the person who cast the ballot is the correct voter.

No idea, but as a postal voter I welcome anything that helps to ensure the integrity of the system.

Btw, on one previous occasion I have had my postal vote returned to me with an enclosed letter informing me that my vote had not been counted because the signature on it didn't match the one held on file.

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Has there been any details on how the voter ID will work with postal voting? As this is the area most vulnerable to fraud, I assume this is where the main focus will be on ensuring the person who cast the ballot is the correct voter.

No. Obviously there's no issue with that, but the scourge of in-person voter fraud must be dealt with, with whatever it takes.

Like everyone else, I am in the dark about the level of voter fraud there is, as it is very difficult to monitor and measure.
Surely any measures adopted to help prevent it happening in the future must be a good thing, no?
Or in general, do you prefer remedial rather than preventative measures?

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

Has there been any details on how the voter ID will work with postal voting? As this is the area most vulnerable to fraud, I assume this is where the main focus will be on ensuring the person who cast the ballot is the correct voter.

No idea, but as a postal voter I welcome anything that helps to ensure the integrity of the system.

Btw, on one previous occasion I have had my postal vote returned to me with an enclosed letter informing me that my vote had not been counted because the signature on it didn't match the one held on file.

Given the tiny number of instances of in person voter fraud, I would say the integrity of the system is already ensured by the existing checks.

pangolin

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

Has there been any details on how the voter ID will work with postal voting? As this is the area most vulnerable to fraud, I assume this is where the main focus will be on ensuring the person who cast the ballot is the correct voter.

No idea, but as a postal voter I welcome anything that helps to ensure the integrity of the system.

Btw, on one previous occasion I have had my postal vote returned to me with an enclosed letter informing me that my vote had not been counted because the signature on it didn't match the one held on file.

Given the tiny number of instances of in person voter fraud, I would say the integrity of the system is already ensured by the existing checks.

As Bally has just demonstrated

ballysmate

pangolin said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

Has there been any details on how the voter ID will work with postal voting? As this is the area most vulnerable to fraud, I assume this is where the main focus will be on ensuring the person who cast the ballot is the correct voter.

No idea, but as a postal voter I welcome anything that helps to ensure the integrity of the system.

Btw, on one previous occasion I have had my postal vote returned to me with an enclosed letter informing me that my vote had not been counted because the signature on it didn't match the one held on file.

Given the tiny number of instances of in person voter fraud, I would say the integrity of the system is already ensured by the existing checks.

As Bally has just demonstrated

Yes for postal votes.

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

Has there been any details on how the voter ID will work with postal voting? As this is the area most vulnerable to fraud, I assume this is where the main focus will be on ensuring the person who cast the ballot is the correct voter.

No idea, but as a postal voter I welcome anything that helps to ensure the integrity of the system.

Btw, on one previous occasion I have had my postal vote returned to me with an enclosed letter informing me that my vote had not been counted because the signature on it didn't match the one held on file.

Given the tiny number of instances of detected in person voter fraud, I would say the integrity of the system is already ensured by the existing checks.

Edited for accuracy.

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

Has there been any details on how the voter ID will work with postal voting? As this is the area most vulnerable to fraud, I assume this is where the main focus will be on ensuring the person who cast the ballot is the correct voter.

No idea, but as a postal voter I welcome anything that helps to ensure the integrity of the system.

Btw, on one previous occasion I have had my postal vote returned to me with an enclosed letter informing me that my vote had not been counted because the signature on it didn't match the one held on file.

Given the tiny number of instances of in person voter fraud, I would say the integrity of the system is already ensured by the existing checks.

As Bally has just demonstrated

Yes for postal votes.

To commit voter fraud, you have to turn up at the polling station and give another name and address of someone you hope hasn't already voted, then go to the back of the queue, wait in line until they can vote again, presumably as themselves. If you are really organised and lucky you might be able to get a swing an election by a few tens of votes.
Postal votes are if anything more prone to fraud, but no requirement for ID is being proposed for this.

kingstongraham

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Has there been any details on how the voter ID will work with postal voting? As this is the area most vulnerable to fraud, I assume this is where the main focus will be on ensuring the person who cast the ballot is the correct voter.

No. Obviously there's no issue with that, but the scourge of in-person voter fraud must be dealt with, with whatever it takes.

Like everyone else, I am in the dark about the level of voter fraud there is, as it is very difficult to monitor and measure.
Surely any measures adopted to help prevent it happening in the future must be a good thing, no?
Or in general, do you prefer remedial rather than preventative measures?

ANY measures?

Regardless, you are still framing this in reverse.

What problem is being fixed by this?

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

Has there been any details on how the voter ID will work with postal voting? As this is the area most vulnerable to fraud, I assume this is where the main focus will be on ensuring the person who cast the ballot is the correct voter.

No idea, but as a postal voter I welcome anything that helps to ensure the integrity of the system.

Btw, on one previous occasion I have had my postal vote returned to me with an enclosed letter informing me that my vote had not been counted because the signature on it didn't match the one held on file.

Given the tiny number of instances of detected in person voter fraud, I would say the integrity of the system is already ensured by the existing checks.

Edited for accuracy.

If the numbers of undetected cases were significant then the Conservatives wouldn't be trying to reduce it.

Jezyboy

I'm sure if any well organised mass effort at in person voter fraud exists, then they can probably get past this measure too.

I would assume most people realise that photo id offers total (non) protection against under age drinking.

Of course the validity of elections is something that is very much worth ensuring, but it does appear that this is just a tad, pointless.

rick_chasey

Does Bally recognise that the proposal will likely make it more difficult to vote? So inevitably, fewer people will vote?

And if so, does Bally feel that trade off is worth it?

ballysmate

Don't necessarily disagree re postal votes, but you do have to get the signature spot on, so there is some checks made. As I said earlier, I would support measures to improve that system as well.

What do you find so distasteful about having to identify yourself in order to vote? I'm sure such as Rick would blame fascist Tories for being fascist.

Here's a list of some other 'fascist' countries

Norway mandates that voters present a photo ID, including a “passport, driving license, or bank card that includes a photo,” to vote.

Voters in Northern Ireland must present an “acceptable photo identification” to cast an in-person ballot.

Germany requires that voters bring a state-issued voter identification card, but they can substitute another form of ID for that card if they fail to deliver it at the polls.

Ballots in Switzerland are issued by mail, and voters who return their ballots in person are required to show an ID and a state-issued polling card to do so.

France requires a voter ID.

Israel requires a voter ID.

Mexico requires a voter ID.

Iceland requires a voter ID


Not that onerous to produce a recognised form of id is it? Or do you consider it "Not British, old boy!"

kingstongraham

ballysmate said:

Don't necessarily disagree re postal votes, but you do have to get the signature spot on, so there is some checks made. As I said earlier, I would support measures to improve that system as well.

What do you find so distasteful about having to identify yourself in order to vote? I'm sure such as Rick would blame fascist Tories for being fascist.

Here's a list of some other 'fascist' countries

Norway mandates that voters present a photo ID, including a “passport, driving license, or bank card that includes a photo,” to vote.

Voters in Northern Ireland must present an “acceptable photo identification” to cast an in-person ballot.

Germany requires that voters bring a state-issued voter identification card, but they can substitute another form of ID for that card if they fail to deliver it at the polls.

Ballots in Switzerland are issued by mail, and voters who return their ballots in person are required to show an ID and a state-issued polling card to do so.

France requires a voter ID.

Israel requires a voter ID.

Mexico requires a voter ID.

Iceland requires a voter ID


Not that onerous to produce a recognised form of id is it? Or do you consider it "Not British, old boy!"

What problem is it designed to address?

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

Does Bally recognise that the proposal will likely make it more difficult to vote? So inevitably, fewer people will vote?

And if so, does Bally feel that trade off is worth it?

Would it make you less likely to vote? Wouldn't deter me.
Anybody else on here not gonna vote? Well apart from Jezboy who has just scoffed his passport.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Has there been any details on how the voter ID will work with postal voting? As this is the area most vulnerable to fraud, I assume this is where the main focus will be on ensuring the person who cast the ballot is the correct voter.

No. Obviously there's no issue with that, but the scourge of in-person voter fraud must be dealt with, with whatever it takes.

Like everyone else, I am in the dark about the level of voter fraud there is, as it is very difficult to monitor and measure.
Surely any measures adopted to help prevent it happening in the future must be a good thing, no?
Or in general, do you prefer remedial rather than preventative measures?

ANY measures?

Regardless, you are still framing this in reverse.

What problem is being fixed by this?

It's either trying to get an ID card in by the back door or trying to get proportionally more votes. I'm against compulsory ID cards and trying to bring them in by subterfuge, but most countries do seem to have them. The proportionally more votes bit is obviously not great and should be challenged although with NI as precedent it will no doubt be hard.

kingstongraham

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Does Bally recognise that the proposal will likely make it more difficult to vote? So inevitably, fewer people will vote?

And if so, does Bally feel that trade off is worth it?

Would it make you less likely to vote? Wouldn't deter me.
Anybody else on here not gonna vote? Well apart from Jezboy who has just scoffed his passport.

That's the point. "People like us" aren't affected.

Low propensity voters who really aren't that interested will be less likely to vote. As many people as possible should vote.

kingstongraham

So that's the "side effect" - what's the problem it's going to address?

pblakeney

I carry my driver's license at all times, and when on my bike it is specifically for identification purposes so, meh.

ballysmate

kingstongraham said:

So that's the "side effect" - what's the problem it's going to address?

To PREVENT voter fraud, the extent of which is unknown. It may be just the cases that have been detected or it could be more common, nobody really knows the exact level.