A Political Thread pt. 2

[ncurd]

I'd be in favour of needing some sort of ID/proof (even if it's just taking the poll card that they post to you, in with you)

Always felt the poll card should be enough ID if they were ever going to implement something, should also be allowed for proxy voting.

I switched to postal voting this year and that was way too many hoops to get registered. Basically I had to send a form physically saying I wanted a postal vote. Yet if wanted to register for a polling station it was online.

 

[Reiser99]

Why are people against voter ID btw? It seems like a perfectly reasonable requirement to me and would genuinely like to hear some thoughts rather than the half baked conspiracies on twitter.

(Arguments that aren't inherently racist /based on half truths preferred. That's what most of them seem to be)

If they are going to have free voter IDs then they need to implement that before requiring IDs to vote. Somehow I feel it will be the other way round. There is also the fact that adding any extra layers to voting will put more people off participating as a whole. Again I have the feeling that will benefit the Tories.

As other people have mentioned and in similar discussions about the issue in America, there are far bigger issues to making elections fairer than voter ID. It's a sledgehammer for a single ant problem. How about abolishing FPTP, which has lead to either people voting to keep other parties out rather than voting for the party they want or in most cases just puts people off voting altogether as their vote is essentially worthless? How about reforming the house of lords so that it actually is part of the democratic process?

Basically voter ID is the last thing in the list of reforms and only when the government has supplied people with IDS for free.

 

[Which Tyler]

It's a block to voting and a solution looking for a problem. It's also extra bureaucracy for no real reason.

If we had national ID cards, then yeah, no problem; but we don't; and not everyone has access to driver's licence or passport (both of which also cost money).
IIRC when it's been trialled, there were hundreds of voters who were turned away; most of whom returned with the ID; but not all.
If 2 people can't vote due to restrictions; then that's already double the number of voter fraud for a typical general election.

We should be doing everything we can to encourage people to vote in elections (and yes, that's the case even if they disagree with me). Anything that stands in the way of that is a bad idea.
It's not about who gets disenfranchised - but that anyone gets disenfranchised.

Now for anything at all on LEFT vs RIGHT.
The whole "it advantages the tories" thing seems mostly to be a hang-over from US politics; where essentially all forms of vote suppression benefit the right; so much so that it becomes a knee-jerk response. IIRC when it was trialled here it was mostly older white males who were sent away - but that's probably because they forgot; they'd also be the most likely to come back again. I don't think we can really know which demographics in the UK would be disproportionately affected - though enough wealth to make driver's licence / passport worthwhile would be an obvious factor - which would be accounted for if we had national ID cards - which we don't.

 

[McTallshort]

Why are people against voter ID btw? It seems like a perfectly reasonable requirement to me and would genuinely like to hear some thoughts rather than the half baked conspiracies on twitter.

(Arguments that aren't inherently racist /based on half truths preferred. That's what most of them seem to be)

Because its a hassle that's not really necessary. I am a registered voter, I get a poll card and I go and vote.

Why add another layer of bureaucracy to everything. If there had been several high profile cases of voter fraud then fine but to my knowledge there hasn't been so why bother?

ID's I currently have: Driving Licence, NI Number, Passport, SGC and a PAL licence why do I need another form of ID?

 

[ncurd]

Why are people against voter ID btw? It seems like a perfectly reasonable requirement to me and would genuinely like to hear some thoughts rather than the half baked conspiracies on twitter.

(Arguments that aren't inherently racist /based on half truths preferred. That's what most of them seem to be)

Here's a question what are the arguments for voter ID? Considering the incredibly low amount of voter fraud I never seam to actually hear them other than 'seams perfectly reasonable to me'.

 

[ncurd]

Now for anything at all on LEFT vs RIGHT.
The whole "it advantages the tories" thing seems mostly to be a hang-over from US politics; where essentially all forms of vote suppression benefit the right; so much so that it becomes a knee-jerk response. IIRC when it was trialled here it was mostly older white males who were sent away - but that's probably because they forgot; they'd also be the most likely to come back again. I don't think we can really know which demographics in the UK would be disproportionately affected - though enough wealth to make driver's licence / passport worthwhile would be an obvious factor - which would be accounted for if we had national ID cards - which we don't.

Isn't it statistical based analysis on who currently has ID and who doesn't against which demographics vote which way. Its certainly based on US assumption but I thought it had some similar basis in the UK (trial aside).

I prefer to take out the left V right arguments when it comes to voting when it comes to 2015 yes definitely Con/UKIP/DUP wins by PR (just). Voter enfranchisement to me is one making sure everyones voice is heard rather than one about what I'd prefer them to be saying.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I voted for my mum and dad who were on holiday back in 2017. Just showed them their polling cards. Was tempted to vote Labour for my dad who is a staunch Tory.

 

[ncurd]

I voted for my mum and dad who were on holiday back in 2017. Just showed them their polling cards. Was tempted to vote Labour for my dad who is a staunch Tory.

...unsure what the rules are on proxy voting the .gov website suggests you shouldn't been allowed to do it that way and they had to apply before for it...not sure how falling ill that day works though...

However if its not allowed that the Presiding Officers fault not yours and there have been loads of reports of them ******* up over the years.

Fairly certain reading this they shouldn't of allowed it unless you were registered proxy already https://www.electoralcommission.org...es/pdf_file/Polling-station-handbook-UKPE.pdf

The fact you had two polling cards should of tipped them off.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

...unsure what the rules are on proxy voting the .gov website suggests you shouldn't been allowed to do it that way and they had to apply before for it...not sure how falling ill that day works though...

However if its not allowed that the Presiding Officers fault not yours and there have been loads of reports of them ******* up over the years.

Fairly certain reading this they shouldn't of allowed it unless you were registered proxy already https://www.electoralcommission.org...es/pdf_file/Polling-station-handbook-UKPE.pdf

The fact you had two polling cards should of tipped them off.

I say two my sister had the other polling card and voted for my mum. But just showed them it and their letter of proxy and they allowed me to vote on their behalf.

When I have voted I never take my polling card and just give my name and address.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Why are people against voter ID btw? It seems like a perfectly reasonable requirement to me and would genuinely like to hear some thoughts rather than the half baked conspiracies on twitter.

(Arguments that aren't inherently racist /based on half truths preferred. That's what most of them seem to be)

It claims to fix a problem that doesn't exist whilst potentially creating a new, very real problem. This is the case with most voter based ID laws in developed nations. The way the proponents go on you'd think there was rampant fraud but we are talking fraud in the number you could count on just your hands across an entire national election. If fraud is so low, what possible justification can be given for implementing further anti-fraud measures? Can you think of anything outside of voting where people are being whipped up to believe mass fraud is happening where such a pointless exercise would be supported?

How about a speed limit of 20mph for all caravans to reduce the number of deaths they cause in head on traffic collisions? You'd likely do next to nothing to change something that already isn't a problem and instead create a much bigger one.

IF they combine this with a more general reform to provide people with some form of general ID they can use in all circumstances that doesn't cost anything then I will support it as I think that is a good measure but in isolation where realistically you need either a drivers licence or a passport (both are pricy) as ID then it is little more than a copy-cat of what Republicans are doing in the USA as a way to suppress the poorer vote and nothing else.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Why are people against voter ID btw? It seems like a perfectly reasonable requirement to me and would genuinely like to hear some thoughts rather than the half baked conspiracies on twitter.

(Arguments that aren't inherently racist /based on half truths preferred. That's what most of them seem to be)

With everything going on in the world why do you think the Tories are looking to do this now? Same question for changing mayor elections to FPTP? Why now?

If your answer is anything other than "they're looking to consolidate their power" then you're wrong, imho.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

There were some good responses in there, cheers all.

It was my sibling's first time voting on Thursday and she was immediately thrown by the fact we didn't need to have ID or the polling card and actually thought I was trying to trick her into having to walk home again for a laugh - the current system just seems incredibly fragile. I'm wary of the voter fraud stats floating round at the moment purely by virtue of there being no way to really know that number - I could very easily have gone back to my polling station with a hat on two hours later and voted for my dad (who forgot to do his proxy) and it would never show up on the stats. I'm not saying that is happening in the millions, or even tens or thousands, but it has the potential to and we should definetly find a way to safeguard against that.

It isn't like the UK would be an exception with requiring some form of ID either, it's pretty standard practice in most developed countries. Especially if the ID is free (there is 0 indication that it wouldn't be, despite what some Labour MPs on twitter seem to be suggesting) then there is no economic barrier to the democratic process - and there absolutely shouldn't be. Any suggestion that poor / BAME people can't go to a local office or understand how to use the internet to get a free ID is a stretch at best and outright racist at worst, yet it seems to be a pretty common argument in regards to voter ID.

@ncurd it's hard because it's more a case of ensuring future confidence more than anything - If we slip to the calamity that is US politics and have an election that is widely disputed, having as few avenues for criticism as possible is really important in mitigating those concerns. Honestly I can't believe we don't have it already.

Yes it would be a very minor inconvenience to go to an office / (more likely) do it online but that is outweighed by protecting someone's vote imo.

Nobody is being disenfranchised at all and we are protecting future elections from 1. Fraud 2. Baseless accusations of fraud and unneccesary drama.


Now, if the criticism is beurocracy, then yes, I agree and that is a risk, but all it would take is for us to take the recources and beurocracy of something like the DVLA or Passport office that already exists and commit some of those resources to this project and it would probably be a whole lot smoother. If the people upset about this (I don't want to make it a left/right thing because I don't think it should be, but it has already become that) take the attitude of being anti-government beurocracy elsewhere in their politics then the right is about to find itself a whole load more allies than it has ever had!

@Welsh Exile that's an interesting point, but an ill founded one I think.

So postal votes first, this isn't a new idea and not one that, using stereotypical voting bases would help the tories at all. One would assume that it would be more of a struggle for rural / old people who mostly vote Tory so would likely negatively impact their voting base?

FPTP in Mayoral election - 114,000 first preference votes were rejected in the London Mayoral election under supplementary vote. For so many, it's just not a clear system and favours those sides of the aisle with more parties. Especially in a defacto two horse race, it doesn't work particularly well. PR and option voting systems work for council elections IMO but not national governments or mayoral elections. Debate for another day though, don't want to get too sidetracked!

 

[ncurd]

So we deny people votes now for a nebulous thing that might happen in the future. Unsurprisingly that really doesn't float with me at all.

As to defending FPTP yeah all arguments are **** and anyone defending system that allow a minority to have a whopping majority is frankly being disingenuous and just wants their side to win without actually winning.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

So we deny people votes now for a nebulous thing that might happen in the future. Unsurprisingly that really doesn't float with me at all.

As to defending FPTP yeah all arguments are **** and anyone defending system that allow a minority to have a whopping majority is frankly being disingenuous and just wants their side to win without actually winning.

How are we denying people votes now?

Not really the case with FPTP but an argument for tomorrow

 

[ncurd]

How are we denying people votes now?

Its been explained multiple takes this thread. You've chosen to ignore it.

Yes absolutely on FPTP, I get your a politics student but I've been arguing against it for 18+ years now. All the arguments boil down to maintaining a two party system removing a spectrum of opinion and stopping voters being able to express themselves. And if you want that it's because your side wins from it not because you genuinely think its better because its nonsense. I know both long term Labour and Conservative voters that refusing to partake in elections currently because both sides fail utterly in coming close to what they want. Vote for someone else and thats it someone you really don't want might get in.

That also doesn't take into account 100 of thousands of people who live in constituencies that are so damn safe turning up to vote is a complete waste of time except for the small amount money their party of choice might get.

And if people can't fill out a ballot that required them to write two numbers in without deliberately spoiling it. They probably shouldn't be voting in the first place. Cause they are too ******* thick to understand the ramifications of their vote.

 

[ncurd]

This is the ballot paper that was too hard for people to understand. But they're asked to make a reasoned judgement on the person in charge of huge aspects of their daily life. Either we can't call voters thick and they can understand this or they are thick and that's a whole different problem.

How to complete your ballot papers | London Elects

www.londonelects.org.uk

 

[ncurd]

Something tells me most of those ballots were deliberately spoiled.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

FPTP in Mayoral election - 114,000 first preference votes were rejected in the London Mayoral election under supplementary vote. For so many, it's just not a clear system and favours those sides of the aisle with more parties. Especially in a defacto two horse race, it doesn't work particularly well. PR and option voting systems work for council elections IMO but not national governments or mayoral elections. Debate for another day though, don't want to get too sidetracked!

Surely the answer to people not knowing how to vote is education and not a form of democratic choice which has been shown to thrown up more unrepresentative results than any other? This is the argument that is reeled out any time change is suggested, that people simply can't understand it. It's lack of clarity and education, both of which are easily fixed, not a fault inherent in the system itself.

I mean hell, many don't even understand how FPTP works and huge swathes of the British population think a UK general election is more a presidential election for the PM, not an election for their MP. That is an education problem.

 

[Welsh Exile]

There were some good responses in there, cheers all.

It was my sibling's first time voting on Thursday and she was immediately thrown by the fact we didn't need to have ID or the polling card and actually thought I was trying to trick her into having to walk home again for a laugh - the current system just seems incredibly fragile. I'm wary of the voter fraud stats floating round at the moment purely by virtue of there being no way to really know that number - I could very easily have gone back to my polling station with a hat on two hours later and voted for my dad (who forgot to do his proxy) and it would never show up on the stats. I'm not saying that is happening in the millions, or even tens or thousands, but it has the potential to and we should definetly find a way to safeguard against that.

It isn't like the UK would be an exception with requiring some form of ID either, it's pretty standard practice in most developed countries. Especially if the ID is free (there is 0 indication that it wouldn't be, despite what some Labour MPs on twitter seem to be suggesting) then there is no economic barrier to the democratic process - and there absolutely shouldn't be. Any suggestion that poor / BAME people can't go to a local office or understand how to use the internet to get a free ID is a stretch at best and outright racist at worst, yet it seems to be a pretty common argument in regards to voter ID.

@ncurd it's hard because it's more a case of ensuring future confidence more than anything - If we slip to the calamity that is US politics and have an election that is widely disputed, having as few avenues for criticism as possible is really important in mitigating those concerns. Honestly I can't believe we don't have it already.

Yes it would be a very minor inconvenience to go to an office / (more likely) do it online but that is outweighed by protecting someone's vote imo.

Nobody is being disenfranchised at all and we are protecting future elections from 1. Fraud 2. Baseless accusations of fraud and unneccesary drama.


Now, if the criticism is beurocracy, then yes, I agree and that is a risk, but all it would take is for us to take the recources and beurocracy of something like the DVLA or Passport office that already exists and commit some of those resources to this project and it would probably be a whole lot smoother. If the people upset about this (I don't want to make it a left/right thing because I don't think it should be, but it has already become that) take the attitude of being anti-government beurocracy elsewhere in their politics then the right is about to find itself a whole load more allies than it has ever had!

@Welsh Exile that's an interesting point, but an ill founded one I think.

So postal votes first, this isn't a new idea and not one that, using stereotypical voting bases would help the tories at all. One would assume that it would be more of a struggle for rural / old people who mostly vote Tory so would likely negatively impact their voting base?

FPTP in Mayoral election - 114,000 first preference votes were rejected in the London Mayoral election under supplementary vote. For so many, it's just not a clear system and favours those sides of the aisle with more parties. Especially in a defacto two horse race, it doesn't work particularly well. PR and option voting systems work for council elections IMO but not national governments or mayoral elections. Debate for another day though, don't want to get too sidetracked!

There's a lot I disagree with here. Firstly, I'm a bit concerned by the way you described the US election. When you say it was "widely disputed" can you clarify that please as all I saw was Donald Trump inventing a whole BS narrative of election fraud that was totally unfounded and thrown out by every court he tried his luck with. That, to me, is not "widely disputed" in fact it's the opposite. It's complete BS peddled by a BS artist that no one accepted other than Trump and QAnon conspiracy theorists.

And this is in essence a lot of the problem. I would gather just on this point alone that you see this as a significant risk we should take seriously when really it's not that big of a problem. Will introducing voter ID deter more people from voting than it will reduce voter fraud? That's the issue and what we need to ask ourselves.

Your answer to my original question seems to be: The Tories are doing it against their own interests because the Tories just want to protect our democracy, they're nice like that. I mean, they not concerned with reports about Russians interfering in our democracy but they are about Dave pretending to be uncle Jonny and casting 2 votes. I can't go along with that and, to be honest, I think you know deep down this wil benefit them. Will they lose some votes out of it? Sure they will but other parties will lose out more.

At the end of the day is this going to help or hinder the democratic process.

 

[ncurd]

a form of democratic choice which has been shown to thrown up more unrepresentative results than any other?

This, there are massive arguments about which voting system is best. Anyone who cares agrees FPTP is by far the worst unless they want just a two party system at which point they want to suppress representation of other opinions.