Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Electoral Commission attacks the government’s planned vote

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited March 2 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Electoral Commission attacks the government’s planned voter ID trials as “unnecessary and over-bearing’’

New figures on electoral fraud from the Electoral Commission show the tiny scale of the problem of personation which it says raises major questions about overbearing ID restrictions to be trialed at elections this May,

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited March 2
    First!

    Difficult one for the electoral commission and the government. My understanding was that there were issues with the voter registration process and postal ballots rather than on voting day itself, hence the change from household to individual voter registration a couple of years ago.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,114
    Second. And there are considerably more pressing problems around, one might think.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    No change in the Conservative Home next Tory leader Tory members poll for March.

    Rees Mogg comes top on 21%, Gove is second on 16% and Boris third on 13%. Rudd and Raab complete the top 5.

    51% want May to be replaced as leader before the next general election but only 13% want her to step down as leader now

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/03/no-change-in-our-next-tory-leader-survey-rees-mogg-is-top-then-gove-then-johnson.html
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    Sandpit said:

    First!

    Difficult one for the electoral commission and the government. My understanding was that there were issues with the voter registration process and postal ballots rather than on voting day itself, hence the change from household to individual voter registration a couple of years ago.

    Exactly, false registration and postal ballots are much more vulnerable, unless we apply the same ID rules to these.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    This is a barmy idea, and one that is bad for democracy.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 843
    dixiedean said:

    Second. And there are considerably more pressing problems around, one might think.

    In a democratic system the government should, from time to time, have the right to dismiss the electorate in favour of a new one more suited to their needs.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    FPT:
    Pulpstar said:

    Does anyone know about the detail of Trump's steel tarrif ?
    Is it just raw steel or stuff made from steel ?

    Reading the NYT article carefully it sounds like it is on imports of steel and aluminium for industry, rather than imports of finished goods such as cars.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/trump-tariffs.html
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,250
    Based on the thread header, we will have a more robust electoral process if we scrap the idiotic Electoral Commission.

    Verifying that somebody trying to vote is the same person listed on the register is basic and fundamental to democracy. How can we have confidence in electoral outcomes if the eligibility of voters is not validated? Secondly, saying it’s a tiny problem because there are few allegations is absolute nonsense. There are no meaningful controls, so we have no real idea how widespread the problem is.

    Voter ID has been required in Northern Ireland for decades. It is normal in Continental Europe, and not controversial.

    The Electoral Commission has a lot to answer for. Guido has already found plenty of evidence of the political bias of the people who work there, and an institution that has an obligation to protect the integrity of the ballot should be supportive of the government’s efforts, rather than focusing on boosting turnout regardless of the consequences.

    In some local authorities non-photo ID will be trialled. Who can object to that!

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,322
    There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 903
    edited March 2
    I thought people could bring along proof of address instead - if they don't have photo ID

    The fact anyone can turn up give a persons name and address without any checks and cast a vote on their behalf is frankly ridiculous. How about some other checks which could be asked if they don't have any ID at all - say date of birth or a bank card?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,162
    @MikeSmithson

    I was thinking overnight that maybe we ought have Brexit-free days on PB when we find something else to talk about with anybody's edging in to leave or remain territory finding that their comments get deleted

    I would be perfectly happy if you had Brexit-free months, to be honest. If this site wishes to maintain its rep as "the best online resource for betting on politics" then your Brexit-Free days would be a step in the right direction. May I suggest Wednesdays and/or Thursdays? Harry Thingy's excellent local roundups are on Thursdays and we could have some articles focussed on local elections or other elections and the odds therein.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,311
    The problem may be a small one, but I find it hard to believe that it's as small as the Electoral Commission says. Just 28 instances? That sounds completely implausible.

    The explanation for this might be very simple: it's only if the real voter turns up later that you'd ever get an allegation of personation. But presumably if there is a problem here, it's the stealing of the votes of people who don't turn up at all, or pressure put on some voters to allow someone to vote illegally on their behalf.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848
    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does anyone know about the detail of Trump's steel tarrif ?
    Is it just raw steel or stuff made from steel ?

    Reading the NYT article carefully it sounds like it is on imports of steel and aluminium for industry, rather than imports of finished goods such as cars.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/trump-tariffs.html
    But it is, of course, going to make US manufactured cars more expensive... so increased tariffs on foreign cars might then follow...

    Just a first shot in what might turn into a war, and even his own party is, for once, speaking out:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/01/trump-steel-tariffs-432143?lo=ap_b1
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848

    There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?


    You're thinking of the White House ?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,114
    We don't know the scale of personation. Those good at it don't get caught.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,633
    Just because there were only 28 complaints does not mean that there were only 28 instances. Just because they don't know the scale of the problem is no reason for not improving the system to make it more robust.

    It is utterly ludicrous that someone can just walk in, give a name and address and get that vote. It always has been and it always will be.

    Of course, ID has been required in Northern Ireland elections since 1985. So if it is good enough for NI, surely it can be good enough for the rest of the UK.

    The trial is testing photo AND non-photo ID options - so until those trials are completed and assessed, it is too early to say what option will be adopted for widespread use. So complaining about the level of photo ID access at this stage is just a distraction from the central issue that our voting system is not secure.

    Yes, there are big issues with regards to registration - and steps have been taken in that regards. The abolition of permanent postal voting on demand is top of my list for additional change. Postal voting should be the exception not the norm. It should be limited to those who will be away on polling day and those who are not physically able to attend a polling station due to health or mobility issues.

    It should not be considered overbearing to produce ID to vote - considering you have to do more to join your local library. Adding in extra safeguards into our democratic system is not overbearing in the slightest.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,162

    I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.

    I wonder why.

    Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,552

    This is a barmy idea, and one that is bad for democracy.

    Mr Jessop, this is Conservative Party policy. No doubt you are quite right. It is all of a piece.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,162

    This is a barmy idea, and one that is bad for democracy.

    Indeed. This was covered some years ago.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited March 2
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does anyone know about the detail of Trump's steel tarrif ?
    Is it just raw steel or stuff made from steel ?

    Reading the NYT article carefully it sounds like it is on imports of steel and aluminium for industry, rather than imports of finished goods such as cars.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/trump-tariffs.html
    But it is, of course, going to make US manufactured cars more expensive... so increased tariffs on foreign cars might then follow...

    Just a first shot in what might turn into a war, and even his own party is, for once, speaking out:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/01/trump-steel-tariffs-432143?lo=ap_b1
    Yes, it’s a stupid idea from Trump, and he’s going to annoy his friendly neighbours like Canada when he’s trying to target China.

    A trade war is in no-one’s interest, the correct way to deal with China’s steel dumping is by using the WTO, but the US have always preferred to bypass such organisations and do things their own way.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,488

    There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

    Rotherham, Weinstein, Oxfam. Initially tiny problems which turned out to be massive and endemic across whole industries/cultures. What is your evidence the problem is tiny? Indeed what would, even in principle, constitute evidence of tininess?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,513
    edited March 2
    Note this is a corrected version of the post I published half an hour ago.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,729
    First - Because I brought ID
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,162
    edited March 2
    Here is the script to that Newsroom episode

    "...Dorothy Cooper is a 96-year-old resident of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and has been voting for the last 75 years. This year, she's been told she can't. A new law in Tennessee requires residents to show a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Dorothy Cooper doesn't have a driver's license because Dorothy Cooper doesn't have a car. Dorothy Cooper doesn't have a passport. A vacation abroad was never in her future. Tennessee isn't alone. At this moment, or already adopted the same voter ID laws that have disqualified Dorothy Cooper from the one fundamental thing that we all do as Americans.

    It's estimated that 11%, or roughly 20 million people, don't have government-issued voter IDs and will be disenfranchised this November. Why? To crack down on the terrible problem of voter fraud. - [cut to Governor Rick Perry of Texas, who is about to enter the presidential primary race, is serious about cracking down on the problem. Making sure that there's not fraud, making sure that [cut to Governor Rick Perry speaking ] That someone's not manipulating that process makes all the sense in the world to me. [cut back to studio]

    To me, too, because voter fraud is such a huge problem that during a five-year period under the Bush Administration when 196 million votes were cast, the number of cases of voter fraud reached 86. Not 86,000. Here's what that number looks like as a percentage of votes cast-- 4/100,000ths of a percent.

    This would be called a solution without a problem, but it's not. It's just a solution to a different problem. Republicans have a hard time getting certain people to vote for them, so life would be a lot easier if certain people just weren't allowed to vote at all..."

    The script: here
    The clip: here
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,490

    Showing I/D, or a proof of address, at a polling station seems fair enough to me.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,250

    Note this is a corrected version of the post I published half an hour ago.

    Thanks Mike. I retract my earlier comments about the Electoral Commission, but they do need to try harder not to employ people who are militantly partisan.

    https://order-order.com/2016/06/07/key-electoral-commission-expenses-fraud-staffer-ranted-against-tories/
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,488
    viewcode said:

    This is a barmy idea, and one that is bad for democracy.

    Indeed. This was covered some years ago.

    So it shouldn't be unfairly and incompetently administered, but then nor should anything.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 903

    This is a barmy idea, and one that is bad for democracy.

    But apparently not in Northern Ireland where it has been a requirement for years.

    Are Canada, France and Norway amongst many others not robust democracies? Of course almost every EU state bar the UK and a couple of others have a national Photo ID card which you need to access public services, Sounds like something we should look at - it would make life a lot easier rather than having separate processes for local and central government and the NHS.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    The question is whether that small number is the observable tip of a significant iceberg.

    It's been remarked upon repeatedly that if a few thousand votes had gone either way, May could have a 60 seat majority, or Corbyn could be PM. A small number of precisely located fraudsters can cause as much democratic harm as an unfocused but massive number.

    There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Ishmael_Z said:

    There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

    Rotherham, Weinstein, Oxfam. Initially tiny problems which turned out to be massive and endemic across whole industries/cultures. What is your evidence the problem is tiny? Indeed what would, even in principle, constitute evidence of tininess?
    Where's your evidence that it's a significant problem; one worth potentially disenfranchising large numbers of people?

    Personally, I'd ask the Electoral Commission to investigate the issue further. Look at some constituencies where there have been problems, or there have been allegations of personation, and give them powers to do a suitable study during a real election.

    Or alternatively, bring in the requirement for voter ID in a constituency where there has been proven problems for one election afterwards, and see how it effects voter behaviour.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,513
    Sean_F said:


    Showing I/D, or a proof of address, at a polling station seems fair enough to me.

    But what happens if you don't have ID?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    edited March 2
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does anyone know about the detail of Trump's steel tarrif ?
    Is it just raw steel or stuff made from steel ?

    Reading the NYT article carefully it sounds like it is on imports of steel and aluminium for industry, rather than imports of finished goods such as cars.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/trump-tariffs.html
    But it is, of course, going to make US manufactured cars more expensive... so increased tariffs on foreign cars might then follow...

    Just a first shot in what might turn into a war, and even his own party is, for once, speaking out:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/01/trump-steel-tariffs-432143?lo=ap_b1
    Yes, it’s a stupid idea from Trump, and he’s going to annoy his friendly neighbours like Canada when he’s trying to target China.

    A trade war is in no-one’s interest, the correct way to deal with China’s steel dumping is by using the WTO, but the US have always preferred to bypass such organisations and do things their own way.
    Though if the US imposes tariffs on Chinese, Canadian and EU steel they might be a bit more keen to get a FTA with the UK for their steel and aluminium exports here. Which could give us a bit more leverage in terms of UK exports there too
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,490
    FPT Marquee Mark, the Beach House is indeed excellent. As are the Hope and Anchor, and the Cove, nearby in Hope Cove. But really, I don't think I've ever eaten a meal in South Devon which is not at least passable, and most have been very good.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,633

    Ishmael_Z said:

    There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

    Rotherham, Weinstein, Oxfam. Initially tiny problems which turned out to be massive and endemic across whole industries/cultures. What is your evidence the problem is tiny? Indeed what would, even in principle, constitute evidence of tininess?
    Where's your evidence that it's a significant problem; one worth potentially disenfranchising large numbers of people?

    Personally, I'd ask the Electoral Commission to investigate the issue further. Look at some constituencies where there have been problems, or there have been allegations of personation, and give them powers to do a suitable study during a real election.

    Or alternatively, bring in the requirement for voter ID in a constituency where there has been proven problems for one election afterwards, and see how it effects voter behaviour.
    Voter ID has been required in Northern Ireland since 1985 - with it moving to photo ID in 2003. There is no evidence that this has created an issue with disenfranchising people.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,490

    Sean_F said:


    Showing I/D, or a proof of address, at a polling station seems fair enough to me.

    But what happens if you don't have ID?
    Bring a proof of address, such as a council tax demand.
  • WillieZWillieZ Posts: 2
    edited March 2
    Bromley Council are taking place in the trial. However the council have no plans in place to measure the success or otherwise of the pilot. The councillor in charge commented to the effect that most people have a passport these days so what is the problem.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Anyway, I'd best be off. I may have some shovelling to do. Happily, the windchill factor will rise from -8 to -7 shortly. Mmm, toasty. :p
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited March 2

    Ishmael_Z said:

    There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

    Rotherham, Weinstein, Oxfam. Initially tiny problems which turned out to be massive and endemic across whole industries/cultures. What is your evidence the problem is tiny? Indeed what would, even in principle, constitute evidence of tininess?
    Where's your evidence that it's a significant problem; one worth potentially disenfranchising large numbers of people?

    Personally, I'd ask the Electoral Commission to investigate the issue further. Look at some constituencies where there have been problems, or there have been allegations of personation, and give them powers to do a suitable study during a real election.

    Or alternatively, bring in the requirement for voter ID in a constituency where there has been proven problems for one election afterwards, and see how it effects voter behaviour.
    Voter ID has been required in Northern Ireland since 1985 - with it moving to photo ID in 2003. There is no evidence that this has created an issue with disenfranchising people.

    It’s probably a worthwhile change to make, providing that:

    A. There’s a long implementation period, with specific assistance targeted at the elderly who are most likely to be affected.

    B. The change is made as a result of a proper scientific study, by people that are seen to be politically impartial such as the Electoral Commission

    C. Other issues such as the wide availability of postal ballots are addressed at the same time.

    As others have pointed out, most countries have some sort of law around voter ID. Provided we don’t look to the utterly partisan shenanigans that happens in the USA it’ll probably work fine.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,729
    edited March 2

    Anyway, I'd best be off. I may have some shovelling to do. Happily, the windchill factor will rise from -8 to -7 shortly. Mmm, toasty. :p

    Are you really a Yorkshireman?

    A good Yorkshireman enjoys the cold weather, as it gives us an opportunity to show the world just how much more resilient we are than Southerners.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,470
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    Showing I/D, or a proof of address, at a polling station seems fair enough to me.

    But what happens if you don't have ID?
    Bring a proof of address, such as a council tax demand.
    I have photographic ID - but I really struggle with proof of address.

    I live in an HMO, therefore I am not the one liable for Council Tax.

    I get all my bills electronically which means they have not been sent to me and are therefore commonly not accepted.

    When I move I have to ask my Bank specially to issue a statement or two to my new address (for which curiously they require no proof).
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,039

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    Showing I/D, or a proof of address, at a polling station seems fair enough to me.

    But what happens if you don't have ID?
    Bring a proof of address, such as a council tax demand.
    I have photographic ID - but I really struggle with proof of address.

    I live in an HMO, therefore I am not the one liable for Council Tax.

    I get all my bills electronically which means they have not been sent to me and are therefore commonly not accepted.

    When I move I have to ask my Bank specially to issue a statement or two to my new address (for which curiously they require no proof).
    Yeah, proof of address is a major hassle.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392
    viewcode said:

    I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.

    I wonder why.

    Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.
    Except that's bollocks.

    All the regular pb Leavers who post on here that I know have full-time jobs.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974

    Ishmael_Z said:

    There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

    Rotherham, Weinstein, Oxfam. Initially tiny problems which turned out to be massive and endemic across whole industries/cultures. What is your evidence the problem is tiny? Indeed what would, even in principle, constitute evidence of tininess?
    Where's your evidence that it's a significant problem; one worth potentially disenfranchising large numbers of people?

    Personally, I'd ask the Electoral Commission to investigate the issue further. Look at some constituencies where there have been problems, or there have been allegations of personation, and give them powers to do a suitable study during a real election.

    Or alternatively, bring in the requirement for voter ID in a constituency where there has been proven problems for one election afterwards, and see how it effects voter behaviour.
    Voter ID has been required in Northern Ireland since 1985 - with it moving to photo ID in 2003. There is no evidence that this has created an issue with disenfranchising people.
    Hmmm. Is NI the best example for this?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,162
    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    This is a barmy idea, and one that is bad for democracy.

    Indeed. This was covered some years ago.

    So it shouldn't be unfairly and incompetently administered, but then nor should anything.
    The point was that some people don't have ID and no means to obtain one. And since those people are disproportionately distributed amongst the parties, it has a partisan effect.

    It's not a bad point, and as has been pointed out NI does voter ID already. But it does demonstrate a disconnect between the governed and the governors: some people just don't have IDs (or mobile phones, or Skype, or WhatsApp), and denying them votes is not good.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,729
    Perhaps we should move to electronic voting.

    Everyone gets a government gateway login and job's a good 'un.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,162
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    Showing I/D, or a proof of address, at a polling station seems fair enough to me.

    But what happens if you don't have ID?
    Bring a proof of address, such as a council tax demand.
    What happens if you don't have a fixed abode?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,135
    Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

    Lab 40.7%
    Con 40.5%
    LD 7.6%
    UKIP 4.1%
    Green 2.2%

    Changes since GE2017:

    Lab -0.3%
    Con -2.9%
    LD no change
    UKIP +2.2%
    Green +0.5%

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    AndyJS said:

    Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

    Lab 40.7%
    Con 40.5%
    LD 7.6%
    UKIP 4.1%
    Green 2.2%

    Changes since GE2017:

    Lab -0.3%
    Con -2.9%
    LD no change
    UKIP +2.2%
    Green +0.5%

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

    Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,729
    As someone who lives in two places, getting proof of address for the address I want to vote in is a real arse.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617

    Note this is a corrected version of the post I published half an hour ago.

    Image is still 'Electoral Commission' and as Rog will tell you a picture is worth a thousand words...
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,039
    By the way, how is this supposed to work with postal voting?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 903

    Ishmael_Z said:

    There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

    Rotherham, Weinstein, Oxfam. Initially tiny problems which turned out to be massive and endemic across whole industries/cultures. What is your evidence the problem is tiny? Indeed what would, even in principle, constitute evidence of tininess?
    Where's your evidence that it's a significant problem; one worth potentially disenfranchising large numbers of people?

    Personally, I'd ask the Electoral Commission to investigate the issue further. Look at some constituencies where there have been problems, or there have been allegations of personation, and give them powers to do a suitable study during a real election.

    Or alternatively, bring in the requirement for voter ID in a constituency where there has been proven problems for one election afterwards, and see how it effects voter behaviour.
    Voter ID has been required in Northern Ireland since 1985 - with it moving to photo ID in 2003. There is no evidence that this has created an issue with disenfranchising people.
    Hmmm. Is NI the best example for this?
    Canada, Spain, Greece, France, Norway, Belgium....plenty of examples.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,633

    Ishmael_Z said:

    There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

    Rotherham, Weinstein, Oxfam. Initially tiny problems which turned out to be massive and endemic across whole industries/cultures. What is your evidence the problem is tiny? Indeed what would, even in principle, constitute evidence of tininess?
    Where's your evidence that it's a significant problem; one worth potentially disenfranchising large numbers of people?

    Personally, I'd ask the Electoral Commission to investigate the issue further. Look at some constituencies where there have been problems, or there have been allegations of personation, and give them powers to do a suitable study during a real election.

    Or alternatively, bring in the requirement for voter ID in a constituency where there has been proven problems for one election afterwards, and see how it effects voter behaviour.
    Voter ID has been required in Northern Ireland since 1985 - with it moving to photo ID in 2003. There is no evidence that this has created an issue with disenfranchising people.
    Hmmm. Is NI the best example for this?
    It is proof that Voter ID is already working in part of the UK and has been for over 30 years without any evidence of it suppressing voters.

    It is not unreasonable at all to ask people to prove that they are eligible to vote. Not unreasonable at all.

    If you want to be part of the democratic purpose, turning up with proof of ID or address is not unreasonable.

    The current system is open to abuse - whether or not the scale of that abuse is significant - reducing the potential for abuse is not unreasonable.

    I don't understand the mindset that thinks that proving you are the person you claim to be at the polling station is in any way a bad or overbearing thing.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,729
    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

    Lab 40.7%
    Con 40.5%
    LD 7.6%
    UKIP 4.1%
    Green 2.2%

    Changes since GE2017:

    Lab -0.3%
    Con -2.9%
    LD no change
    UKIP +2.2%
    Green +0.5%

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

    Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front
    If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 26,369

    viewcode said:

    I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.

    I wonder why.

    Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.
    Except that's bollocks.

    All the regular pb Leavers who post on here that I know have full-time jobs.
    Um, should be renewing my contract some time this month. I've been waiting for some time :(
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974

    Perhaps we should move to electronic voting.

    Everyone gets a government gateway login and job's a good 'un.

    Even better: it'd let the Russian government vote for you!

    (Electronic voting, and especially Internet voting, is a hideous idea)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617

    By the way, how is this supposed to work with postal voting?

    Which I would have thought a greater concern wrt fraud.....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    Perhaps we should move to electronic voting.

    Everyone gets a government gateway login and job's a good 'un.

    Ask anyone who works in IT if they think that’s a good idea, or compatible with the secret ballot.

    It isn’t.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,311
    What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    edited March 2

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

    Lab 40.7%
    Con 40.5%
    LD 7.6%
    UKIP 4.1%
    Green 2.2%

    Changes since GE2017:

    Lab -0.3%
    Con -2.9%
    LD no change
    UKIP +2.2%
    Green +0.5%

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

    Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front
    If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.
    The Tories are on 40% now, down 2% from the general election and Labour on 40% now, unchanged from the general election. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,162

    There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.

    You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...

    ...or you could just accept that some people cannot or won't get ID and this is a price you should pay for a free society.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,729
    Sandpit said:

    Perhaps we should move to electronic voting.

    Everyone gets a government gateway login and job's a good 'un.

    Ask anyone who works in IT if they think that’s a good idea, or compatible with the secret ballot.

    It isn’t.
    We need a sarcasm symbol.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,039
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

    Lab 40.7%
    Con 40.5%
    LD 7.6%
    UKIP 4.1%
    Green 2.2%

    Changes since GE2017:

    Lab -0.3%
    Con -2.9%
    LD no change
    UKIP +2.2%
    Green +0.5%

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

    Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front
    If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.
    The Tories are on 40% now and Labour on 40% now. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!
    Simple maths, but not really the correct maths for the situation
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,633
    edited March 2

    What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.

    http://www.eoni.org.uk/Electoral-Identity-Card/Electoral-Identity-Card-FAQs#q34

    They have a range of options - including the free Electoral Identity Card
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,311

    What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.

    http://www.eoni.org.uk/Electoral-Identity-Card/Electoral-Identity-Card-FAQs#q34

    They have a range of options - including the free Electoral Identity Card
    Thanks. I like the idea of using a bus pass!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799

    Anyway, I'd best be off. I may have some shovelling to do. Happily, the windchill factor will rise from -8 to -7 shortly. Mmm, toasty. :p

    Take care. The biggest spike in heart attacks in the US is associated with snow-shovelling.....
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 903
    edited March 2
    viewcode said:

    There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.

    You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...

    ...or you could just accept that some people cannot or won't get ID and this is a price you should pay for a free society.
    Ireland has been rolling out a public services ID card. It didn't exist five years ago and now 75 per cent of the resident population has one and rising all the time. It makes accessing public services and health care easier - it would smooth throughput in the NHS, local council officers and more.

    The elderly get free bus passes - most heavily used by the poor. They are photo IDs are provided free bus travel across England Scotland and Wales on one card.

    If Ireland can do this - why can't we?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 928
    Off topic rant:
    I look out of my door this morning, and see the odd scubby patch of snow on the odd front lawn. Now, I don't evny the people stuck in their cars overnight or those without gas, but a decnt flurry would be fun. This is supposed to be the snowiest Britain this century. There isn't even enough to build a snowman in southwest Manchester.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,162

    viewcode said:

    I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.

    I wonder why.

    Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.
    Except that's bollocks.

    All the regular pb Leavers who post on here that I know have full-time jobs.
    I wasn't implying Leavers don't have full-time jobs and you missed my use of the word "salaried". To explain...

    Some people have full-time jobs with larger companies and there are HR departments and restrictions on Internet viewing. Some people work for small companies and can surf freely. Some people work at higher echelons and the rules are freer/non-existent. Others are self-employed. All have full-time jobs, but their posting patterns and voting patterns are different.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,162
    brendan16 said:

    viewcode said:

    There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.

    You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...

    ...or you could just accept that some people cannot or won't get ID and this is a price you should pay for a free society.
    Ireland has been rolling out a public services ID card. It didn't exist five years ago and now 75 per cent of the resident population has one and rising all the time. It makes accessing public services and health care easier - it would smooth throughput in the NHS, local council officers and more.

    The elderly get free bus passes - most heavily used by the poor. They are photo IDs are provided free bus travel across England Scotland and Wales on one card.

    If Ireland can do this - why can't we?
    I wasn't arguing that we can't. I was questioning why we should.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,241

    What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.

    A death certificate is acceptable ID to get a vote in NI.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,488

    Ishmael_Z said:

    There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

    Rotherham, Weinstein, Oxfam. Initially tiny problems which turned out to be massive and endemic across whole industries/cultures. What is your evidence the problem is tiny? Indeed what would, even in principle, constitute evidence of tininess?
    Where's your evidence that it's a significant problem; one worth potentially disenfranchising large numbers of people?

    Personally, I'd ask the Electoral Commission to investigate the issue further. Look at some constituencies where there have been problems, or there have been allegations of personation, and give them powers to do a suitable study during a real election.

    Or alternatively, bring in the requirement for voter ID in a constituency where there has been proven problems for one election afterwards, and see how it effects voter behaviour.
    Done properly, it disenfranchises nobody.

    People being what they are, they tend in all cases I to do illegal things which are to their advantage, if they think the risk/reward ratio is in their favour. That is why you lock your house and your car and do not have your PIN numbers handily tattooed on your wrist. So, my evidence that it happens is: none, except human nature (and 28 alleged cases in 2017). Your evidence that it doesn't happen is: none, and in this one instance the innate goodness and decency of absolutely everybody uniquely wins out and ensures that the system needs no policing.

    You don't do months of research into local burglary stats before fitting locks to your house, you just do it.

    There's also a point very specific to voting, here. I attach a huge amount of importance to ensuring that I vote in each and every general election, despite the fact that my individual vote makes absolutely no difference to anything. I assume you, and everyone else here, feels the same. The importance of the act is maximally disproportionate to its actual effectiveness, and the theft of the right to do it should be judged on its importance in that sense, not its actual consequences. I therefore don't attach any weight to "it makes no difference" arguments.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,729
    edited March 2
    The New Statesman is going behind a metered paywall, I wonder if it will be as easy to by pass as The Spectator paywall.

    Starting later this month, the New Statesman will be introducing a metered paywall. Readers will still be able to view a limited number of articles for free each month. However, our more avid readers will be asked to create a free account to continue reading more than a few pieces per month; or sign up for a digital, or combined print and digital, subscription for full, unlimited access and exclusive content.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/03/letter-editor-future-new-statesman
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,162

    By the way, how is this supposed to work with postal voting?

    Which I would have thought a greater concern wrt fraud.....
    Easy. Ban postal votes (except for the disabled and bedbound). Given their status as a fraud factory, I'd have no problem with that.
  • rawzerrawzer Posts: 85

    The New Statesman is going behind a metered paywall, I wonder if it will be as easy to by pass as The Spectator paywall.

    Starting later this month, the New Statesman will be introducing a metered paywall. Readers will still be able to view a limited number of articles for free each month. However, our more avid readers will be asked to create a free account to continue reading more than a few pieces per month; or sign up for a digital, or combined print and digital, subscription for full, unlimited access and exclusive content.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/03/letter-editor-future-new-statesman

    ooh, do tell
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,162

    What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.

    A death certificate is acceptable ID to get a vote in NI.
    :)
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,620
    edited March 2

    There are certain well-known trouble spots which create an altogether disproportionate alarm over a tiny problem. Why not simply police those areas better?

    Thinking of a few of them I would imagine there would be screams of racist
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,513

    What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.

    A death certificate is acceptable ID to get a vote in NI.
    brendan16 said:

    viewcode said:

    There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.

    You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...

    ...or you could just accept that some people cannot or won't get ID and this is a price you should pay for a free society.
    Ireland has been rolling out a public services ID card. It didn't exist five years ago and now 75 per cent of the resident population has one and rising all the time. It makes accessing public services and health care easier - it would smooth throughput in the NHS, local council officers and more.

    The elderly get free bus passes - most heavily used by the poor. They are photo IDs are provided free bus travel across England Scotland and Wales on one card.

    If Ireland can do this - why can't we?
    The Post Office refuse to accept the pensioner bus pass as a satisfactory form of ID when you go to pick up mail at the sorting office.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited March 2

    The New Statesman is going behind a metered paywall, I wonder if it will be as easy to by pass as The Spectator paywall.

    Starting later this month, the New Statesman will be introducing a metered paywall. Readers will still be able to view a limited number of articles for free each month. However, our more avid readers will be asked to create a free account to continue reading more than a few pieces per month; or sign up for a digital, or combined print and digital, subscription for full, unlimited access and exclusive content.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/03/letter-editor-future-new-statesman

    Who’s going to pay for the New Stateman online, who isn’t already a subscriber?

    Speccy paywall is clearly more for show than anything else, as was the Telegraph until a few weeks ago when they finally locked their “premium” content up properly. FT and the Times have pretty much always worked properly.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,804

    The New Statesman is going behind a metered paywall, I wonder if it will be as easy to by pass as The Spectator paywall.

    Starting later this month, the New Statesman will be introducing a metered paywall. Readers will still be able to view a limited number of articles for free each month. However, our more avid readers will be asked to create a free account to continue reading more than a few pieces per month; or sign up for a digital, or combined print and digital, subscription for full, unlimited access and exclusive content.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/03/letter-editor-future-new-statesman

    So, what if you are already a subscriber to the print edition? Surely us loyal followers who have stuck with the ink should also get access?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

    Lab 40.7%
    Con 40.5%
    LD 7.6%
    UKIP 4.1%
    Green 2.2%

    Changes since GE2017:

    Lab -0.3%
    Con -2.9%
    LD no change
    UKIP +2.2%
    Green +0.5%

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

    Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front
    If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.
    The Tories are on 40% now and Labour on 40% now. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!
    Simple maths, but not really the correct maths for the situation
    Oh absolutely the correct maths, the Tories need a clear Leaver next time to hold the 42% (40% will almost certainly never vote for Corbyn).

    To get a majority they need to hope some Remainers move from Labour to LD and add a few more Labour Leavers and 2015 Tories who voted Labour over the dementia tax
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,729
    rawzer said:

    The New Statesman is going behind a metered paywall, I wonder if it will be as easy to by pass as The Spectator paywall.

    Starting later this month, the New Statesman will be introducing a metered paywall. Readers will still be able to view a limited number of articles for free each month. However, our more avid readers will be asked to create a free account to continue reading more than a few pieces per month; or sign up for a digital, or combined print and digital, subscription for full, unlimited access and exclusive content.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/03/letter-editor-future-new-statesman

    ooh, do tell
    Once you’ve read all your free articles just open up the next articles in an incognito window on your browser.
  • rawzerrawzer Posts: 85

    rawzer said:

    The New Statesman is going behind a metered paywall, I wonder if it will be as easy to by pass as The Spectator paywall.

    Starting later this month, the New Statesman will be introducing a metered paywall. Readers will still be able to view a limited number of articles for free each month. However, our more avid readers will be asked to create a free account to continue reading more than a few pieces per month; or sign up for a digital, or combined print and digital, subscription for full, unlimited access and exclusive content.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/03/letter-editor-future-new-statesman

    ooh, do tell
    Once you’ve read all your free articles just open up the next articles in an incognito window on your browser.
    Oh thats what Incognito browsing is for :)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,729

    The New Statesman is going behind a metered paywall, I wonder if it will be as easy to by pass as The Spectator paywall.

    Starting later this month, the New Statesman will be introducing a metered paywall. Readers will still be able to view a limited number of articles for free each month. However, our more avid readers will be asked to create a free account to continue reading more than a few pieces per month; or sign up for a digital, or combined print and digital, subscription for full, unlimited access and exclusive content.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/03/letter-editor-future-new-statesman

    So, what if you are already a subscriber to the print edition? Surely us loyal followers who have stuck with the ink should also get access?
    You will, will be included with your subscription.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,241
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

    Lab 40.7%
    Con 40.5%
    LD 7.6%
    UKIP 4.1%
    Green 2.2%

    Changes since GE2017:

    Lab -0.3%
    Con -2.9%
    LD no change
    UKIP +2.2%
    Green +0.5%

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

    Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front
    If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.
    The Tories are on 40% now and Labour on 40% now. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!
    Simple maths, but not really the correct maths for the situation
    Oh absolutely the correct maths, the Tories need a clear Leaver next time to hold the 42% (40% will almost certainly never vote for Corbyn).

    To get a majority they need to hope some Remainers move from Labour to LD and add a few more Labour Leavers and 2015 Tories who voted Labour over the dementia tax
    What about the Tory Remainers who jump ship?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 903
    edited March 2
    viewcode said:

    brendan16 said:

    viewcode said:

    There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.

    You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...

    ...or you could just accept that some people cannot or won't get ID and this is a price you should pay for a free society.
    Ireland has been rolling out a public services ID card. It didn't exist five years ago and now 75 per cent of the resident population has one and rising all the time. It makes accessing public services and health care easier - it would smooth throughput in the NHS, local council officers and more.

    The elderly get free bus passes - most heavily used by the poor. They are photo IDs are provided free bus travel across England Scotland and Wales on one card.

    If Ireland can do this - why can't we?
    I wasn't arguing that we can't. I was questioning why we should.
    Perhaps you enjoy queuing or don't access many face to face public services? Been to casualty recently - and stuck in a long queue while the receptionist seeks name and address and GP and proof of entitlement to access the NHS from almost every arrival some of who, don't always have good English. In Ireland you just show the card - and all sorted.

    Our public services need to move into the 21st century - and that would be a good way to start. I recently made an application for a relative for pension credit - a benefit for low income elderly which has a very poor take up rate - the only way to apply is to call a DWP call centre and make a 30 minute application over the phone! The person I was applying for is hard of hearing - no way they could have applied easily without someone else applying for them. No online or even postal application - only by phone. Antiquated isn't the word for it! A different issue but indicative of a common problem.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,106
    Cookie said:

    Off topic rant:
    I look out of my door this morning, and see the odd scubby patch of snow on the odd front lawn. Now, I don't evny the people stuck in their cars overnight or those without gas, but a decnt flurry would be fun. This is supposed to be the snowiest Britain this century. There isn't even enough to build a snowman in southwest Manchester.

    2008 or 2009 was much better for snow in Manchester. I remember seeing snow boarders going down Wilmslow Rd.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,633

    What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.

    A death certificate is acceptable ID to get a vote in NI.
    brendan16 said:

    viewcode said:

    There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.

    You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...

    ...or you could just accept that some people cannot or won't get ID and this is a price you should pay for a free society.
    Ireland has been rolling out a public services ID card. It didn't exist five years ago and now 75 per cent of the resident population has one and rising all the time. It makes accessing public services and health care easier - it would smooth throughput in the NHS, local council officers and more.

    The elderly get free bus passes - most heavily used by the poor. They are photo IDs are provided free bus travel across England Scotland and Wales on one card.

    If Ireland can do this - why can't we?
    The Post Office refuse to accept the pensioner bus pass as a satisfactory form of ID when you go to pick up mail at the sorting office.
    But they are fine with a bank card - debit or credit.

    There are whole range of options that can be used. None of them totally secure - but better than the current free-for-all.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 903

    What forms of ID are accepted in Northern Ireland? Presumably they have the same problem of voters who don't have passports or driving licences.

    A death certificate is acceptable ID to get a vote in NI.
    I thought a death certificate was only required to register to vote?!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    edited March 2

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

    Lab 40.7%
    Con 40.5%
    LD 7.6%
    UKIP 4.1%
    Green 2.2%

    Changes since GE2017:

    Lab -0.3%
    Con -2.9%
    LD no change
    UKIP +2.2%
    Green +0.5%

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

    Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front
    If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.
    The Tories are on 40% now and Labour on 40% now. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!
    Simple maths, but not really the correct maths for the situation
    Oh absolutely the correct maths, the Tories need a clear Leaver next time to hold the 42% (40% will almost certainly never vote for Corbyn).

    To get a majority they need to hope some Remainers move from Labour to LD and add a few more Labour Leavers and 2015 Tories who voted Labour over the dementia tax
    What about the Tory Remainers who jump ship?
    If they did not jump ship in June 2017 when May took her tough pro Brexit stance I doubt they ever will, especially while Corbyn is the alternative
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Done properly, it disenfranchises nobody.

    People being what they are, they tend in all cases I to do illegal things which are to their advantage, if they think the risk/reward ratio is in their favour. That is why you lock your house and your car and do not have your PIN numbers handily tattooed on your wrist. So, my evidence that it happens is: none, except human nature (and 28 alleged cases in 2017). Your evidence that it doesn't happen is: none, and in this one instance the innate goodness and decency of absolutely everybody uniquely wins out and ensures that the system needs no policing.

    You don't do months of research into local burglary stats before fitting locks to your house, you just do it.

    There's also a point very specific to voting, here. I attach a huge amount of importance to ensuring that I vote in each and every general election, despite the fact that my individual vote makes absolutely no difference to anything. I assume you, and everyone else here, feels the same. The importance of the act is maximally disproportionate to its actual effectiveness, and the theft of the right to do it should be judged on its importance in that sense, not its actual consequences. I therefore don't attach any weight to "it makes no difference" arguments.

    I'm not saying it doesn't happen; just that there is no evidence that it occurs to the extent that it is a problem (i.e. changes the results of an election).

    I believe it is important for everyone eligible to be able to vote, and this means balancing out the ease of access to vote, and the security of the ballot. Using a slightly silly example, we could have more security by asking everyone to vote at their local council offices, but this would reduce the accessibility. Likewise, we could go for electronic voting and dramatically increase accessibility, but reduce the security.

    This move appears to tackle a problem that is essentially non-existent, and will reduce accessibility. If we believe it's a problem, then we should do more research into the scale of the issue, and if that shows that it is an issue, look at the best way of addressing it.

    I'm also in favour of compulsory voting (with caveats), but that's a different argument. ;)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,162
    edited March 2

    ...But they are fine with a bank card - debit or credit...

    Some people don't have bank accounts.

    The options you are describing are appropriate for a fulltime employee with a car and mobile phone in an urban area with the panoply of modern documentation: passport, drivers licence, bank card, etc. Some people don't fit that profile and never will.

  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 903
    edited March 2
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

    Lab 40.7%
    Con 40.5%
    LD 7.6%
    UKIP 4.1%
    Green 2.2%

    Changes since GE2017:

    Lab -0.3%
    Con -2.9%
    LD no change
    UKIP +2.2%
    Green +0.5%

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

    Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front
    If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.
    The Tories are on 40% now, down 2% from the general election and Labour on 40% now, unchanged from the general election. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!
    UKIP didn't stand in half the seats. So you might argue had they done so they would have gone nearer 4 per cent. The 2 per cent didn't vote UKIP because they couldn't.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975

    The question is whether that small number is the observable tip of a significant iceberg.

    It's been remarked upon repeatedly that if a few thousand votes had gone either way, May could have a 60 seat majority, or Corbyn could be PM. A small number of precisely located fraudsters can cause as much democratic harm as an unfocused but massive number.

    There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.

    It's simple: require the person's local authority to provide a photo ID for free, on submission of appropriate paper-based documentation in person.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815
    "A total of 11m voters (24% of the electorate) do not have a passport or photographic driving license."

    Other forms of photo ID are available.

    What time is May's speech ?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Electoral Calculus, latest polling averages:

    Lab 40.7%
    Con 40.5%
    LD 7.6%
    UKIP 4.1%
    Green 2.2%

    Changes since GE2017:

    Lab -0.3%
    Con -2.9%
    LD no change
    UKIP +2.2%
    Green +0.5%

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

    Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front
    If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.
    The Tories are on 40% now and Labour on 40% now. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!
    Simple maths, but not really the correct maths for the situation
    Oh absolutely the correct maths, the Tories need a clear Leaver next time to hold the 42% (40% will almost certainly never vote for Corbyn).

    To get a majority they need to hope some Remainers move from Labour to LD and add a few more Labour Leavers and 2015 Tories who voted Labour over the dementia tax
    What about the Tory Remainers who jump ship?
    There are very few Tory Remainers who might jump ship. Those from 2015 who were at risk mostly did so in 2017 (see kensington, Canterbury etc), and most of those remaining are much more exercised by stopping Corbyn than stopping brexit.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,158
    viewcode said:

    I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.

    I wonder why.

    Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.
    Alternatively Leaver posters tend to be successful entrepreneurs with their own businesses who therefore understand the value of independence and self reliance. And as an aside have more control over their own time so can post during normal working hours.
This discussion has been closed.