Voter ID

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Well, there you go !

Now the real reason is coming out.

Somebody further back said ‘If you’ve nothing to hide, what’s the problem?’

It's not a criminal offence to be in debt. I thought you claimed to be an accountant?

How about a battered wife that thinks that being on the register will give away her location to her ex?

[GordonS]

14 minutes ago, strichener said:

Thanks, I read that as the verification process for NI was the same as the UK.  Therefore the UK is open to the same abuse albeit that there is currently no evidence that widespread fraud is being conducted.  I note that the measures introduced in NI reduced the electorate by 11% although there is no indication in the article of proportions as to what was genuine apathy to the new registration system or what were previously fraudulent entries.

I do think our current verification system for voting in person are too lax but I would have thought technology could have been used rather than defacto ID cards.

In GB you could commit some genuine voter fraud if you could get enough people to join you and you didn't mind if it was known that it happened after the election. The particular situation in Northern Ireland made that a reality - it's not a risk at all in GB.

I can't see how technology could help tbh, in fact one of the reasons British elections are to easy to trust is because they're low tech. It makes them very transparent and easy to scrutinise.

If I were in charge I would change nothing about the conduct of the ballot and the count. I would have polling across Saturday and Sunday, with the count on the Monday. Counting through the night leads to mistakes being made through tiredness. Registration could be much more automatic, that's something that would be fixed by a government that gave a damn.

Interesting contrast that, while the Scottish Parliament extended the vote to 16 & 17 year olds, foreign nationals and refugees, the UK government is trying to constrict the electorate for no justifiable reason.

[GordonS]

"Somebody further back said ‘If you’ve nothing to hide, what’s the problem?’"

They were joking!

[dirty dingus]

6 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Well, there you go !

Now the real reason is coming out.

Somebody further back said ‘If you’ve nothing to hide, what’s the problem?’

What do you mean there you go. These are folk who are broke living from giro to giro who are scared of losing homes etc.. Not some sort of big business who use connections is governments to wipe their debts or offer them lucrative contracts in tough times.

[GordonS]

14 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

In most cases, the Presiding Officers & Polling Clerks are locals. I used to be the PO at one of the boxes in Arbroath. My house at that time was 30 seconds walk away. It was my friends & neighbours that were voting. You would be taking a bit of a chance in turning up and claiming to be someone whose funeral I had attended during the previous week.

Edited to add - I could describe a simple method to vote multiple times, but I'm not describing it here.

Absolutely, that's one of the real risks of personation. Each polling station covers just a few streets and although the chances of either of the two polling clerks recognising you is low, there's a decent chance a neighbour of the person you're pretending to be is standing within earshot.

[GordonS]

27 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

People ARE following the correct procedures. It's Johnson & his Tory chums that are trying to change these procedures to disadvantage people that are less likely to vote for him.

Personally, I have no problem with carrying an ID card (I have to do it for work), but I know many people that object to carrying identification on principle. They are entitled to their principles. Why should they be obliged to abandon them to solve a problem that doesn't really exist?

If someone wants to carry out electoral fraud, there are far easier ways to do it than to turn up at the polling station & pretend to be someone else. That's why I suggested that you look up elections where the marked register has mysteriously disappeared...

Nail on head.

If you know there's not going to be a marked-up register the number of people you need to throw a constituency falls from dozens to as few as a two or three, providing they're in the right jobs and all in it together.

Of course, the real way to commit fraud in an election is to use deliberately misleading party names; spectacularly overspend in the full knowledge that the Electoral Commission are a bunch of pussies; get your offshore tax-dodging billionaire mates to pump out your propaganda in their newspapers, magazines and TV channels; scare the public broadcaster out of serious criticism; and throw dark money at Facebook.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/did-dark-money-and-dirty-tactics-swing-scottish-election/

I'm sure the Tories will get right onto that...

[GordonS]

44 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

I persume Scotland don't have to adopt voter ID?

The conduct of general elections is reserved, so we won't have a say. This applies to us too.

Provided we're still in the UK at the next general election, obviously.

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, dirty dingus said:

Lots of folk don't have themselves on the voters register as they think it will let debt agencies catch up with them. So there is no way they will be loooking to get some sort of ID card.

 

Tories don't believe that people hiding from debts should be allowed to vote. That's the point. You can't allow people to vote if they won't play by the rules of capitalism.

I think the reason all this angers me so much is because I'm certain it's not about voter fraud, but it's not simply about suppressing the Labour vote either. I think people on the right instinctively just feel that poor people and those who aren't British enough shouldn't have the same right to vote that they do. If they're prepared to jump through some bureaucratic hoops then alright, let them vote, but if not then it's tough titty.

I don't think they're conscious of this thought process, but I'm sure it explains most of what's going on. It's sheer prejudice. 

[Aladdin]

Maddening when you see the outcry from all the newly discovered uber-libertarians over vaccine passports (also a shite idea) then silence over this, with all criticism coming from the left.

[John Lambies Doos]

The conduct of general elections is reserved, so we won't have a say. This applies to us too.
Provided we're still in the UK at the next general election, obviously.

Yup, but not needed for Scottish elections or indy ref if we don't legislate it I guess

[D Angelo Barksdale]

It's not about voter fraud, which is so vanishingly rare that it doesn't really require this.

It's not about ID cards, which would be pretty unpopular with Tory voters. 

It's about voter suppression and alongside some gerrymandering, closing the back door to ensure that something like 2017, when an unexpectedly large number of young people rushed the polling booths and denied the Tories a majority, never happens again.

With many minorities and the young either unable to afford expensive ID, or unwilling to be registered in such a way, it paves the way for our silly little island's blood spitting, spite fuelled boomers and pensioners to vote in endless Tory governments.

[tamthebam]

2 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

The poster I was responding to suggested that there were advantages in a new system with voter ID.

The bit in brackets was meant to ve a tongue in cheek comment in case you missed the subtlety. I just don't see the need. It must be a Priti iniative.

[SANTAN]

The big question is does this help my side or not?

Ready to condemn/applaud as appropriate. 

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, John Lambies Doos said:

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

The conduct of general elections is reserved, so we won't have a say. This applies to us too.
Provided we're still in the UK at the next general election, obviously.

Yup, but not needed for Scottish elections or indy ref if we don't legislate it I guess

True for Scottish elections, but nobody knows what the arrangements would be for an independence referendum. The UK government could make it a condition of a s.30 order that it uses the general election franchise and electoral law. Would the SNP be able to turn it down if they did?

[madwullie]

Another belter of a blog on the Queen's speech by David Allen Green. Cannot recommend him enough as a follow on twitter if you don't already. 

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/05/this-illiberal-queens-speech-is-the-next-step-for-authoritarian-populism-after-brexit/

[NotThePars]

Posting up a screenshot with "Our Victims Bill" feels a bit of an admission by the boys. Maybe they're going to resurrect the 250,000 dead as a result of austerity and Covid.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

The Tories are untouchable so can do as they please.

Still better than Jezza and his Hamas pals.

[BigDoddyKane]

10 hours ago, GordonS said:

True for Scottish elections, but nobody knows what the arrangements would be for an independence referendum. The UK government could make it a condition of a s.30 order that it uses the general election franchise and electoral law. Would the SNP be able to turn it down if they did?

who chooses the date of indy2, I cant remember how it was done last time. lets say UK government agree to it do they set a condition of  timespan it should be held within. Then actual date is chosen by Scottish Government or how does it work?

Edited May 12, 2021 by BigDoddyKane

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, BigDoddyKane said:

who chooses the date of indy2, I cant remember how it was done last time. lets say UK government agree to it do they set a condition of  timespan it should be held within. Then actual date is chosen by Scottish Government or how does it work?

There are no rules written down for any of this. David Cameron let the SNP run the show last time - he handed over power to pick the date, choose the question, decide who would be allowed to vote, the lot. It was a ballsy but smart move as nobody could credibly claim it was stitched up. 

Johnson doesn't need to repeat that example. So the legislation to allow the Scottish Parliament to pass a referendum bill could say it must be held between x and y dates, and the Scottish Parliament could only pick a date in there.

The UK government could also say that the question will be chosen by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the electoral register to be used will be the one used for general elections (so no foreign nationals or under 18s). The Scottish Parliament would be stuck with that and would either have to accept those terms or not hold the referendum, which would look like cowardice.

[Salt n Vinegar]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

There are no rules written down for any of this. David Cameron let the SNP run the show last time - he handed over power to pick the date, choose the question, decide who would be allowed to vote, the lot. It was a ballsy but smart move as nobody could credibly claim it was stitched up. 

Johnson doesn't need to repeat that example. So the legislation to allow the Scottish Parliament to pass a referendum bill could say it must be held between x and y dates, and the Scottish Parliament could only pick a date in there.

The UK government could also say that the question will be chosen by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the electoral register to be used will be the one used for general elections (so no foreign nationals or under 18s). The Scottish Parliament would be stuck with that and would either have to accept those terms or not hold the referendum, which would look like cowardice.

With a change in the description of the two parties involved in the sorts of "discussions" you set out in the second and third paragraphs, you have set out pretty well what would accurately be described as an abusive relationship.