The end of Free and Fair Elections in the UK. A dark day.

Of course they are. You register your name & providing you qualify, citzenship etc, you have the right to vote?
There's a presumption of entitlement to vote & if you fraudulently claim the right, knowing you're not entitled, you're commiting an offence.
This is what I am questioning because you could register say your entitled to vote , but are not really , so is this ever checked ? Because if not who knows who is voting without rights to , my point is , that if you really want to ensure that those that are entitled to vote do, then you should have checked the nationality already and that involves a passport or some form of ID ?
So surely the checks should be done when you register to vote, not when you go to vote
 
Last edited:
It's two aspects - one is actual fraud. It may not have happened on a wide scale in the past, but that doesn't mean it won't happen in the future with the current less secure process.

Second is the perception of it and the potential to question the process before, during or after an election. It doesn't make it go away as ID can be faked, but I would imagine it would be much more difficult to fake someone's name, address and photo ID if all are asked for when voting.


And I didn't say that. I stated the perception of it.

So you’re saying that people can perceive that fraudulent voting takes place in a massive scale, even though all of the evidence suggests the opposite, so we should therefore introduce extra requirements to appease those people, who are provably wrong.

That feels like taking a hammer to crack a nut.
 
Last edited:
This is what I am questioning because you could register say your entitled to vote , but are not really , so is this ever checked ?


You don’t need a passport to register to vote.
 
If the Government truly cared about democracy for all, they wouldn’t add an extra (non-required) step for people to have to do in order to exercise their Democratic right to vote.
Agreed - and as I posted our conservative government here wouldn’t suggest adding it in order to exercise our mandated vote. This suggestion is causing angst here and we are far more accepting of carrying and requiring photo ID than the UK population.

@Vegeta and others - I get the view that it isn’t a burden as it isn’t a big deal to do it, that the issue of voter fraud might occur in the future etc etc. However good government is all about assuming good intent and not creating rules that are unnecessary and adversely/needlessly impact sections of the population. There is no evidence photo ID is required to address an evidenced problem.

Solving a created problem for 2 million people by saying they will be provided a free ID as they can’t afford it is to me a typical conservative solution to a problem they created. As is saying something is needed now as the issue will occur in the future.

It is typical of that colour of government to make those who can’t afford something inferior. The assumption is the other millions who can afford it agree there is a problem to fix.

IMHO it is 100% political where they is no evidence of the issues photo ID at the polling booth will fix.
 
How is my assertion unfounded? Just because people haven't been organised enough yet (as far as we know) to take advantage of a flaw doesn't mean it can't happen. By that logic if there are flaws in software then they don't exist as long as no one takes advantage of it.
And this thinking is what I was referring to. Using this in government is only ever about doing something that suits you the government of the day. It is not how good laws are created.

Your software analogy isn’t correct. If flaws are latent or not evidenced then they don’t exist until somebody takes advantage of them. That is the point here. You don’t fix something that isn’t an issue until there is evidence it is an issue.
 
This suggestion is causing angst here and we are far more accepting of carrying and requiring photo ID than the UK population
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? At this point it potentially affects and creates angst for up to 2 million people who do not have photo ID. It doesn't seem like something that is widespread.

And this thinking is what I was referring to. Using this in government is only ever about doing something that suits you the government of the day. It is not how good laws are created.

Your software analogy isn’t correct. If flaws are latent or not evidenced then they don’t exist until somebody takes advantage of them. That is the point here. You don’t fix something that isn’t an issue until there is evidence it is an issue.
For me it's non partisan. If it was a Labour or whatever party policy, I would also be fine with it.

I don't see your reasoning on my software analogy as unproving what I said. With a good number of software security updates for say windows, web browsers etc either the developers or white hackers find a theoretical flaw that may or may not have been taken advantage of by black hat hackers. The developers will usually still go and patch it with updates even if it causes inconvenience on the side of the end user. I do understand where you're coming from and there is a degree to which it's unfeasible to go around "fixing" potential issues a certain process/system.
 
Your birth certificate.
So do they ask for that at registration, because if they do surely you can produce that when you turn up to vote , btw, a birth cert is not ultimately proof your a british citizen, what I am questioning in all this is the logic by what the government is trying to achieve, if for example you register and that registration is accepted, and then you turn up with ID which matches your registration says you are Korean for example will that mean you vote is denied? Or Is the ID proof purely to check who is registered is the person who turns up? ...am I making any sense , so in reality all you have to do is switch to a postal vote ? Or will they require ID to be sent in this case as well ?
 
Last edited:
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
Sorry I have Canberra as my location in my profile but shouldn’t assume all members know that. I am talking about Australia where we have to vote by law and have even lower evidence of fraud than you in the UK. The same colour political party in power here has suggested we need photo ID because of all the so called reasons you have been given, plus the classic “the UK is doing it so we have to too”.

I don’t see angst of up to 2 million people as a not widespread issue.

my job involves creating and administering legislation over here so my views are supported by what good government policy looks like. I am putting forward how good legislation is created and pointing out how the photo ID rule over there and over here doesn’t meet any of the criteria to be good legislation.

my reference to conservative government is small c and is based on decades of evidence from governments of that view in both countries.

photo ID at the polling booth as a rule has no basis in evidence of need outweighing impacts In the UK nor here in Australia.
 
Where there is a history of voter fraud
As everyone says there isn’t and I do believe in the main most people are honest, there is to much focus in the Uk, trying to stop the few, which impacts on the many, and it is used as an excuse all they time to take away things which benefit everyone
However as I said above, they are focusing on the wrong end of the process, entitlement should be proved at registration, not when one is voting
 
Is your argument that because something was suitable in the past, then it's fine for the future?

How is my assertion unfounded? Just because people haven't been organised enough yet (as far as we know) to take advantage of a flaw doesn't mean it can't happen. By that logic if there are flaws in software then they don't exist as long as no one takes advantage of it.

There is also the perception of the elections too. The US has shown recently how this can cause some big issues.

No the argument is a simple one we've all heard before. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

I'll just steal what I wrote in the Starmer thread for here. As I've shared this a few times before when this issue has arose in the past in other threads.


Stats from The Electoral Commission.

At the 2019 General Election, out of 47,587,254 people voting, there was only 1 conviction of voter fraud (+ 0 cautions). That represents 0.0000021014% of votes.

In total 164 incidents were reported (0.00034463% of votes). Of these, 163 were either not actually offences/had no or insufficient evidence/were resolved.

Narrowest Seat margin in GB = 105 votes. If fake voters were distributed evenly across the country, there would have needed to be 66,360 of them who all happen to vote for the same party to affect the result of 1 seat. There was evidence of 1.



Considering the wealth of problems this country has to deal with, voter fraud is not one of them. And considering the amount of people who complain about our government wasting their taxes, I will have to assume they'll be furious on the government squandering more of them on a non-issue.

To be honest it's no wonder the country is in a bloody mess.
 
Sorry I have Canberra as my location in my profile but shouldn’t assume all members know that. I am talking about Australia where we have to vote by law and have even lower evidence of fraud than you in the UK. The same colour political party in power here has suggested we need photo ID because of all the so called reasons you have been given, plus the classic “the UK is doing it so we have to too”.

I don’t see angst of up to 2 million people as a not widespread issue.

my job involves creating and administering legislation over here so my views are supported by what good government policy looks like. I am putting forward how good legislation is created and pointing out how the photo ID rule over there and over here doesn’t meet any of the criteria to be good legislation.

my reference to conservative government is small c and is based on decades of evidence from governments of that view in both countries.

photo ID at the polling booth as a rule has no basis in evidence of need outweighing impacts In the UK nor here in Australia.
Thanks for clarifying which country you mean.

For something as important as voting which is normally a central pillar of democratic countries, for me if it makes it more secure in the future without actually limiting the population's right to vote, then I think it makes sense to add that layer of security. I understand that you see it as if there isn't a problem before then there's no point in dealing with it.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on how important a flaw there is and whether or not to deal with it should be dealt with in this manner.

As we're giving the voters without photo ID the means to get a free ID card, it's a pretty much open and shut case in my view as long as there's not some convoluted process to getting the free ID.
 
No the argument is a simple one we've all heard before. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

I'll just steal what I wrote in the Starmer thread for here. As I've shared this a few times before when this issue has arose in the past in other threads.


Stats from The Electoral Commission.

At the 2019 General Election, out of 47,587,254 people voting, there was only 1 conviction of voter fraud (+ 0 cautions). That represents 0.0000021014% of votes.

In total 164 incidents were reported (0.00034463% of votes). Of these, 163 were either not actually offences/had no or insufficient evidence/were resolved.

Narrowest Seat margin in GB = 105 votes. If fake voters were distributed evenly across the country, there would have needed to be 66,360 of them who all happen to vote for the same party to affect the result of 1 seat. There was evidence of 1.



Considering the wealth of problems this country has to deal with, voter fraud is not one of them. And considering the amount of people who complain about our government wasting their taxes, I will have to assume they'll be furious on the government squandering more of them on a non-issue.

To be honest it's no wonder the country is in a bloody mess.
You're talking about the past, I'm talking about the future. Both are fine, but not really compatible for our differing points of view.

I do agree that there are potentially other more pressing matters to deal with. It is definitely not what the thread title states however.
 
Agreed - and as I posted our conservative government here wouldn’t suggest adding it in order to exercise our mandated vote. This suggestion is causing angst here and we are far more accepting of carrying and requiring photo ID than the UK population.

@Vegeta and others - I get the view that it isn’t a burden as it isn’t a big deal to do it, that the issue of voter fraud might occur in the future etc etc. However good government is all about assuming good intent and not creating rules that are unnecessary and adversely/needlessly impact sections of the population. There is no evidence photo ID is required to address an evidenced problem.

Solving a created problem for 2 million people by saying they will be provided a free ID as they can’t afford it is to me a typical conservative solution to a problem they created. As is saying something is needed now as the issue will occur in the future.

It is typical of that colour of government to make those who can’t afford something inferior. The assumption is the other millions who can afford it agree there is a problem to fix.

IMHO it is 100% political where they is no evidence of the issues photo ID at the polling booth will fix.
As clarified in my exchange with @Vegeta, they don't know it isn't going to be a burden and don't seem to care if the process is complex and difficult (like everything else this government has set up).
 
You're talking about the past, I'm talking about the future. Both are fine, but not really compatible for our differing points of view.

I do agree that there are potentially other more pressing matters to deal with. It is definitely not what the thread title states however.

However it just comes down to the same as it always has. No-one can actually present any reason - with solid supporting evidence - why we need voter ID. Other than there "might" be some tiny miniscule amount of fraud in the "future".

But I've just shown you above that it wouldn't even change the result of 1 seat unless it miraculously suddenly occurred on an unprecedented scale.

Which isn't going to happen.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily people get led into believing something is better for them when it isn't. But that's pretty much the story of our politics over the last decade. It's why we have terrible policies and consistently poor outcomes.
 
Which they go through once and then it's a non factor. I still don't see the big deal about it.

I would have been ineligible to vote in the 2019 election. Should I have been disqualified from voting, despite nothing changing in my circumstances for years?
 
You're aiming it's easy.

That's an assumption that totally ignored everything the Tories have done in the last 12 years from Windrush to Ukrainian refugees.

I'd rather base my concerns on the actual actions this government have done than blind hope that it's a quick and simple process, when all evidence available says it will be the opposite.

It certainly wouldn't have been easy for me for a number of years, during which I gave up a number of conveniences, whilst retaining the right to vote (and using it).
 
The rules on elections are contained in a file some 6 inches thick. These have evolved over years, from the Reform act of 1832.

This is a rare occasion that the Whigs actually managed to get a few prominent Tories on side. If you read through, it should be noted the Tories have always been tweaking things to favour themselves. Even the referendum on changing the electoral system would have favoured them had the alternative to FPTP won.
 
Your birth certificate.
Anyone can order a birth certificate, it doesn't have to be their own. If it had to be your own how do you prove that you are the person entitled to that certificate.

I refer people to the song 'There's a hole in my bucket'.
 
Anyone can order a birth certificate, it doesn't have to be their own. If it had to be your own how do you prove that you are the person entitled to that certificate.

I refer people to the song 'There's a hole in my bucket'.

How does a parent prove that they’ve been given the right baby at the hospital, without DNA tests? Maybe we should have those on record as a matter of course. (Sarcasm, before a Government minister picks up on the idea)

There’s a position where the point of ultimate proof of identity has to be accepted. The question of how do you prove who you are, to get a photo next to your name, just shows how no identity record is truly infallible.

However, the point of this thread is simply that adding an extra step for people to take before they can exercise their democratic right to vote is always a hindrance, and clearly a deliberate calculated decision by the Party who would most benefit from it.
 
Anyone can order a birth certificate, it doesn't have to be their own. If it had to be your own how do you prove that you are the person entitled to that certificate.

I refer people to the song 'There's a hole in my bucket'.
Isn't the "hole" so incredibly small that it has essentially no impact (as shown by Rich's stats). So no straw is actually needed.

Ultimately, I think this whole thing is the thin end of the wedge for ID cards, but we'll see.
 
Isn't the "hole" so incredibly small that it has essentially no impact (as shown by Rich's stats). So no straw is actually needed.

Ultimately, I think this whole thing is the thin end of the wedge for ID cards, but we'll see.
Plus, to really make a difference, ballot box electoral fraud would need to be massive and widespread.

The real problem is not people who vote, but how the electorate can be influenced via social media algorithms.
 
Which doesn't say how you prove your entitlement
It's so long ago I can't exactly remember at the time what the requirements were for obtaining an electoral card in NI back when I got one in around 2003/4, however the link I provided in post #137 shows what the requirements are for obtaining one in 2022 - just for handiness, I'm providing the link again below.


Just to add a few more things, before the introduction of the photo ID requirement for voting in elections in Northern Ireland, most of the talk regarding voter fraud was in itself anecdotal as proving such cases was not easy to convict. Nevertheless the introduction of the photo ID requirement was made & introduced by a Labour government.

Also on a pedantic point, photo ID requirements for voting in elections already exist in the UK - albeit just a small part of it.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom