UK Government urged to ditch photo ID at polling stations trial - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Plans to make voters show photo ID at polling stations to prevent fraud will rob "vulnerable" people of a say in elections, ministers have been warned. The scheme is being trialled in five areas at 3 May's local elections. But more than 40 campaign groups have written to constitution minister Chloe Smith calling for it to be scrapped. Ms Smith told BBC News stealing somebody's vote was a crime and the integrity of elections had to be protected. ... At May's local elections voters in several pilot areas will be asked to provide photo ID such as a driving licence before being allowed to cast a ballot. The ID pilot will take place in Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Watford and Woking. The government's plan is to repeat the trial next year, before considering a national roll out.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43300100[/url]

[quote]Plans to make voters show photo ID at polling stations to prevent fraud will rob "vulnerable" people of a say in elections, ministers have been warned. [/quote] It's almost like that's the idea!

They're trying to make it harder to vote. Plain and simple assault on democracy, whether they realise it or not.

I wonder where they got the idea from?

Worth noting that Northern Ireland has required voter ID since the 1980s, and offers a free electoral identity card to voters who don't have any other photo ID

Can confirm I had to get an ID card 9 years ago. Had to show it when voting too Jesus it was horrible. Wish I lived in a first world country. Maybe then I couldn't afford it and wouldn't have had to go through that.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53182928]Probably the liberal democracy of the Netherlands where this has been a thing since forever, you need photo id (id card, drivers license, passport, any of which can be expired for 5 years) plus a single use voting card you get in the mail weeks before the election. If you'd like for someone else to vote for you, you make a copy of your id, write the name of the person who will vote for you on your voting card and sign it. Give them the copy of your id and your voting card and then they can vote twice. So how is this construction making it harder to vote? At its absolute minimum it would cost you about 40 euros every 15 years.[/QUOTE] Well, according to a number of numbers of posters on Facepunch, making photo ID mandatory for voting is ultra racist because according to them, there are minority voters who somehow can't spare a relatively cheap one-time investment to get said voter ID. Which is like the cheapest fucking excuse I can imagine to avoid make it mandatory, considering that said posters also believe that the last election in the United States was stolen by foreign hackers, yet setting a requirement to prevent voter fraud is somehow considered racist. Imagine that. :goodjob:

Requiring ID when voting is common sense in my opinion. If vulnerable people or any citizen for that matter doesn't have access to getting identity documents, that's a serious problem that needs to be fixed asap

[QUOTE=Talishmar;53190446]Requiring ID when voting is common sense in my opinion. If vulnerable people or any citizen for that matter doesn't have access to getting identity documents, that's a serious problem that needs to be fixed asap[/QUOTE] solution: [QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53182493]Worth noting that Northern Ireland has required voter ID since the 1980s, and [B]offers a free electoral identity card to voters who don't have any other photo ID[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't see the problem with showing ID, it's completely normal. In Finland you are required to show ID when voting at an election. Either your driver's license, passport, or the single-use, unique voting paper that they send every citizen in the mail. Showing ID is first world.

[QUOTE=Jordax;53190387]Well, according to a number of numbers of posters on Facepunch, making photo ID mandatory for voting is ultra racist because according to them, there are minority voters who somehow can't spare a relatively cheap one-time investment to get said voter ID. Which is like the cheapest fucking excuse I can imagine to avoid make it mandatory, considering that said posters also believe that the last election in the United States was stolen by foreign hackers, yet setting a requirement to prevent voter fraud is somehow considered racist. Imagine that. :goodjob:[/QUOTE] to be fair in the US this is exactly what happens though. they enact the legislation then cut the funds needed to actually implement it.

It's worth noting that in the UK we already have single use polling cards sent out in the post prior to voting. So it's not as if we have issues identifying people on polling days.

There is literally nothing wrong with requiring people to show photo identification to vote if that identification is free, or obtainable for free. To be honest, if it'd give us an actual national ID card, I'd enthusiastically support the concept of ID being required to vote in the US. The fact that our only official ID sources are tied to modes of transportation (o were designed to be a [I]temporary solution to an economic problem, only owned by those on welfare[/I]) is fucking nutty.

ID isn't wrong, provided it isn't difficult to impossible for a person to get one. If there are any difficulties, it quickly becomes a terrible idea. For instance, if the places to get them are difficult to get to without car, or people working certain jobs, you have a problem.

[QUOTE=phygon;53190956]There is literally nothing wrong with requiring people to show photo identification to vote if that identification is free, or obtainable for free. To be honest, if it'd give us an actual national ID card, I'd enthusiastically support the concept of ID being required to vote in the US. The fact that our only official ID sources are tied to modes of transportation (o were designed to be a [I]temporary solution to an economic problem, only owned by those on welfare[/I]) is fucking nutty.[/QUOTE] Why do then people say the poorest won't afford ID, if them being on welfare comes with having an ID. I really don't get it.

[QUOTE=phygon;53190956]There is literally nothing wrong with requiring people to show photo identification to vote if that identification is free, or obtainable for free. To be honest, if it'd give us an actual national ID card, I'd enthusiastically support the concept of ID being required to vote in the US. The fact that our only official ID sources are tied to modes of transportation (o were designed to be a [I]temporary solution to an economic problem, only owned by those on welfare[/I]) is fucking nutty.[/QUOTE] Everything in the US is so patchwork because we have a large distrust of institutions. Look at how horrible we use Social Security numbers. Even just jobs at the mall require you to give them your social security number, and you have no control over how they store that. Its no wonder the whole database has probably been leaked out by now.

[QUOTE=Omesh;53191678]Why do then people say the poorest won't afford ID, if them being on welfare comes with having an ID. I really don't get it.[/QUOTE] Social Security Cards don't have photo on them, so I think you can't use them as ID to vote.

Don't see the problem with this. If you don't have an ID (provisional driving license/passport) then you need to get one. Surely most people have one because you need it to buy booze?

Reading this i'm surprised you don't have that as a requirement to vote, we do and it's works very well. Rather than someone voting 10 times as John Smith.

[QUOTE=Sims_doc;53191875]Reading this i'm surprised you don't have that as a requirement to vote, we do and it's works very well. Rather than someone voting 10 times as John Smith.[/QUOTE] You know there's a registry for voting. They have lists at polling stations of the people registered to vote there, and when you show up, your name is crossed out. How exactly does somebody vote 10 times with this system? They'd need the addresses of 10 John Smiths and to travel to the polling stations these people are registered to (with no overlaps because they'd be recognised voting more than once at a station). The problem I have with needing ID to vote is that it's unnecessary gatekeeping. There is no acceptable photographic ID that you can get for free so you HAVE to sign up for a provisional driving license or a passport (which requires renewal every 10 years or so). That's not the purpose of those documents, and neither are particularly cheap. A mandatory photo ID rule with our current system would literally be placing a charge on voting, which is a right. You shouldn't have to pay to exercise your rights. Even if acquiring this ID were the simplest thing in the world, voter apathy is so strong that it will still invariably reduce turnout because it's an extra step. That's enough for some people. "Oh my wallet is in the house and I'm already out now, I guess I won't stop by the polling station" "I've registered to vote but lack photographic evidence and its now less than 2 weeks until the vote, so I can't get some in time"

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;53193538] neither are particularly cheap.[/QUOTE] You're joking, right [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/Z3rYycC.png[/IMG] [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] I still think they should be free and mailed to everybody but if you're on income assistance it's 8 dollars every 10 years, even homeless people can afford that.

[QUOTE=phygon;53193679]You're joking, right [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/Z3rYycC.png[/IMG] [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] I still think they should be free and mailed to everybody but if you're on income assistance it's 8 dollars every 10 years, even homeless people can afford that.[/QUOTE] You realise we are talking about the UK right? Not the USA. Costs £34 to get a provisional license, then £14 (or £17 if done offline) to renew every 10 years. If you lose your license then you aren't supposed to keep the actual photo card either. Then you need a passport which costs £85 (going up in a few weeks) + postage costs, and probably requires you to travel to another city to have an interview. Same fees to renew it every 10 years.

[QUOTE=Jordax;53190387]Well, according to a number of numbers of posters on Facepunch, making photo ID mandatory for voting is ultra racist because according to them, there are minority voters who somehow can't spare a relatively cheap one-time investment to get said voter ID. Which is like the cheapest fucking excuse I can imagine to avoid make it mandatory, considering that said posters also believe that the last election in the United States was stolen by foreign hackers, yet setting a requirement to prevent voter fraud is somehow considered racist. Imagine that. :goodjob:[/QUOTE] The way that republicans have attempted to implement voter ID is super racist, sorry! courts in states that legislators have have actually tried to implement voter id laws generally agree with me, so I'm not pulling this outta my ass.

32 states require some form of identification to vote. Between 2000 and 2014 there were 31 cases of confirmed voter fraud out of over one billion votes. With those two figures out of the way; [QUOTE=Jordax;53190387]Well, according to a number of numbers of posters on Facepunch, making photo ID mandatory for voting is ultra racist [/QUOTE] Not just posters on Facepunch but federal judges in [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/?utm_term=.5fec113b451d"]North Carolina[/URL] and [URL="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/08/an_era_of_racist_voter_id_laws_in_texas_may_be_coming_to_an_end.html"]Texas[/URL]. There have also been [URL="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688343"]studies[/URL] showing that the gap between white and minority voters is much larger in states that require strict ID. [QUOTE=Jordax;53190387]because according to them, there are minority voters who somehow can't spare a relatively cheap one-time investment to get said voter ID. [/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet"]Per the ACLU[/URL] [QUOTE]around 21 million Americans, or roughly 11 percent of the population, don’t have government-issued photo identification. Meanwhile, up to 25 percent of African-Americans are believed to lack official photo IDs. Applying for such documents, the ACLU says, can cost $75 to $175 in transport fees, waiting times and paying for supporting papers like birth certificates.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Jordax;53190387]Which is like the cheapest fucking excuse I can imagine to avoid make it mandatory, considering that said posters also believe that the last election in the United States was stolen by foreign hackers, yet setting a requirement to prevent voter fraud is somehow considered racist. Imagine that.[/QUOTE] Because voter ID can only stop in-person voter fraud which no one has accused any Russian of doing, yet. /pol/ and t_d might think Americans are stupid enough to to fall for this but I hope you don't. [QUOTE=Jordax;53190387] :goodjob:[/QUOTE] Fitting emote since you seem to know nothing about what you are talking about.

[QUOTE=Morgen;53193790]You realise we are talking about the UK right? Not the USA. Costs £34 to get a provisional license, then £14 (or £17 if done offline) to renew every 10 years. If you lose your license then you aren't supposed to keep the actual photo card either. Then you need a passport which costs £85 (going up in a few weeks) + postage costs, and probably requires you to travel to another city to have an interview. Same fees to renew it every 10 years.[/QUOTE] I was under the impression that Britain has a national ID system so I assumed he was talking about the US

[QUOTE=phygon;53194399]I was under the impression that Britain has a national ID system so I assumed he was talking about the US[/QUOTE] Well we don't. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] A national ID system has been proposed many times, but is generally extremely unpopular afaik.

[QUOTE=Jordax;53190387]Well, according to a number of numbers of posters on Facepunch, making photo ID mandatory for voting is ultra racist because according to them, there are minority voters who somehow can't spare a relatively cheap one-time investment to get said voter ID. Which is like the cheapest fucking excuse I can imagine to avoid make it mandatory, considering that said posters also believe that the last election in the United States was stolen by foreign hackers, yet setting a requirement to prevent voter fraud is somehow considered racist. Imagine that. :goodjob:[/QUOTE] when you say "according to a number of posters on facepunch" did you actually mean to say "according to the supreme court?" [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws-supreme-court-north-carolina.html[/url] this kind of stuff is pushed as "common sense voting security" but legislation like this should be reactive unless you can point to some massive level of voter fraud in the UK this literally is just making it harder to vote for no reason

[QUOTE=Camdude90;53194648] unless you can point to some massive level of voter fraud in the UK this literally is just making it harder to vote for no reason[/QUOTE] Well, I think we can guess the reason.

[QUOTE=Jordax;53190387]Well, according to a number of numbers of posters on Facepunch, making photo ID mandatory for voting is ultra racist because according to them, there are minority voters who somehow can't spare a relatively cheap one-time investment to get said voter ID. Which is like the cheapest fucking excuse I can imagine to avoid make it mandatory, considering that said posters also believe that the last election in the United States was stolen by foreign hackers, yet setting a requirement to prevent voter fraud is somehow considered racist. Imagine that. :goodjob:[/QUOTE] You shouldn't be so snarky about something you clearly know nothing about. I wrote this for reddit a while back. Most of it is c/pd from sources. Lets look at three case study states, Florida, Wisconsin, and NCA. [B]Starting with Wisconsin:[/B] Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed Wisconsin’s strict voter ID law in 2011, and it has been tied up in court battles for years. A federal court held that the law unconstitutionally burdens low-income people of color, but ultimately the Supreme Court allowed it to go into effect for the 2016 election. In one of the many trials concerning the law, former government officials testified that behind closed doors, Republicans pushing for the voter ID were “politically frothing at the mouth” over the prospect that it would make it more difficult for people to cast ballots for Democrats.Donald Trump won the state by fewer than 30,000 votes. According to the state’s own records, ten times that many eligible voters in the state — as many as 300,000 people — lacked the proper ID and may have been disenfranchised. Neil Albrecht, the executive director of Milwaukee’s Election Commission, believes the policy depressed turnout in the blue counties Clinton desperately needed to carry Wisconsin. Compared to 2012, 60,000 fewer people voted in this year Milwaukee — the county that holds the vast majority of the state’s black population. Statewide, turnout was the lowest it has been for a presidential election in two decades. Albrecht said his office received a flood of calls from voters in the city’s poorest districts who said they were unable to cast a ballot because they lacked the proper identification. According to new data released by the state, nearly 600 ballots will be thrown away because voters did not have the right ID. And Albrecht said he worries many more did not even attempt to vote because of the law. In the final weeks leading up to the election, voting rights groups discovered that Wisconsin officials at local DMV offices were giving false information to voters attempting to get the proper ID, putting those officials in violation of a federal court order. Sounds Fair. [B]Lets take a look at NCA now.[/B] In 2013, North Carolina — led by the GOP — approved a law that eliminated same-day voter registration, cut a full week of early voting, barred voters from casting a ballot outside their home precincts, scrapped straight-ticket voting, and got rid of a program to pre-register high school students who would turn 18 by Election Day. That law also included one of the nation’s strictest voter ID requirements. Federal courts struck down most of the law after finding that it was passed with the intention to suppress African-American voters “with almost surgical precision.” The court noted that the lawmakers first studied which racial demographics used which voting methods, and then moved to eliminate those favored by black residents. The law was a perfect example, the judge wrote, of “the inevitable tendency of elected officials to entrench themselves by targeting groups unlikely to vote for them.” Republican-controlled county elections boards tried to find a way around the verdict. No longer able to cut a full week of early voting, the state GOP instructed the boards to make “party line changes to early voting”: cutting hours and locations. Though some of the most extreme cuts were blocked by the state board of elections, many remained in place through the election. For example, Guilford County reduced the number of polling sites in the first week of early voting from 16 in 2012 to just 1 this year. A GOP memo issued at the end of the state’s early voting period celebrated the inevitable results of those cutbacks: African American turnout had dropped nearly nine percent. In counties that slashed early voting hours and sites, voters also had to wait in lines several hours long to cast their ballots. A new Harvard study found that such long waits not only disenfranchise working-class voters who can’t afford to wait, but also discourages voters from participating in future elections. [B]How about Florida then.[/B] Florida is one of just three states that permanently disenfranchise anyone with a felony conviction. The state has no automatic process for former felons to regain their voting rights. Instead, people have to travel to the state capital and proactively request that the governor grant them clemency on an individual basis. That process has become even more difficult since Republican Gov. Rick Scott was elected in 2011. During governor Charlie Crist’s four years in office, more than 150,000 people had their rights restored. Voting advocates claimed that even that number did not go far enough, given the long backlog of applications. But when Scott took office, the clemency board changed its rules and progress slowed to a crawl. In his first term as governor, fewer than 1,600 people have had their rights restored. This includes a huge amount of nonviolent drug offenders, for example. This year, one in four of Florida’s black residents could not cast a ballot. In total, roughly 1.5 million Florida residents (almost 2.5 percent of the state’s population) are disenfranchised because of the law. [B]What other tactics do the Republicans use to suppress minority voting?[/B] Gerrymandering and Redistricting: A tactic used by both parties historically (and I’m equally contemptuous when Democrats employ these tactics) has been put on steroids by the Republicans ([URL]https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2457468[/URL]). Now that many racial-protection parts of the Voter Rights Act have been removed, the GOP has employed tactics that even courts have struck down (example, [URL]https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-deals-setback-conservatives-texas-redistricting-150342060.html[/URL]). State Level Voter ID Laws: To combat non-existent “voter fraud” there will be an increase in chilling effect-type laws regarding what type of ID is required in order to vote. For example, Texas lets you use a gun license but not a Student ID (given that gun owners skew GOP and students DEM). Cutting Back Early Voting; Nearly 900 Fewer Voting Locations in 2016 – again disproportionately targeting students, urban; Increasing qualifications on Native American voters ([URL]http://vrafortoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/NCAI_NARF-letter-to-SJC-6-25-14.pdf);[/URL] and the like. NC GOP on record as thrilled they were able to reduce Black voter turnout([URL]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/nc-gop-brags-about-depressed-black-turnout[/URL]). Cutting back on immigration and social services in general, limiting populations which aren’t traditional GOP voters. Like what? How about Alabama closing DMVs in black neighborhoods and the ancillary impacts?([URL]http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/alabama-dmv-closings-draw-call-federal-voting-rights-probe[/URL]) So yeah, US Voter ID laws have turned out to be intentionally racist as fuck.

[QUOTE=Jordax;53190387]Well, according to a number of numbers of posters on Facepunch, making photo ID mandatory for voting is ultra racist because according to them, there are minority voters who somehow can't spare a relatively cheap one-time investment to get said voter ID. Which is like the cheapest fucking excuse I can imagine to avoid make it mandatory, considering that said posters also believe that the last election in the United States was stolen by foreign hackers, yet setting a requirement to prevent voter fraud is somehow considered racist. Imagine that. :goodjob:[/QUOTE] I've never seen anyone be this smug while saying something this stupid.