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

I had no idea you didn't need ID in some places, I've needed it to vote in Belfast NI all my life. It's no problem at all, the vast majority of people have some form of ID by about age 17 anyway. You need ID to buy drink so why wouldn't you need it for something as important as voting.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;53197974]I've never seen anyone be this smug while saying something this stupid.[/QUOTE] He's probably just gone back to the Donald where he doesn't have to contend with the fact that he's wrong

the problem with voter ID is not in the principle, it's in the fact that there's no evidence of widespread electoral fraud (done by individuals) it's solving a problem that doesn't exist and then combine that with the fact that it's being used as a strategy to suppress votes from poorer communities (but one would hope in the UK implementation, the ID you need is free)

[QUOTE=benbb;53191871]Don't see the problem with this. If you don't have an ID (provisional driving license/passport) then you need to get one. [/QUOTE] My main issue with this is that it's entirely possible to end up in a situation where it's impossible to acquire ID if you have no-one able to or willing to provide a countersignature and there's no system in place to deal with it.

[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] If voter ID has been a thing since forever in the Netherlands then this comparison has no meaning because having the rule isn't the issue, it's the risk of suddenly throwing a wrench in the works for people who were already legitimate voters. You have to be able to guarantee that this wouldn't happen before going ahead cause if it messes with just one election it's not worth it.

[QUOTE=Splarg!;53198388]If voter ID has been a thing since forever in the Netherlands then this comparison has no meaning because having the rule isn't the issue, it's the risk of suddenly throwing a wrench in the works for people who were already legitimate voters. You have to be able to guarantee that this wouldn't happen before going ahead cause if it messes with just one election it's not worth it.[/QUOTE] That isn't the issue at all. If it were, then people should be fine with an ID requirement phased in over a reasonable amount of time. They aren't and wouldn't be. Hell the democrats wouldn't support it with the inclusion of a free ID mailed to every person in the country. They're against the principle of it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53198901]That isn't the issue at all. If it were, then people should be fine with an ID requirement phased in over a reasonable amount of time. They aren't and wouldn't be. Hell the democrats wouldn't support it with the inclusion of a free ID mailed to every person in the country. They're against the principle of it.[/QUOTE] It is [I]almost[/I] as if these [ generalized ] Democrats don't want to suppress minority voters.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53198901]That isn't the issue at all. If it were, then people should be fine with an ID requirement phased in over a reasonable amount of time. They aren't and wouldn't be. Hell the democrats wouldn't support it with the inclusion of a free ID mailed to every person in the country. They're against the principle of it.[/QUOTE] It's like welfare queens, sure voter fraud exists but they're so statistically insignificant that the furor over the issue caused by figure heads like Reagan has caused the issues to be more popular as talking points, then they are issues in the real world. Real world statistics of the US system, even in areas that have voter ID laws don't really support the idea that people will vote repeatedly in an illegal fashion.

We had 1 conviction for voter fraud. Literally one. That's it, there's no need for id because this kind of fraud is non existent

[QUOTE=sgman91;53198901]That isn't the issue at all. If it were, then people should be fine with an ID requirement phased in over a reasonable amount of time. They aren't and wouldn't be. Hell the democrats wouldn't support it with the inclusion of a free ID mailed to every person in the country. They're against the principle of it.[/QUOTE] I'm surprised you of all people are critical of the Democrats position, when your historical viewpoint has been that regulations should never be enacted unless a positive effect can be demonstrated by their existence that wouldn't be observed in their absence. I'm not sure how this viewpoint fits with the idea that we need voter ID laws that would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands, even millions, to fight voter fraud that exists on such an infinitesimally small scale. [editline]13th March 2018[/editline] Frankly I'd be suspicious of any voter ID proposals put forward by anyone, Democrat, Republican, or independent due to how tiny the issue of in-person voting fraud is. It's practically non-existent. That the Republicans in particular have been caught on multiple occassions bragging out how it will help them win elections, or have been scolded by federal judges for how targeted their proposals are, it's easy to see why they would be dismissed out of hand.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53198901]That isn't the issue at all. If it were, then people should be fine with an ID requirement phased in over a reasonable amount of time. They aren't and wouldn't be. Hell [B]the democrats wouldn't support it with the inclusion of a free ID mailed to every person in the country[/B]. They're against the principle of it.[/QUOTE] I doubt this is true. I also doubt that Republicans would be willing to give out free ID's like this anyway.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53198963]I'm surprised you of all people are critical of the Democrats position, when your historical viewpoint has been that regulations should never be enacted unless a positive effect can be demonstrated by their existence that wouldn't be observed in their absence. I'm not sure how this viewpoint fits with the idea that we need voter ID laws that would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands, even millions, to fight voter fraud that exists on such an infinitesimally small scale. [editline]13th March 2018[/editline] Frankly I'd be suspicious of any voter ID proposals put forward by anyone, Democrat, Republican, or independent due to how tiny the issue of in-person voting fraud is. It's practically non-existent. That the Republicans in particular have been caught on multiple occassions bragging out how it will help them win elections, or have been scolded by federal judges for how targeted their proposals are, it's easy to see why they would be dismissed out of hand.[/QUOTE] It's a tough one because I see voting as a fundamental aspect of a working democratic society, and at this point in time we can't even verify that people are who they say they are. That seems like a basic function of voting. It's also the case that presidential and congressional races aren't the only races we need to think about. The real issues arise in local elections when it can commonly come down to 10s of votes. I will fully admit, though, that the vast majority of voter fraud happens through absentee ballots, not in person fraud.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53198963]Frankly I'd be suspicious of any voter ID proposals put forward by anyone, Democrat, Republican, or independent due to how tiny the issue of in-person voting fraud is. It's practically non-existent. That the Republicans in particular have been caught on multiple occassions bragging out how it will help them win elections, or have been scolded by federal judges for how targeted their proposals are, it's easy to see why they would be dismissed out of hand.[/QUOTE] Not that I necessarily disagree, but the whole "there's only been 30 cases of voter fraud, EVER!" thing has always seemed weird to me. It's like when people talk about how X% of rapes are never reported.. How do you know, then? The fact that we've only identified so many cases of voter fraud doesn't necessarily mean it isn't happening. But then again, if you have no evidence that it's happening.. I don't know, it just always seemed more ambiguous to me than people make it out to be, but then again what the fuck do I know about voter fraud lol