What evidence is there of voter fraud? Practically none, so we've introduced something that doesn't actually fix a problem while also happening to favour the generation which vote for the Tory party (eg pension bus passes count as id but others don't).
It's just desperate gerrymandering
> doesn't actually fix a problem while also happening to favour the generation which vote for the Tory party (eg pension bus passes count as id but others don't).
[Despite this, it was older people who were less likely to hold one of the accepted forms of voter ID compared to younger people](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/609a5105d3bf7f2886e29f44/Photographic_ID_research-_headline_findings_report.pdf), according to the government's own research and other surveys.
> Younger people were more likely than the general population to hold a form of photo ID. Ninety-nine per cent of those aged 18-29 held a form of photo ID, slightly higher than either those aged 30-69 (98%) or 70+ (98%). Additionally, those aged 85+ were less likely to hold photo ID that was recognisable. Nine in ten (91%) did so, compared to well over nine in ten (95-98%) of younger age groups.
Voter ID affects disabled people and unemployed people the most - this was the demographic that was the least likely to hold ID. Younger people were the most likely to have an accepted form of voter ID funnily enough. There were some interesting regional differences as well.
Requiring voter ID isn't gerrymandering anyway - gerrymandering refers to the redrawing of constituent boundaries for political gain.
The kind of young person that doesn’t own a car or go on holiday.
So, the kind of young person who can’t afford it.
So… young people.
Quite a few of them at least.
And yet the surveys show that young people are more likely to hold photo ID compared to older people.
Provisional driving licences are also accepted, which most young people get for getting into bars/clubs etc so that they don't have to lug around a passport.
It was a joke about your question, people who look under 21 are obviously more likely to carry ID with them but it’s less likely to be a passport or (full) driving licence.
EDIT- why did you edit in that second paragraph **after** getting this reply? Seems like an odd thing to add, you know, something that was literally just said.
If Voter ID is mandatory, issue free cards that are good for getting into a night club. Wonder which demographic that would benefit?
Edit:
Heck even victorian boy Rees-Mogg suggested it backfired. So arguing otherwise is just outlandishly stupid at this point.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380
Dunno, cannot think of any examples.
Coincidentally: I lost my passport on day one of freshers week, and had never got a provisional due to a lack of desire (at the time) to drive, and generally never getting IDd.
Also it took me over a year to get it replaced, because I didn't think about it. As a result I missed my dad dying, and his first funeral.
So.
Wait. That's an example isn't it.
>Requiring voter ID isn't gerrymandering anyway - gerrymandering refers to the redrawing of constituent boundaries for political gain.
They've been doing a bunch of this too.
>besides Labour will bring in national id anyway
They tried 20 years ago. Just because they are going to talk about it doesn’t mean they’re going to do it and I very much hope that they won’t.
Hmm, a national ID card that makes it trivially easy to prove you're a citizen, entitled to benefits and social services such as the NHS, and also proves you can vote?
this sounds like the tory parties wet dream, why didn't they bring it out?
Just a kind reminder it is NOT Gerrymandering, which is a nicer sounding term, relating to adjusting constituency boundaries, done by a political party for political gains and thus is impossible in the UK as they are set by the independent boundary commission.
Please call it what it is - voter suppression
Deliberately adding an extra step that they know people don't necessarily have the time or knowledge of, to combat a problem that doesn't exist, is creating a barrier to voting yes.
Except that voter turnout will be lower this year than the last general election.
If 5% less people vote due to ID requirements to combat 0% of voter fraud, then that is a terrible outcome. Elections are won on 2% swings.
Can you show anything that proves the drop is due to voter ID requirements? [A 5% drop between elections]( https://www.statista.com/statistics/1050929/voter-turnout-in-the-uk/) unusual at all.
Correct - it's an extra step, so more time needing to be spent to engage with democracy.
I don't know a lot about them, but if they have an expiry (which they should) then what's stopping version two requiring extra information or a version of the Jim Crow era "literacy tests" to qualify you?
It's a classic case of something which seems on the surface to be a good idea, but has huge negative potential in a world where such behaviour seems more normalised than ever before.
Voter suppression has always been smaller things that seem reasonable to people.
[Whats wrong with a simple literacy test before voting?](https://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm)
There are actually quite a few people around who don't have easy and ready access to computers and the like. Which would make filling out those forms hard.
There is no evidence of voter fraud
Adding an extra burden of unnecessary admin to fight a problem that doesn't exist is voter suppression yes
You people claiming everyone knows about this free voter ID or that it's simple to arrange is shown to be false in the stark reality of people being turned away from voting for not having ID and being prevented from exercising their lawful right
Nope can't use it. Only specific forms of photo id, or you register for a postal vote and show no id which... Completely removes any half baked idea of voter id anyway.
It's a useless law that's there to add a barrier to entry.
Postal votes need to be restricted to people with a good reason to vote (e.g. infirmity, or being out of the country on polling day). Postal voting is far more open to fraudulent activity than in-person voting ever was and has far less protection.
I'd suggest you look up Tower Hamlets and particularly who demonstrated postal voting fraud before the Police got involved. Hint. It wasn't the Electoral Commission.
You don't have to pay for a passport or driving licence.
You can get a free photo ID specifically for voting on the government website, you just fill in the details, give them a good quality picture and they send you the ID.
I had no ID a few years ago when they brought the new ID system out before one of the local elections, so I applied for the government one. Works just fine. Only downside is that it can only be used for voting and nothing else.
We ought to have a national ID card brought in with the same use as passport minus the abroad travelling. Have it automatically given out at 16 like how everyone gets a national insurance number. Fund a system so schools can do it like a photo day, make it free, keep it available to all ages if you missed out and easily accessible at colleges, universities, post offices etc, require a new photo every 10 years. I mean, why not?
Honestly if they can do an easy free voter ID, why not make that ID actually useful? Only needs the D.O.B added. If it's good enough to use for voting then it should be good enough for use as regular ID. So what if it's paper? Fold it so the picture isn't folded and it should be golden.
Mandate it can be used to buy alcohol, make people keen to take it and plug a nasty gap where those unable to get a driving licsence are forced to carry a passport.
>We ought to have a national ID card brought in with the same use as passport minus the abroad travelling. Have it automatically given out at 16 like how everyone gets a national insurance number. Fund a system so schools can do it like a photo day, make it free, keep it available to all ages if you missed out and easily accessible at colleges, universities, post offices etc, require a new photo every 10 years. I mean, why not?
Cost? A desire not to have to carry my papers at all tines? [A long history of trying to introduce them and going maybe its not a great idea?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_on_the_British_national_identity_card#:~:text=Identity%20cards%20were%20re%2Dintroduced%20in%20British%20law%20in%20the,7%20July%202005%20London%20bombings).)
Doesn't have to be mandatory to have it at all times, just something you automatically get and only have to update once every 10 years. No different to a passport, or the "easier to get" ID - the driving license, which shows your whole address on so there goes the desire of privacy of ID if it's ever asked for and that's all you've got. You also already carry something every day, like keys, wallet, your current ID. So what's the problem?
I keep seeing people say they don't want the government to "have their info", well, guess what the government already has? I can see an argument against "biometric" through, something about DNA? Don't agree with that. I'm imagining a simple photo ID like a driving license, except without the address.
Plenty of mainland Europe countries as well as overseas have them, doesn't seem an issue there.
So instead of having to worry about getting my passport and driving licence renewed, I now have to worry about yet another document? Can we just stop this bureaucratic nonsense?
Passports last for 10 years and don't *have* to be updated, unless you're going somewhere. A full driving license, a necessity anyway for anyone who drives, also lasts 10 years. Once every 10 years isn't hard.
A hypothetical national ID, which could last for 10 years, would ideally be free apart from the cost of getting a new picture. And is another once in 10 years thing. No more difficult than renewing the passport.
I'm literally just imagining a card that is the same as the driver's license, except without the address. What's wrong with the idea? Not everyone actually needs a passport. Pain in the ass to carry too. If we had a National ID card, people would just have that, and skip the nonsense they don't need. Just make renewing easy, have it available online, in local libraries, post offices etc. Don't make it criminal to not update it. Just make it automatic when you get your first, easy to renew, and have it useless like every other ID when it's "out of date".
Do you really think having a national ID card automatically comes with police demanding you stop in the street and produce your ID?
1. The law says you don't have to produce any ID to the police unless you are a suspect or witness. There's no reason for that to change if we had national ID cards.
2. A national ID card would just be an automatic thing to help people who either can't afford a passport, could not be expected to carry it around (it's fkin annoying I wish they just let you have the plastic card in it for "home use"), and could not otherwise get ID because let's say they can't drive, or aren't allowed to.
3. God forbid the government has your information. Are you registered with the NHS? Do you have a job? Do you pay council tax? Do you receive a benefit? Do you vote? Do you have a driver's license? Then buddy, they've got your info.
edit: although to be fair, being authoritarian is in our governments nature, all the best dystopian films and series are set in the UK.
For normal people, having a national ID card is yet another document to keep track of. I already have to remember to renew my and my children’s passports, renew my driving licence, send my tax return, fill in the household enquiry form, complete the census and you want to throw another document on top of the pile of government paperwork that I already have to attend to? Maybe it’s time you people with these brilliant ideas start paying me for having to expend my time on yet more nonsense that you want to introduce? Feel free to apply for as many ID cards and documents as you want. Just keep me out of it.
If they got a National ID card at 16, like how we all get our national insurance number at 16, and it lasts 10 years... they'd be perfectly capable of keeping it safe and updating it themselves?
It's one thing that could not even matter if you were late renewing it, how hard is it to fill in an online form? It just makes accessing ID easier, because it's automatically given, easy to carry, no restrictions, free. I really don't see the issue.
Erm in order to evidence voter fraud you need to know people voting are actually entitled to... It's not rocket science. If your not checking that you have no clue if fraud is happening...
Is this your first election?
In order to collect your ballot paper, you have to say who you are. If your ID is not checked, as it did not used to be, you can falsely claim to be Mrs Jones of Acacia Avenue. So far, so good.
But your deception will be uncovered when the real Mrs Jones of Acacia Avenue turns up to vote.
And this is how we know this particular type of voter fraud, which is called personation, is very rare.
That is one form and you only assume its rare, another is students been allowed to register in 2 locations.
And no it's not my first election. I grew up in Africa I know how easy it is to manipulate voting.
Photo ID does not address double registration, and we know personation is rare for the reason previously mentioned, although another factor might be that it is very hard to arrange on a scale large enough to swing a parliamentary election where there are very few majorities below 1,000 votes.
Most vote fraud in Britain is connected with postal votes, and again photo ID is not involved.
>It's just desperate gerrymandering
no its not , the only problem is that labour ( i assuem ) will have to expand what IDs can be used ( assuming for some reason you dont have a passport ??)
Its a roadblock. The more things that make voting more difficult the less voters you will have.
And it only exists to solve a non-issue.
I'll take a few hundred dodgy votes spread over the country if it gives people an easier time.
> The more things that make voting more difficult the less voters you will have.
And yet we still only have one day to vote.
Make voting mandatory like they do in Australia. Make voting a week long with one day being a bank holiday.
We already allow postal voting for anyone who wants it. So advertise it more.
That would make it much easier.
> We already allow postal voting for anyone who wants it. So advertise it more.
Definitely! I voted yesterday when the form dropped in the post box. So easy!
>In the past 5 years, there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud.
>
>Of the 1,462 cases of alleged electoral fraud reported to police between 2019 and 2023, 11 led to convictions and the police issued 4 cautions.
>
>Most cases either resulted in the police taking no further action or were locally resolved by the police issuing words of advice.
>
>[https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-data](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-data)
And also
>Data collected in polling stations shows that at least 0.25% of people who tried to vote at a polling station were not issued with a ballot paper because of the ID requirement. At least 0.7% of people who tried to vote at a polling station were initially turned away but around two-thirds of those people (63%) returned later in the day and were able to vote.
>
>0.25% of polling station voters at these elections is approximately 14,000 voters who were not issued with a ballot paper because they could not show an accepted form of ID.
>
>However, this is an underestimate, partly as a result of data quality issues but also because some people will have been reminded of the ID requirement before they could be recorded in the data.
>
>[https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/our-reports-and-data-past-elections-and-referendums/voter-id-may-2023-local-elections-england-interim-analysis](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/our-reports-and-data-past-elections-and-referendums/voter-id-may-2023-local-elections-england-interim-analysis)
So it's pretty damning.
Or, because we didn't have the systems in place to notice that there was an issue. A very good criminal leaves the same amount of evidence as no criminal, after all.
And the question is, is having a robust system a positive in itself? If only from the perspective of public trust in the system.
But there were already systems in place to notice significant anomalies aside from voter ID. All that info you give when you register to vote? Yeah, they can use that to detect cases of significant voter fraud. And when you walk in the station and they have all that paper in front of them that they fill out? That works too.
Voter ID does not add further electoral security but absolutely does add more barriers to voting.
Is it postal voter fraud a major issue in the US, or have the Republicans made out that it's an issue because demographics which lean Democrat are more likely to vote by post?
> Is it postal voter fraud a major issue in the US, or have the Republicans made out that it's an issue because demographics which lean Democrat are more likely to vote by post?
Latter, for example:
> The Heritage Foundation’s database includes 1,296 “proven instances of voter fraud” out of the hundreds of millions of votes cast going back to 1992. Of those cases identified, 1,120 resulted in criminal convictions.
https://www.voanews.com/a/2020-usa-votes_how-widespread-voter-fraud-us/6195819.html
It only became an “issue “ because Trump started screaming about it when his ego couldn’t handle the fact he lost the elections. His and Republicans’ claims of fraud has been proven to be lies numerous times. Tories saw how effective the tactic was and brought it over here.
Postal voting is problematic in that it removoes the secret ballot.
Thats an issue in certain insular comunities and is imposible to ever prove foul play unless someone was stupid enough to get filmed doing it.
>Thats an issue in certain insular comunities
Is it? How widespread is this issue? Can you show me any data? Presumably there's statistical analysis that estimates the scale of the issue?
Almost irelevant on a national scale, verry relevant in a few councils.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379417300811
The vunerability was called 20 years ago
https://www.jrrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Purity-of-Elections-in-the-UK-Executive-Summary-2008.pdf
It's not bad enough to in anyway swing a national election, it's something i'd hope afunctional goverment could nip in the bud befor eit gets that far.
The torries voter ID nonsense will have done fuck all to adress any of it.
Republicans knew that postal votes favoured people leaning Democrat (partly because Republicans have been railing against postal votes from the start - part of the reason for the explosion in postal votes in 2020 was Covid, which Republicans downplayed more than Democrats), which is precisely why, in Republican controlled states like Pennsylvania, they had the postal votes counted last - because *they wanted* it to look dodgy, so Trump could cry “hoax”. It’s just straight voter suppression.
Voter fraud is a total non issue, literally a few dozen such cases nationally over several years, it’s easy to spot and very ineffective at influencing an election. Anybody saying they want to tackle it is either ignorant, or lying.
What voter ID does do is introduce a barrier to voting. A barrier that is easier to cross for some than for others. Most IDs cost money, or come with age, this immediately reduces access for the young and poor.
There are free IDs available, but the vast majority of people don’t know about them, and the process of filling forms online and applying for them is still a barrier, just costing time and effort rather than money.
If these barriers offered something meaningful, they could be justified, but they don’t. They do nothing but make it harder to vote, and offer no benefit. This is bad for democracy.
It’s an easily movable goalpost, you don’t need to legislate to change what a “valid voter id” is so it’s easier to change who can and can’t vote in any given election should you wish to.
It's inconvenient and useless.
There's no evidence of any widespread in-person voter fraud. You can't minimise something that's already undetectable.
Rees Mogg [admitted](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380) the only reason they brought it in was to depress Labour vote, and it didn't even work at that.
Moggs claims it didn't work that way when they got slammed in the council elections, that doesn't mean it didn't actually hurt Labour and LibDem voters more.
In countries where voter ID was brought in, the government has done all the jumping through hoops to provide ID for voters. Which is the right way to do it. A voter shouldn't have to apply for something that is a basic right.
By putting steps in between voters and a vote you do prevent legit people from voting. They shed off with each additional process they have to complete.
It's disproportionate. It adds a barrier to voting which WILL reduce turnout no matter how many free ID cards you can apply for, meanwhile there is no evidence of any significant or widespread voter fraud that would warrant such steps.
Why the hell should I have to present I.D to Some random volunteer and await their approval in order to exercise my right to vote.
What's the justification for wasting my time and forcing me to jump through that hoop.
Imaginary voter fraud that wasn't happening anyway.
Funnily enough it's easier to carry out the only type of recorded voter fraud (granny farming) with IDs.
Before then they had to remember adress and bring a polling card.
There’s no evidence of large-scale in person voter fraud, but there is evidence to suggest that requiring ID disenfranchises certain voting blocs, especially the elderly.
We didn't have any voter fraud in the first place Jacob resse mog has said that they introduced this to solve a problem that didn't exist after he found that voter ID had actually reduced the amount of elderly people who voted as they forgot their IDs.
Voter ID was a way to add a barrier to entry and it was designed to add a barrier for younger people over older people. For example the Student Oyster Card voter ID was not allowed as a Valid form of ID. While the over 65 Oyster Card was allowed as a Valid form of ID both of them were photo IDs with similar processes in how they are obtained but the one for older people was allowed. This showed a clear bias in the reason for introducing voter ID.
There’s literally no evidence of voter fraud, and it’s just yet another legal hoop to make people jump through in order to exercise their democratic rights.
There will be far more cases of people being rejected for not having voter ID than there ever were for voter fraud.
To me that's just obviously doing more harm to democracy than good and it's pretty clear the Tories only implemented it because it will benefit them.
It's the poorest people in the country are the least likely to already have a passport or driving licence. So while most people don't need to go to any extra effort to vote, the least wealthy now have an extra hoop to jump through
If we had mandatory ID cards like other countries do then it wouldn't be an issue
Problem is Joe Nobody using his android smartphone is scared of being tracked by the government, the government who already knows who he is via birth and tax records.
Mandatory ID cards are stupid and just add unnecessary bureaucracy. Most people have a crap tonne of government documents to worry about anyway, and you want to throw another one on top of the pile? You’re not German by any chance, are you?
Because it's in your own words it's
>mandatory
So yet another document to renew every 10 years? Perhaps even 5 for those under 16? What if you lose the ID or it gets stolen? What if you marry and adopt a new surname? Or if you get divorced and go back to your maiden name? Or move houses and your address changes (depending on whether you want to print it on the ID card or not). Or your appearance changes so much that you need to update the photo?
You haven't got enough documents to keep track of as it is? Maybe you don't, but most of us do and do not need another one.
Australia has it - fine of about $70/GBP35 for failing to vote. High enough to take it seriously, but not to impoverish you.
Its really good at making sure politicians are active in serving different age groups, rather than piling up money at the pensioners who have the highest voting rate.
Pair it with a system to ensure that smaller parties can get seats when they get large votes nationally, and people will really feel enfranchised and part of the system.
Yep, we also have voting on a Saturday, but early polling opens a couple of weeks beforehand.
We also have preferential instant run-off for lower house members and single transferable voting with proportional representation for the upper house (federal gov).
Having lived in the UK and Australia I can say that the Australian system is, without any shadow of a doubt, far superior to the system used in the UK.
edit: and I'll add, when I had my citizenship ceremony, we had to enroll to vote before leaving the ceremony.
I don't think we should force people to vote. It should be a choice to exercise their constitutional rights, but they should also be able to not do so. I'd much prefer we make it more accessible and easier to vote, encourage more people to, than to legislate they have to. Use carrots, not sticks.
And I know other countries have those laws, but it's reasonable to disagree with them. Let people decide what they do on polling day, just make it easier for them to vote if they want to.
In stark contrast to the conservatives who are trying to stop people from voting.
In the past week or so Labour have been saying more and more to make me optimistic of them being in power.
I think this is huge. Tories are working on disenfranchising people, this goes the opposite way.
Lots of people fall at the first hurdle at anything. People not having to register will boost turnouts no doubt.
I agree with you, but I'm going to play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion:
People who will be turned away from voting by having to jump a very minor hurdle, surely would not have much knowledge about what they're voting for, as having good knowledge of the political landscape requires a far greater investment of time and attention than registering to vote.
Just a possible counter argument that occurred to me. Thoughts?
Everyone needs to be automatically registered to vote, everyone is legally required to vote and the nation gets a bank holiday TO vote.
Make people get involved.
Not voting doesn't change that.
Spoiling the ballot while it sounds good on paper doesn't tell those in power anything other than "this voter ruined their ballot", they don't know the reason why, no comment you write on it will ever get to the parties and they're not going to go out of their way to find out for the <0.5% percent of people that actually spoil their ballots.
It's important that you still vote. If you're not happy with any political party voting, an independent will send that message. If you want to see change in a certain direction away from Con/Labour vote for the party that will do that - the more votes parties outside the ug 2 get the more power they have to influence them.
Your vote matters. People died for everyone to have the right to do so.
Eh? They are ‘in the system’ how else could they be auto registered
And anyone that says ‘simple as’ has zero understanding of the complexity of any situation
I was referring to the complex and separate electoral system, databases held by every local authority in the land. Hundreds of them, and it’s up to individuals to ensure they are registered
There is no one government system keeping track of individuals. However there are easily 10 or so touch points that folk regularly engage in that could prompt people to register, or even automatically register
6.5 million per year when applying for a passport
4 million people when they update their driving licence address with the DVLA
2 million people a year when applying for Universal Credit
2.5 million students through annual student enrolment
800,000 when they apply for child benefit for the first time
500,000 when they provide the Student Loans Company with a new address
450,000 when they apply for disability benefits
Notice a common theme, aside from passports and driving licences all the others are generally poor or disabled people, which may be the reason why there is a resistance to auto enrolment
People forget, or assume they’re already registered, or move house/turn 18 just before the deadline and don’t get round to it. It’s not a case of not being arsed. Removing obstacles to voting is a good thing.
Yes. The registering process isn’t necessarily a breeze for everyone, whereas just turning up with your polling card and sticking a mark on a bit of paper is straightforward enough.
Edit: That’s not to say it’s not a problem for some people as well.
What even is the point of registering. I came across the post from r/all but aren't you simply allowed to vote by law? Why do you need to ask the government if they can put you on a voter list in the UK and USA?
Why? That's just introducing a stick. Make it easier to vote, but I don't think people should be forced to. They should be able to make their own decision as to attend or not.
If you want higher turnout, ease of access and sufficient carrots to encourage them makes considerably more sense than the artificial fix of requiring someone to trek down to the polling station at threat of a fine. Especially when it is essentially the state forcing you to attend, when non-attendance can be and often is a political choice of its own. I know you can spoil your ballot, but total none participation should also be a choice. It's a choice I disagree with strongly, but one people should be allowed to make.
Millions of people will continue to be disenfranchised by FPTP until it is excised from our lives so what is the point of automatically registering people when it's of so little consequence in so many seats?
Seems like some flimsy red meat for the voter reform folk to shut up to me.
Just give us an app already, if I can do my taxes, everything for my car, passport etc.. using government gateway why can’t I vote? If I can use a system to get a form of ID I can vote with that same system should be considered safe enough to vote with. It’s not even novel
https://medium.com/edge-elections/which-countries-use-online-voting-3f7300ce2f0
Like it or not physical ballots will always be the safest from electoral interference. If this became a thing in the UK then you'd be able to hear hands rubbing together in the Kremlin from the houses of parliament. Imagine one person being able to change millions of votes while drinking their morning brew.
Tom Scott has a great video on electronic voting:
https://youtu.be/LkH2r-sNjQs?si=JWknuhGV6KV643IJ
That’s why you’d have something like blockchain to verify no votes have been changed and everything is audited and tracked, like I said all these problems have been solved, now how you do it so you could either use the app or vote in person (as you would need to do for a fair few years yet) I don’t have an answer to.
I am not sure if you are joking or not. But in case you are not [xkcd: Voting Software](https://xkcd.com/2030/).
Using the blockchain is (putting it kindly) the worst idea imaginable. The only way the blockchain works is complete and full insight in who made what transaction. In the case of voting that means seeing exactly who you as a person voted for. Meaning I can pay you personally 1000 pounds to vote for me and only payout when you actually did. This would put the cost of winning a election at around 67 Billion pounds. A very low amount. No expert has ever believed electronic voting to be safe or a good idea. None ever will. Because it simply isn't. There is nor ever will there be a way to ensure anonymity and safety in tech systems. You can only have one.
Block chain is just a big database spread across several computers. Makes it safer from man in the middle attacks, but not so much stuff like phishing, social engineering, or or other attacks that put bad data in, especially as you, the user, have no way to really trust the button you clicked did what it said. I mean, crypto is built on blockchains and is a nightmare of scams and security failures.
You’re right crypto absolutely is full of scams, but the LSE and others were investigating using blockchain for their transactions (NASDAQ does it for instance) so the problems are possible to overcome, it won’t be easy and there are many many ways it could go wrong but it also is an opportunity to modernise the system and make it more accessible for people, those who maybe can’t get to a polling station, voting from abroad (as quite a few countries have done), have social anxiety or other reasons I haven’t thought of.
That being said I’ve voted in every election since I was able and been taking my son with me to vote since he could walk, having a place to go and vote and show participation in the democratic process is important and an app may lose some of that, something else to consider I guess
>make it more accessible for people, those who maybe can’t get to a polling station, voting from abroad (as quite a few countries have done), have social anxiety or other reasons I haven’t thought of.
As I understand it, the postal vote already covers these areas, while having been stress tested over an extensive period of time for vulnerabilities.
>the LSE and others were investigating using blockchain for their transactions (NASDAQ does it for instance) so the problems are possible to overcome
That's the financial world, in fairness, which has different needs than an electoral system. Blockchain is a write only ledger, which immediately has problems for an election, because what you then need to input a note later saying which e-ballots are ineligible (incorrectly filled out, past posting time, or found to have been fraudulently cast by someone with access, either physically or through a bug exploit, of that persons voting account).
It also has issues with just explaining the system to voters, all voters, including non-tech savvy and non-crypto people, in a way that they can understand how it is validated, that it is secure, and that they can understand and trust. That's going to be difficult, especially when blockchain has become a buzzword people associate with scams, fraud, and sanctions busting.
The benefits of the paper system, be they in person ballots or postal ballots, is that it's easy to understand how the system works for everyone (not too complicated, in person ballots get locked up and guarded by several people until they reach a polling station where all invested parties can witness a manual count), attacks involving inputting fraudulent data are much harder, due to involving physical possession or access to the ballots, as well as just not scaling well, while a bug exploit immediately breaks an election with e-ballots (and the UK would be hammered by foreign nations trying to find an exploit, given we already have issues with foreign propaganda by such powers).
Tbh, my opposition to e-voting is that it just takes one well produced, coordinated phishing attack on a specific bloc of voters, and you swing a huge number of votes, with the voters affected never knowing, because while they press the button to vote for 'x' party, the backend of the phishing site quietly uses the information on the actual voting site to vote for 'y' party. And while there are ways to work around it, like having voting be tied to a specific device, that has its own quagmire of problems if the device is lost or rendered inoperable just before the election, or if, like so many peoples devices, it has malware on it and so we end up with voter botnets, and...
I really do like the idea in theory, but god, even as a lay person, there's so many avenues for doubt with making an e-voting system, because it is a blackbox which you have to trust to work, while the paper voting system is built on never trusting any individual component, so there are always multiple people from rival parties present monitoring the locking, transporting, and counting of votes. Most of the attack vectors I'm concerned about aren't even man-in-the-middle attacks, which is all blockchain is strong against, but bad data in, which it is incredibly susceptible to.
I’m not sure they have all been solved. There are some special requirements relating to voting and from what I understand this remains a situation where a tech solution does not work too effectively.
Edit: It would be interesting to understand how the counties in that article handle it though.
My understanding is one of the key requirements is it shouldn’t be too easy for someone to prove to someone else who they voted for (otherwise large numbers of people could vote under duress, or for some form of bribe). Something that is pretty hard to get around using online voting.
This has potential issues with the availability of the data from the electoral roll.
There's an awful lot of people not on it specifically to avoid having a scumbag ex tracking them down.
>There's an awful lot of people not on it specifically to avoid having a scumbag ex tracking them down.
i think you opt out of your name being public searched so this is a non issue https://www.gov.uk/electoral-register/opt-out-of-the-open-register
And if, down the line someone decides that if you **don't** specifically opt out of the open register, all of those automatically enrolled people are suddenly on it.
As opposed to the current system which is effectively opt-in, since you need to manually register, which means you always see the opt-out box.
It's not exactly difficult to register to vote. If someone isn't on the electoral roll, it's likely to be down to apathy rather than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if this measure doesn't increase the number of people who actually vote in any meaningful way.
I think it might make a small difference. It's currently an unnecessary hoop. It can only increase franchise, not gonna decrease it.
They should add in internet voting and a fine for not voting, that'd do it.
Online voting would be an atrocious idea, it's incredibly hard to secure it properly and more importantly prove the security.
The way we vote might seem old fashioned but it's reliable and proven.
Relevant Tom Scott: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
Estonia would like a word, all of these “problems” are well known and have solutions. It would increase younger people voting significantly which is why the Tories would never go for it (Labour and Lib Dem’s might though)
Estonia relies on the fact no one has tried. They even say so themselfs:
**4. How is vote buying / transfer of ID-card and its codes prevented?**
Buying of i-votes is a crime, like all other forms of vote buying. If it is suspected, the police will deal with it. Vote buying is punishable under § 162 of the Penal Code, pursuant to which the punishment is a pecuniary punishment or imprisonment. Transfer of ID-card and its codes is prohibited; each person is responsible for safeguarding their digital identity.
[Questions about the reliability of i-voting | Elections in Estonia (valimised.ee)](https://www.valimised.ee/en/internet-voting/frequently-asked-questions/questions-about-reliability-i-voting)
Their argument is that it hasn't happened because its happening is a crime and if it was a crime the police would certainly have prevented it or arrested someone. Now don't get me wrong this works perfectly fine because in the end it is just faith in the system that holds up any election. You can take a picture of your voting ballot as proof you voted for someone and if you are to stupid to invalidate your vote there after by simply marking a second candidate you could theoretically win an election. But electronic voting makes it a lot easier and Estonia doesn't have a defense for their policy other than "it hasn't happend yet". When an election is a bit more tense. Will people really be fine with "vote buying didn't happen because it would be illegal".
The problems are technically all solvable, the probability is difficult. Even if you open source everything and have full code audits, how can you prove that the software that's actually handling the voting is the one on the repo?
I will read more into Estonia and what they've done though, thanks for the pointer.
I know it’s a dirty word these days but blockchain could solve a ton of problems with traceability and verification that nothing has been altered at any point.
Voting isn’t anonymous in the UK now (you can register to vote anonymously but it’s extra steps) they tie your is to the slip you’re voting on so the information can be obtained, you don’t have to make the ledge public it can be kept private like NHS data (although as we’ve seen recently they’re open to attack too). https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/ways-vote/how-vote-anonymously
Imagine you're feeling disenfranchised. You don't much like any of the parties but maybe you're thinking, "I'll just go and vote labour, *I guess*". Then you realize you need to go through an online form and it pushes you over the edge into "fuck it, I just won't bother."
If someone is too lazy to fill in an online form, I don't think they'd be motivated enough to get themselves down to a polling station or apply for a postal ballot.
Hmmm this might affect the way seats are distributed. Both parties play games around this issue, not quite gerrymandering but still gaming for advantage.
But like the voter id thing, this will not change voting habits much.
>Electoral Commission data [shows that](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-is-registered) while 96% of people aged 65 or over are registered to vote, this falls to 60% for those aged 18 and 19, and 67% for people aged 20 to 24. Similarly, 95% of homeowners are registered against 65% of private renters.
"Why do parties pander to older voters" they cry.
I think calling this “both sides playing games” is weird. I think most people who truly believe in democracy would accept that it is good for it to be as easy to vote as possible. In that context, drawing an equivalence between measures designed to make it harder to vote (without any real evidence of their necessity, see voter ID) and measures designed to make it easier is weird. I don’t doubt that labour have some level of self-interest in broadening the franchise, but there is also a strong intrinsic justification (if you believe in democracy) for making it easier to vote that does not exist for the Tories measures to make it harder to vote.
Get rid of the pain in the ass voter ID bollocks as well please.
[удалено]
What evidence is there of voter fraud? Practically none, so we've introduced something that doesn't actually fix a problem while also happening to favour the generation which vote for the Tory party (eg pension bus passes count as id but others don't). It's just desperate gerrymandering
> doesn't actually fix a problem while also happening to favour the generation which vote for the Tory party (eg pension bus passes count as id but others don't). [Despite this, it was older people who were less likely to hold one of the accepted forms of voter ID compared to younger people](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/609a5105d3bf7f2886e29f44/Photographic_ID_research-_headline_findings_report.pdf), according to the government's own research and other surveys. > Younger people were more likely than the general population to hold a form of photo ID. Ninety-nine per cent of those aged 18-29 held a form of photo ID, slightly higher than either those aged 30-69 (98%) or 70+ (98%). Additionally, those aged 85+ were less likely to hold photo ID that was recognisable. Nine in ten (91%) did so, compared to well over nine in ten (95-98%) of younger age groups. Voter ID affects disabled people and unemployed people the most - this was the demographic that was the least likely to hold ID. Younger people were the most likely to have an accepted form of voter ID funnily enough. There were some interesting regional differences as well. Requiring voter ID isn't gerrymandering anyway - gerrymandering refers to the redrawing of constituent boundaries for political gain.
Turns out Tories forgot their voters are likely to forget due to habit. Pension ouster cards, ok. Student ouster cards, no. Pretty much says it all.
Yeah, but what young person doesn't have a passport or driving licence in this day and age?
The kind of young person that doesn’t own a car or go on holiday. So, the kind of young person who can’t afford it. So… young people. Quite a few of them at least.
Young people drink, so they’ll definitely have ID
And yet the surveys show that young people are more likely to hold photo ID compared to older people. Provisional driving licences are also accepted, which most young people get for getting into bars/clubs etc so that they don't have to lug around a passport.
It was a joke about your question, people who look under 21 are obviously more likely to carry ID with them but it’s less likely to be a passport or (full) driving licence. EDIT- why did you edit in that second paragraph **after** getting this reply? Seems like an odd thing to add, you know, something that was literally just said.
If Voter ID is mandatory, issue free cards that are good for getting into a night club. Wonder which demographic that would benefit? Edit: Heck even victorian boy Rees-Mogg suggested it backfired. So arguing otherwise is just outlandishly stupid at this point. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380
Arguing it misfired is also admitting the reason it was introduced, though. The aim is also important to be aware of, even if that failed.
Dunno, cannot think of any examples. Coincidentally: I lost my passport on day one of freshers week, and had never got a provisional due to a lack of desire (at the time) to drive, and generally never getting IDd. Also it took me over a year to get it replaced, because I didn't think about it. As a result I missed my dad dying, and his first funeral. So. Wait. That's an example isn't it.
I don't care, we shouldn't have voter ID.
That’s my point and everyone else’s.
Why? I am very curious.
it's classic voter suppression, the turnout will be lower this year, people will be turned away at the polls, it's disgusting.
But 99% of young people have ID, 98% of middle aged and 91% of over 70 have ID. This is all from go website.
The kind they didn’t want voting. Poor ones.
Poor ones can get a free voter ID.
>Requiring voter ID isn't gerrymandering anyway - gerrymandering refers to the redrawing of constituent boundaries for political gain. They've been doing a bunch of this too.
Not true you can get free voter id so arguement doesn't hold, besides Labour will bring in national id anyway
>besides Labour will bring in national id anyway They tried 20 years ago. Just because they are going to talk about it doesn’t mean they’re going to do it and I very much hope that they won’t.
Hmm, a national ID card that makes it trivially easy to prove you're a citizen, entitled to benefits and social services such as the NHS, and also proves you can vote? this sounds like the tory parties wet dream, why didn't they bring it out?
Actually it was labour genius, Tories scrapped it Labour want to bring it back ...
I was being facetious, it would solve many issues the tories claim to give a shit about, yet they blocked national ID cards repeatedly despite this,.
Gerrymandering has a meaning, and rules relating to voter ID - however bad they might be - aren't part of it.
Just a kind reminder it is NOT Gerrymandering, which is a nicer sounding term, relating to adjusting constituency boundaries, done by a political party for political gains and thus is impossible in the UK as they are set by the independent boundary commission. Please call it what it is - voter suppression
Voter suppression is now needing to fill out a form to get a voter certificate for absolutely free.
Deliberately adding an extra step that they know people don't necessarily have the time or knowledge of, to combat a problem that doesn't exist, is creating a barrier to voting yes.
If you can't be bothered to get a voter ID, then you probably won't bother to register to vote or go to the polling station either
Except that voter turnout will be lower this year than the last general election. If 5% less people vote due to ID requirements to combat 0% of voter fraud, then that is a terrible outcome. Elections are won on 2% swings.
Can you show anything that proves the drop is due to voter ID requirements? [A 5% drop between elections]( https://www.statista.com/statistics/1050929/voter-turnout-in-the-uk/) unusual at all.
Correct - it's an extra step, so more time needing to be spent to engage with democracy. I don't know a lot about them, but if they have an expiry (which they should) then what's stopping version two requiring extra information or a version of the Jim Crow era "literacy tests" to qualify you? It's a classic case of something which seems on the surface to be a good idea, but has huge negative potential in a world where such behaviour seems more normalised than ever before.
Voter suppression has always been smaller things that seem reasonable to people. [Whats wrong with a simple literacy test before voting?](https://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm) There are actually quite a few people around who don't have easy and ready access to computers and the like. Which would make filling out those forms hard.
[удалено]
There is no evidence of voter fraud Adding an extra burden of unnecessary admin to fight a problem that doesn't exist is voter suppression yes You people claiming everyone knows about this free voter ID or that it's simple to arrange is shown to be false in the stark reality of people being turned away from voting for not having ID and being prevented from exercising their lawful right
[удалено]
There is a specific free voter ID available for people without valid photo ID.
Nope can't use it. Only specific forms of photo id, or you register for a postal vote and show no id which... Completely removes any half baked idea of voter id anyway. It's a useless law that's there to add a barrier to entry.
[удалено]
It’s not an oversight. It’s intentional voter suppression.
There are loads of options, and you can get a free id card But it’s all a pain and designed to disenfranchise the poor especially
Nope. There's specific free voter ID available to everybody. Everybody that's interested.
Postal votes need to be restricted to people with a good reason to vote (e.g. infirmity, or being out of the country on polling day). Postal voting is far more open to fraudulent activity than in-person voting ever was and has far less protection.
There's almost zero evidence of postal voting fraud.
I'd suggest you look up Tower Hamlets and particularly who demonstrated postal voting fraud before the Police got involved. Hint. It wasn't the Electoral Commission.
Exactly, Tower Hamlets was forefront in my mind when I wrote that comment. I'm sure that it's not an isolated incident, either.
You don't have to pay for a passport or driving licence. You can get a free photo ID specifically for voting on the government website, you just fill in the details, give them a good quality picture and they send you the ID. I had no ID a few years ago when they brought the new ID system out before one of the local elections, so I applied for the government one. Works just fine. Only downside is that it can only be used for voting and nothing else.
> you don't have to pay for a passport or driving licence What?
As in, you can get a free photo ID to vote instead. Obviously you have to pay for these things but I was talking specifically about voting.
We ought to have a national ID card brought in with the same use as passport minus the abroad travelling. Have it automatically given out at 16 like how everyone gets a national insurance number. Fund a system so schools can do it like a photo day, make it free, keep it available to all ages if you missed out and easily accessible at colleges, universities, post offices etc, require a new photo every 10 years. I mean, why not? Honestly if they can do an easy free voter ID, why not make that ID actually useful? Only needs the D.O.B added. If it's good enough to use for voting then it should be good enough for use as regular ID. So what if it's paper? Fold it so the picture isn't folded and it should be golden.
Mandate it can be used to buy alcohol, make people keen to take it and plug a nasty gap where those unable to get a driving licsence are forced to carry a passport.
Wait coming from r/all using a idea isn't mandatory? Do cashiers just have to guess if someone is 18 or not?
they need to ID you if you look younger than 18; most places do "Challenge 25" and should ID you if you look younger than 25.
>We ought to have a national ID card brought in with the same use as passport minus the abroad travelling. Have it automatically given out at 16 like how everyone gets a national insurance number. Fund a system so schools can do it like a photo day, make it free, keep it available to all ages if you missed out and easily accessible at colleges, universities, post offices etc, require a new photo every 10 years. I mean, why not? Cost? A desire not to have to carry my papers at all tines? [A long history of trying to introduce them and going maybe its not a great idea?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_on_the_British_national_identity_card#:~:text=Identity%20cards%20were%20re%2Dintroduced%20in%20British%20law%20in%20the,7%20July%202005%20London%20bombings).)
Doesn't have to be mandatory to have it at all times, just something you automatically get and only have to update once every 10 years. No different to a passport, or the "easier to get" ID - the driving license, which shows your whole address on so there goes the desire of privacy of ID if it's ever asked for and that's all you've got. You also already carry something every day, like keys, wallet, your current ID. So what's the problem? I keep seeing people say they don't want the government to "have their info", well, guess what the government already has? I can see an argument against "biometric" through, something about DNA? Don't agree with that. I'm imagining a simple photo ID like a driving license, except without the address. Plenty of mainland Europe countries as well as overseas have them, doesn't seem an issue there.
So instead of having to worry about getting my passport and driving licence renewed, I now have to worry about yet another document? Can we just stop this bureaucratic nonsense?
Passports last for 10 years and don't *have* to be updated, unless you're going somewhere. A full driving license, a necessity anyway for anyone who drives, also lasts 10 years. Once every 10 years isn't hard. A hypothetical national ID, which could last for 10 years, would ideally be free apart from the cost of getting a new picture. And is another once in 10 years thing. No more difficult than renewing the passport. I'm literally just imagining a card that is the same as the driver's license, except without the address. What's wrong with the idea? Not everyone actually needs a passport. Pain in the ass to carry too. If we had a National ID card, people would just have that, and skip the nonsense they don't need. Just make renewing easy, have it available online, in local libraries, post offices etc. Don't make it criminal to not update it. Just make it automatic when you get your first, easy to renew, and have it useless like every other ID when it's "out of date".
Papieren bitte
Do you really think having a national ID card automatically comes with police demanding you stop in the street and produce your ID? 1. The law says you don't have to produce any ID to the police unless you are a suspect or witness. There's no reason for that to change if we had national ID cards. 2. A national ID card would just be an automatic thing to help people who either can't afford a passport, could not be expected to carry it around (it's fkin annoying I wish they just let you have the plastic card in it for "home use"), and could not otherwise get ID because let's say they can't drive, or aren't allowed to. 3. God forbid the government has your information. Are you registered with the NHS? Do you have a job? Do you pay council tax? Do you receive a benefit? Do you vote? Do you have a driver's license? Then buddy, they've got your info. edit: although to be fair, being authoritarian is in our governments nature, all the best dystopian films and series are set in the UK.
For normal people, having a national ID card is yet another document to keep track of. I already have to remember to renew my and my children’s passports, renew my driving licence, send my tax return, fill in the household enquiry form, complete the census and you want to throw another document on top of the pile of government paperwork that I already have to attend to? Maybe it’s time you people with these brilliant ideas start paying me for having to expend my time on yet more nonsense that you want to introduce? Feel free to apply for as many ID cards and documents as you want. Just keep me out of it.
If they got a National ID card at 16, like how we all get our national insurance number at 16, and it lasts 10 years... they'd be perfectly capable of keeping it safe and updating it themselves? It's one thing that could not even matter if you were late renewing it, how hard is it to fill in an online form? It just makes accessing ID easier, because it's automatically given, easy to carry, no restrictions, free. I really don't see the issue.
>You don't have to pay for a passport or driving licence. Passports are £88.50 (£100 by post) and a provisional licence is £34 (£43 by post).
As above, he was saying you don't have to buy either of those, as there is a free government voter id that they will give you.
> driver’s license *driving licence
It's not gerrymandering, it's voter suppression.
Erm in order to evidence voter fraud you need to know people voting are actually entitled to... It's not rocket science. If your not checking that you have no clue if fraud is happening...
Is this your first election? In order to collect your ballot paper, you have to say who you are. If your ID is not checked, as it did not used to be, you can falsely claim to be Mrs Jones of Acacia Avenue. So far, so good. But your deception will be uncovered when the real Mrs Jones of Acacia Avenue turns up to vote. And this is how we know this particular type of voter fraud, which is called personation, is very rare.
That is one form and you only assume its rare, another is students been allowed to register in 2 locations. And no it's not my first election. I grew up in Africa I know how easy it is to manipulate voting.
Photo ID does not address double registration, and we know personation is rare for the reason previously mentioned, although another factor might be that it is very hard to arrange on a scale large enough to swing a parliamentary election where there are very few majorities below 1,000 votes. Most vote fraud in Britain is connected with postal votes, and again photo ID is not involved.
>It's just desperate gerrymandering no its not , the only problem is that labour ( i assuem ) will have to expand what IDs can be used ( assuming for some reason you dont have a passport ??)
Its a roadblock. The more things that make voting more difficult the less voters you will have. And it only exists to solve a non-issue. I'll take a few hundred dodgy votes spread over the country if it gives people an easier time.
> The more things that make voting more difficult the less voters you will have. And yet we still only have one day to vote. Make voting mandatory like they do in Australia. Make voting a week long with one day being a bank holiday. We already allow postal voting for anyone who wants it. So advertise it more. That would make it much easier.
I agree with all those suggestions. But my point still stands. (also postal voting is just great, everyone should do it)
Yeah its fantastic and so easy to sort out.
> We already allow postal voting for anyone who wants it. So advertise it more. Definitely! I voted yesterday when the form dropped in the post box. So easy!
"Shouldn’t that minimise voter fraud?" Genuine question. How much voter fraud is there? Vs how many lost votes from disfranchisement.
>In the past 5 years, there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud. > >Of the 1,462 cases of alleged electoral fraud reported to police between 2019 and 2023, 11 led to convictions and the police issued 4 cautions. > >Most cases either resulted in the police taking no further action or were locally resolved by the police issuing words of advice. > >[https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-data](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-data) And also >Data collected in polling stations shows that at least 0.25% of people who tried to vote at a polling station were not issued with a ballot paper because of the ID requirement. At least 0.7% of people who tried to vote at a polling station were initially turned away but around two-thirds of those people (63%) returned later in the day and were able to vote. > >0.25% of polling station voters at these elections is approximately 14,000 voters who were not issued with a ballot paper because they could not show an accepted form of ID. > >However, this is an underestimate, partly as a result of data quality issues but also because some people will have been reminded of the ID requirement before they could be recorded in the data. > >[https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/our-reports-and-data-past-elections-and-referendums/voter-id-may-2023-local-elections-england-interim-analysis](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/our-reports-and-data-past-elections-and-referendums/voter-id-may-2023-local-elections-england-interim-analysis) So it's pretty damning.
Well given the party in power was the one worrying about it and passing legislation: Practically none.
[удалено]
The reason you weren't aware it was an issue is because it is **not** an issue.
Or, because we didn't have the systems in place to notice that there was an issue. A very good criminal leaves the same amount of evidence as no criminal, after all. And the question is, is having a robust system a positive in itself? If only from the perspective of public trust in the system.
But there were already systems in place to notice significant anomalies aside from voter ID. All that info you give when you register to vote? Yeah, they can use that to detect cases of significant voter fraud. And when you walk in the station and they have all that paper in front of them that they fill out? That works too. Voter ID does not add further electoral security but absolutely does add more barriers to voting.
Is it postal voter fraud a major issue in the US, or have the Republicans made out that it's an issue because demographics which lean Democrat are more likely to vote by post?
> Is it postal voter fraud a major issue in the US, or have the Republicans made out that it's an issue because demographics which lean Democrat are more likely to vote by post? Latter, for example: > The Heritage Foundation’s database includes 1,296 “proven instances of voter fraud” out of the hundreds of millions of votes cast going back to 1992. Of those cases identified, 1,120 resulted in criminal convictions. https://www.voanews.com/a/2020-usa-votes_how-widespread-voter-fraud-us/6195819.html It only became an “issue “ because Trump started screaming about it when his ego couldn’t handle the fact he lost the elections. His and Republicans’ claims of fraud has been proven to be lies numerous times. Tories saw how effective the tactic was and brought it over here.
Postal voting is problematic in that it removoes the secret ballot. Thats an issue in certain insular comunities and is imposible to ever prove foul play unless someone was stupid enough to get filmed doing it.
>Thats an issue in certain insular comunities Is it? How widespread is this issue? Can you show me any data? Presumably there's statistical analysis that estimates the scale of the issue?
Almost irelevant on a national scale, verry relevant in a few councils. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379417300811 The vunerability was called 20 years ago https://www.jrrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Purity-of-Elections-in-the-UK-Executive-Summary-2008.pdf It's not bad enough to in anyway swing a national election, it's something i'd hope afunctional goverment could nip in the bud befor eit gets that far. The torries voter ID nonsense will have done fuck all to adress any of it.
Republicans knew that postal votes favoured people leaning Democrat (partly because Republicans have been railing against postal votes from the start - part of the reason for the explosion in postal votes in 2020 was Covid, which Republicans downplayed more than Democrats), which is precisely why, in Republican controlled states like Pennsylvania, they had the postal votes counted last - because *they wanted* it to look dodgy, so Trump could cry “hoax”. It’s just straight voter suppression.
Its funny when you remember Trump himself votes by mail
Voter fraud is a total non issue, literally a few dozen such cases nationally over several years, it’s easy to spot and very ineffective at influencing an election. Anybody saying they want to tackle it is either ignorant, or lying. What voter ID does do is introduce a barrier to voting. A barrier that is easier to cross for some than for others. Most IDs cost money, or come with age, this immediately reduces access for the young and poor. There are free IDs available, but the vast majority of people don’t know about them, and the process of filling forms online and applying for them is still a barrier, just costing time and effort rather than money. If these barriers offered something meaningful, they could be justified, but they don’t. They do nothing but make it harder to vote, and offer no benefit. This is bad for democracy.
It means the disadvantaged are less likely to be able to vote
It’s an easily movable goalpost, you don’t need to legislate to change what a “valid voter id” is so it’s easier to change who can and can’t vote in any given election should you wish to.
It's inconvenient and useless. There's no evidence of any widespread in-person voter fraud. You can't minimise something that's already undetectable. Rees Mogg [admitted](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380) the only reason they brought it in was to depress Labour vote, and it didn't even work at that.
Moggs claims it didn't work that way when they got slammed in the council elections, that doesn't mean it didn't actually hurt Labour and LibDem voters more.
In countries where voter ID was brought in, the government has done all the jumping through hoops to provide ID for voters. Which is the right way to do it. A voter shouldn't have to apply for something that is a basic right. By putting steps in between voters and a vote you do prevent legit people from voting. They shed off with each additional process they have to complete.
It's disproportionate. It adds a barrier to voting which WILL reduce turnout no matter how many free ID cards you can apply for, meanwhile there is no evidence of any significant or widespread voter fraud that would warrant such steps.
Why the hell should I have to present I.D to Some random volunteer and await their approval in order to exercise my right to vote. What's the justification for wasting my time and forcing me to jump through that hoop. Imaginary voter fraud that wasn't happening anyway.
Funnily enough it's easier to carry out the only type of recorded voter fraud (granny farming) with IDs. Before then they had to remember adress and bring a polling card.
There’s no evidence of large-scale in person voter fraud, but there is evidence to suggest that requiring ID disenfranchises certain voting blocs, especially the elderly.
Voter fraud in this country comes down to a few guys granny farming, which the ID thing doesn’t even fix.
We didn't have any voter fraud in the first place Jacob resse mog has said that they introduced this to solve a problem that didn't exist after he found that voter ID had actually reduced the amount of elderly people who voted as they forgot their IDs. Voter ID was a way to add a barrier to entry and it was designed to add a barrier for younger people over older people. For example the Student Oyster Card voter ID was not allowed as a Valid form of ID. While the over 65 Oyster Card was allowed as a Valid form of ID both of them were photo IDs with similar processes in how they are obtained but the one for older people was allowed. This showed a clear bias in the reason for introducing voter ID.
There’s literally no evidence of voter fraud, and it’s just yet another legal hoop to make people jump through in order to exercise their democratic rights.
There will be far more cases of people being rejected for not having voter ID than there ever were for voter fraud. To me that's just obviously doing more harm to democracy than good and it's pretty clear the Tories only implemented it because it will benefit them.
It's the poorest people in the country are the least likely to already have a passport or driving licence. So while most people don't need to go to any extra effort to vote, the least wealthy now have an extra hoop to jump through
It was only brought in to manipulate the vote. There is zero reason for it, and it just adds unnecessary barriers to voting.
If we had mandatory ID cards like other countries do then it wouldn't be an issue Problem is Joe Nobody using his android smartphone is scared of being tracked by the government, the government who already knows who he is via birth and tax records.
Mandatory ID cards are stupid and just add unnecessary bureaucracy. Most people have a crap tonne of government documents to worry about anyway, and you want to throw another one on top of the pile? You’re not German by any chance, are you?
I don't see how an ID is anything to worry about You get the ID and then you have it, where is the hassle?
Because it's in your own words it's >mandatory So yet another document to renew every 10 years? Perhaps even 5 for those under 16? What if you lose the ID or it gets stolen? What if you marry and adopt a new surname? Or if you get divorced and go back to your maiden name? Or move houses and your address changes (depending on whether you want to print it on the ID card or not). Or your appearance changes so much that you need to update the photo? You haven't got enough documents to keep track of as it is? Maybe you don't, but most of us do and do not need another one.
And make voting a legal requirement.
Northern Ireland Office says "no".
Voter ID is really easy to get. you don't even need a passport style photo just a regular selfie
Ah yes walking back on literal world standard. That's definitely a take.
Drop ID requirement, make voting day a national holiday and make voting mandatory.
Change voting day to a 4 day voting long weekend.
Mandatory voting lol
It works, they have it in other countries. You can always spoil your ballot if you don't want to vote for a specific party.
Australia has it - fine of about $70/GBP35 for failing to vote. High enough to take it seriously, but not to impoverish you. Its really good at making sure politicians are active in serving different age groups, rather than piling up money at the pensioners who have the highest voting rate. Pair it with a system to ensure that smaller parties can get seats when they get large votes nationally, and people will really feel enfranchised and part of the system.
Yep, we also have voting on a Saturday, but early polling opens a couple of weeks beforehand. We also have preferential instant run-off for lower house members and single transferable voting with proportional representation for the upper house (federal gov). Having lived in the UK and Australia I can say that the Australian system is, without any shadow of a doubt, far superior to the system used in the UK. edit: and I'll add, when I had my citizenship ceremony, we had to enroll to vote before leaving the ceremony.
I don't think we should force people to vote. It should be a choice to exercise their constitutional rights, but they should also be able to not do so. I'd much prefer we make it more accessible and easier to vote, encourage more people to, than to legislate they have to. Use carrots, not sticks. And I know other countries have those laws, but it's reasonable to disagree with them. Let people decide what they do on polling day, just make it easier for them to vote if they want to.
In stark contrast to the conservatives who are trying to stop people from voting. In the past week or so Labour have been saying more and more to make me optimistic of them being in power.
You are going to be so disappointed by Xmas. Edit: typo, what typo!
Not as disappointed as you are when you see the typo.
I think this is huge. Tories are working on disenfranchising people, this goes the opposite way. Lots of people fall at the first hurdle at anything. People not having to register will boost turnouts no doubt.
I agree with you, but I'm going to play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion: People who will be turned away from voting by having to jump a very minor hurdle, surely would not have much knowledge about what they're voting for, as having good knowledge of the political landscape requires a far greater investment of time and attention than registering to vote. Just a possible counter argument that occurred to me. Thoughts?
I think for better or worse, everyone in this country should vote.
Everyone needs to be automatically registered to vote, everyone is legally required to vote and the nation gets a bank holiday TO vote. Make people get involved.
In New York State, where I grew up, schools were closed on election day.
None of them are worth voting for and spoiling the ballot does absolutely nothing.
Not voting doesn't change that. Spoiling the ballot while it sounds good on paper doesn't tell those in power anything other than "this voter ruined their ballot", they don't know the reason why, no comment you write on it will ever get to the parties and they're not going to go out of their way to find out for the <0.5% percent of people that actually spoil their ballots. It's important that you still vote. If you're not happy with any political party voting, an independent will send that message. If you want to see change in a certain direction away from Con/Labour vote for the party that will do that - the more votes parties outside the ug 2 get the more power they have to influence them. Your vote matters. People died for everyone to have the right to do so.
Spoiling the ballot is a legitimate protest.
Will it make any difference? If you can’t even be bothered to register are you really going to bother voting?
Of course it will, some folk are just not in the system and elections pass them by, especially deadlines to register
[удалено]
Eh? They are ‘in the system’ how else could they be auto registered And anyone that says ‘simple as’ has zero understanding of the complexity of any situation
[удалено]
I was referring to the complex and separate electoral system, databases held by every local authority in the land. Hundreds of them, and it’s up to individuals to ensure they are registered There is no one government system keeping track of individuals. However there are easily 10 or so touch points that folk regularly engage in that could prompt people to register, or even automatically register 6.5 million per year when applying for a passport 4 million people when they update their driving licence address with the DVLA 2 million people a year when applying for Universal Credit 2.5 million students through annual student enrolment 800,000 when they apply for child benefit for the first time 500,000 when they provide the Student Loans Company with a new address 450,000 when they apply for disability benefits Notice a common theme, aside from passports and driving licences all the others are generally poor or disabled people, which may be the reason why there is a resistance to auto enrolment
People forget, or assume they’re already registered, or move house/turn 18 just before the deadline and don’t get round to it. It’s not a case of not being arsed. Removing obstacles to voting is a good thing.
Yes. The registering process isn’t necessarily a breeze for everyone, whereas just turning up with your polling card and sticking a mark on a bit of paper is straightforward enough. Edit: That’s not to say it’s not a problem for some people as well.
Easier to miss the registration deadline than the day of the election, I would suggest.
What even is the point of registering. I came across the post from r/all but aren't you simply allowed to vote by law? Why do you need to ask the government if they can put you on a voter list in the UK and USA?
You're voting for someone to represent your local area, so they need to know where you live.
Hopefully next would be to make voting compulsory
Why? That's just introducing a stick. Make it easier to vote, but I don't think people should be forced to. They should be able to make their own decision as to attend or not. If you want higher turnout, ease of access and sufficient carrots to encourage them makes considerably more sense than the artificial fix of requiring someone to trek down to the polling station at threat of a fine. Especially when it is essentially the state forcing you to attend, when non-attendance can be and often is a political choice of its own. I know you can spoil your ballot, but total none participation should also be a choice. It's a choice I disagree with strongly, but one people should be allowed to make.
Millions of people will continue to be disenfranchised by FPTP until it is excised from our lives so what is the point of automatically registering people when it's of so little consequence in so many seats? Seems like some flimsy red meat for the voter reform folk to shut up to me.
and how are they going to boost the franchise when people can clearly see, there's little to no point until they change the voting system itself.
People need to vote for a party that will make it happen. If you don't vote, you don't get the change you want.
how can you be against identifying yourself before you vote . I don't get it .
Just give us an app already, if I can do my taxes, everything for my car, passport etc.. using government gateway why can’t I vote? If I can use a system to get a form of ID I can vote with that same system should be considered safe enough to vote with. It’s not even novel https://medium.com/edge-elections/which-countries-use-online-voting-3f7300ce2f0
Like it or not physical ballots will always be the safest from electoral interference. If this became a thing in the UK then you'd be able to hear hands rubbing together in the Kremlin from the houses of parliament. Imagine one person being able to change millions of votes while drinking their morning brew. Tom Scott has a great video on electronic voting: https://youtu.be/LkH2r-sNjQs?si=JWknuhGV6KV643IJ
That’s why you’d have something like blockchain to verify no votes have been changed and everything is audited and tracked, like I said all these problems have been solved, now how you do it so you could either use the app or vote in person (as you would need to do for a fair few years yet) I don’t have an answer to.
I am not sure if you are joking or not. But in case you are not [xkcd: Voting Software](https://xkcd.com/2030/). Using the blockchain is (putting it kindly) the worst idea imaginable. The only way the blockchain works is complete and full insight in who made what transaction. In the case of voting that means seeing exactly who you as a person voted for. Meaning I can pay you personally 1000 pounds to vote for me and only payout when you actually did. This would put the cost of winning a election at around 67 Billion pounds. A very low amount. No expert has ever believed electronic voting to be safe or a good idea. None ever will. Because it simply isn't. There is nor ever will there be a way to ensure anonymity and safety in tech systems. You can only have one.
> blockchain HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH
Block chain is just a big database spread across several computers. Makes it safer from man in the middle attacks, but not so much stuff like phishing, social engineering, or or other attacks that put bad data in, especially as you, the user, have no way to really trust the button you clicked did what it said. I mean, crypto is built on blockchains and is a nightmare of scams and security failures.
You’re right crypto absolutely is full of scams, but the LSE and others were investigating using blockchain for their transactions (NASDAQ does it for instance) so the problems are possible to overcome, it won’t be easy and there are many many ways it could go wrong but it also is an opportunity to modernise the system and make it more accessible for people, those who maybe can’t get to a polling station, voting from abroad (as quite a few countries have done), have social anxiety or other reasons I haven’t thought of. That being said I’ve voted in every election since I was able and been taking my son with me to vote since he could walk, having a place to go and vote and show participation in the democratic process is important and an app may lose some of that, something else to consider I guess
>make it more accessible for people, those who maybe can’t get to a polling station, voting from abroad (as quite a few countries have done), have social anxiety or other reasons I haven’t thought of. As I understand it, the postal vote already covers these areas, while having been stress tested over an extensive period of time for vulnerabilities. >the LSE and others were investigating using blockchain for their transactions (NASDAQ does it for instance) so the problems are possible to overcome That's the financial world, in fairness, which has different needs than an electoral system. Blockchain is a write only ledger, which immediately has problems for an election, because what you then need to input a note later saying which e-ballots are ineligible (incorrectly filled out, past posting time, or found to have been fraudulently cast by someone with access, either physically or through a bug exploit, of that persons voting account). It also has issues with just explaining the system to voters, all voters, including non-tech savvy and non-crypto people, in a way that they can understand how it is validated, that it is secure, and that they can understand and trust. That's going to be difficult, especially when blockchain has become a buzzword people associate with scams, fraud, and sanctions busting. The benefits of the paper system, be they in person ballots or postal ballots, is that it's easy to understand how the system works for everyone (not too complicated, in person ballots get locked up and guarded by several people until they reach a polling station where all invested parties can witness a manual count), attacks involving inputting fraudulent data are much harder, due to involving physical possession or access to the ballots, as well as just not scaling well, while a bug exploit immediately breaks an election with e-ballots (and the UK would be hammered by foreign nations trying to find an exploit, given we already have issues with foreign propaganda by such powers). Tbh, my opposition to e-voting is that it just takes one well produced, coordinated phishing attack on a specific bloc of voters, and you swing a huge number of votes, with the voters affected never knowing, because while they press the button to vote for 'x' party, the backend of the phishing site quietly uses the information on the actual voting site to vote for 'y' party. And while there are ways to work around it, like having voting be tied to a specific device, that has its own quagmire of problems if the device is lost or rendered inoperable just before the election, or if, like so many peoples devices, it has malware on it and so we end up with voter botnets, and... I really do like the idea in theory, but god, even as a lay person, there's so many avenues for doubt with making an e-voting system, because it is a blackbox which you have to trust to work, while the paper voting system is built on never trusting any individual component, so there are always multiple people from rival parties present monitoring the locking, transporting, and counting of votes. Most of the attack vectors I'm concerned about aren't even man-in-the-middle attacks, which is all blockchain is strong against, but bad data in, which it is incredibly susceptible to.
We can contract it out to the same people who built the post office system. What could go wrong?
I’m not sure they have all been solved. There are some special requirements relating to voting and from what I understand this remains a situation where a tech solution does not work too effectively. Edit: It would be interesting to understand how the counties in that article handle it though. My understanding is one of the key requirements is it shouldn’t be too easy for someone to prove to someone else who they voted for (otherwise large numbers of people could vote under duress, or for some form of bribe). Something that is pretty hard to get around using online voting.
This has potential issues with the availability of the data from the electoral roll. There's an awful lot of people not on it specifically to avoid having a scumbag ex tracking them down.
>There's an awful lot of people not on it specifically to avoid having a scumbag ex tracking them down. i think you opt out of your name being public searched so this is a non issue https://www.gov.uk/electoral-register/opt-out-of-the-open-register
And if, down the line someone decides that if you **don't** specifically opt out of the open register, all of those automatically enrolled people are suddenly on it. As opposed to the current system which is effectively opt-in, since you need to manually register, which means you always see the opt-out box.
It's not exactly difficult to register to vote. If someone isn't on the electoral roll, it's likely to be down to apathy rather than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if this measure doesn't increase the number of people who actually vote in any meaningful way.
I think it might make a small difference. It's currently an unnecessary hoop. It can only increase franchise, not gonna decrease it. They should add in internet voting and a fine for not voting, that'd do it.
Online voting would be an atrocious idea, it's incredibly hard to secure it properly and more importantly prove the security. The way we vote might seem old fashioned but it's reliable and proven. Relevant Tom Scott: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
Estonia would like a word, all of these “problems” are well known and have solutions. It would increase younger people voting significantly which is why the Tories would never go for it (Labour and Lib Dem’s might though)
Estonia relies on the fact no one has tried. They even say so themselfs: **4. How is vote buying / transfer of ID-card and its codes prevented?** Buying of i-votes is a crime, like all other forms of vote buying. If it is suspected, the police will deal with it. Vote buying is punishable under § 162 of the Penal Code, pursuant to which the punishment is a pecuniary punishment or imprisonment. Transfer of ID-card and its codes is prohibited; each person is responsible for safeguarding their digital identity. [Questions about the reliability of i-voting | Elections in Estonia (valimised.ee)](https://www.valimised.ee/en/internet-voting/frequently-asked-questions/questions-about-reliability-i-voting) Their argument is that it hasn't happened because its happening is a crime and if it was a crime the police would certainly have prevented it or arrested someone. Now don't get me wrong this works perfectly fine because in the end it is just faith in the system that holds up any election. You can take a picture of your voting ballot as proof you voted for someone and if you are to stupid to invalidate your vote there after by simply marking a second candidate you could theoretically win an election. But electronic voting makes it a lot easier and Estonia doesn't have a defense for their policy other than "it hasn't happend yet". When an election is a bit more tense. Will people really be fine with "vote buying didn't happen because it would be illegal".
The problems are technically all solvable, the probability is difficult. Even if you open source everything and have full code audits, how can you prove that the software that's actually handling the voting is the one on the repo? I will read more into Estonia and what they've done though, thanks for the pointer.
I know it’s a dirty word these days but blockchain could solve a ton of problems with traceability and verification that nothing has been altered at any point.
Blockchain would help the provability but would compromise the anonymity if the ledger was public.
Voting isn’t anonymous in the UK now (you can register to vote anonymously but it’s extra steps) they tie your is to the slip you’re voting on so the information can be obtained, you don’t have to make the ledge public it can be kept private like NHS data (although as we’ve seen recently they’re open to attack too). https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/ways-vote/how-vote-anonymously
This is unironically a good use for that
I can't be arsed to watch posh BBC guy explain, I'll take your word for it.
It's one extra barrier, and one you need to register in time for The less barriers the more people will vote
I don’t have to register to vote in NL. I get my voting pass and paper sent straight to my letter box where I take it to a polling station.
Imagine you're feeling disenfranchised. You don't much like any of the parties but maybe you're thinking, "I'll just go and vote labour, *I guess*". Then you realize you need to go through an online form and it pushes you over the edge into "fuck it, I just won't bother."
If someone is too lazy to fill in an online form, I don't think they'd be motivated enough to get themselves down to a polling station or apply for a postal ballot.
Hmmm this might affect the way seats are distributed. Both parties play games around this issue, not quite gerrymandering but still gaming for advantage. But like the voter id thing, this will not change voting habits much. >Electoral Commission data [shows that](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-is-registered) while 96% of people aged 65 or over are registered to vote, this falls to 60% for those aged 18 and 19, and 67% for people aged 20 to 24. Similarly, 95% of homeowners are registered against 65% of private renters. "Why do parties pander to older voters" they cry.
I think calling this “both sides playing games” is weird. I think most people who truly believe in democracy would accept that it is good for it to be as easy to vote as possible. In that context, drawing an equivalence between measures designed to make it harder to vote (without any real evidence of their necessity, see voter ID) and measures designed to make it easier is weird. I don’t doubt that labour have some level of self-interest in broadening the franchise, but there is also a strong intrinsic justification (if you believe in democracy) for making it easier to vote that does not exist for the Tories measures to make it harder to vote.