Photo ID needed to vote? Please no.

[flashbac]

The government are bringing in (photo) voter ID meaning you'll need to show your passport or driving licence when going to cast your vote.

By all means reform the postal voting system but not this. Not everyone drives or goes abroad and this will bar many people from voting. Driving licences and passports are not cheap.

amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/10/queens-speech-photo-id-future-elections-social-care?

@PlanDeRaccordement I am confused: in the absence of data, how have you reached the conclusion that electoral fraud is a big issue?

Your own link (7 years old, by the way) states that

"Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.

This has the potential to undermine confidence in the electoral system if not addressed"

In other words, it says there is no evidence it is widespread, but some people think (based on what???) it happens, and this has the potential to undermine confidence.

Also:

"Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral Commission, said:

Proven cases of electoral fraud are rare"

So, I ask the question again: do you have any evidence, possibly more recent than 7 years ago, that it is a big issue?

I'll just point out that voter suppression does much more to "undermine confidence" than rare cases of fraud.

@ParentOfOne
Proven cases of fraud are only rare because the only fraud that is investigated is when an allegation is made by a random witness. Look at your system. It has actual vulnerabilities because no photo ID. Not just perception of a problem.

No audits are done to ensure votes aren’t simply discarded. Votes are done in pencil and no one checks to see if any evidence votes are being altered by the staff processing and counting them. No one crosschecks votes with recent death reports to ensure the dead aren’t voting. No one cross checks registration lists to make sure the same person isn’t voting in both Scotland and England because they have two addresses. No one checks IDs so no idea if someone isn’t impersonating a relative to vote twice.

I don’t know how else to explain it. U.K. has no idea how much fraud is happening because it’s not doing any audit type activities to ensure it’s free of fraud.

how have you reached the conclusion that electoral fraud is a big issue?

That’s not my conclusion btw? My conclusion is that the absence of data means that the level of fraud is UNKNOWN as opposed to RARE or NONEXISTANT as other posters have said.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Most of the things you mention do not require ID.
You do not need to get voters to bring ID in order to check that votes aren't altered by the staff etc etc.

The only thing that, of course, ID would avoid is impersonating someone else.

However, your whole argument seems to be that you have no clue whatsoever on what scale this is happening, for all you know it could be tiny and irrelevant, but you want ID just on the off chance that fraud might in fact be rife.

I am curious, how do you propose to avoid voter suppression?

Are you in favour of the American proposals, which, amongst other things, make it illegal to give food and water to those queueing to vote (it's been proposed in Georgia, look it up)?

Or would you be in favour of a system of ID cards which are free for the end user, like in France?

Do you admit that the Americans have been engaging in voter suppression for a very long time, with the excuse of reducing fraud?

You are right that ID cards would reduce fraud ( where we differ is that I wouldn't want to use a nuclear bomb to kill a mosquito). However, how do you balance reducing fraud vs voter suppression / making people feel disenfranchised / losing confidence in the system etc?
If (I'm making the numbers up) you prevent 1,000 cases of fraud, but you end up preventing tens of thousands of people from voting, is that not a much worse outcome?

The French system.

If (I'm making the numbers up) you prevent 1,000 cases of fraud, but you end up preventing tens of thousands of people from voting, is that not a much worse outcome?

It would be, but that’s not what the experience of most other countries, including France has been. So your fears are groundless as it is unlikely to happen.

@PlanDeRaccordement

The French system.

Great. However, should Boris try to go down the US route, i.e. no easily available national ID card for all, but voter suppression with the excuse of fighting fraud, would you be OK with that?

Make no mistake: compulsory ID in the absence of a cheap (better if free) system of ID cards, easily and efficiently for all, is voter suppression and nothing else.

@PlanDeRaccordement

If (I'm making the numbers up) you prevent 1,000 cases of fraud, but you end up preventing tens of thousands of people from voting, is that not a much worse outcome?

It would be, but that’s not what the experience of most other countries, including France has been. So your fears are groundless as it is unlikely to happen.

What "experience" are you referring to? You cannot quote the experience of countries like France Spain Italy etc, which have always had some form of population register and compulsory ID cards. Those examples are not relevant. You are comparing apples and oranges.

The relevant example is what happens in the US (a country, like the UK, with no history of compulsory ID) every time a state tries to make ID compulsory, and the answer to that is: voter suppression, meant to make it as hard as possible for certain categories (especially Democrat-voting black people) to vote at all.

However, should Boris try to go down the US route, i.e. no easily available national ID card for all, but voter suppression with the excuse of fighting fraud, would you be OK with that?

Why would he? The electoral commission recommend same system used in Northern Ireland simply being expanded to the rest of the U.K. It works fine there, no one is being suppressed, voter confidence isn’t lost, etc. They have a free EONI card.

The relevant example is what happens in the US (a country, like the UK, with no history of compulsory ID) every time a state tries to make ID compulsory, and the answer to that is: voter suppression, meant to make it as hard as possible for certain categories (especially Democrat-voting black people) to vote at all.

The US is a “the relevant example” you choose instead of Northern Ireland which is actually part of the U.K.?

Loads of replies here completely ignoring the fact that this has already been trialled in this country and each trial demonstrated significant numbers of people being unable to vote.

If they won't accept an expired passport, then I would be stuffed, and so would have to apply for a postal vote.

Given that the much larger problem with election fraud is with postal votes, what could possibly go wrong?

@Domino20

Loads of replies here completely ignoring the fact that this has already been trialled in this country and each trial demonstrated significant numbers of people being unable to vote.

Yes it has been trialled but not with a free, national voter ID card. Even so, the reports were favourable. www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/voter-identification-pilots/may-2019-voter-identification-pilot-schemes/our-findings

“The ten pilots in May 2019 have provided more evidence about what it would mean for people to show ID at polling stations in Great Britain, building on the five pilots held in 2018.”

“Looking at the evidence from these pilots and our previous research, we can say that:

A large majority of people already have access to an acceptable form of officially issued photo ID from the lists used in these pilots. These people would not have a problem showing it in a polling station if they had to do so. Allowing only existing forms of officially issued photo ID would not be accessible for everyone. Some groups of people would find it harder than others to show photo ID in a polling station, although this could be mitigated if locally issued photo voter cards were easily available for all. Locally issued ID that includes a photo – like the electoral identity card currently provided in Northern Ireland – would be more secure than locally issued ID without a photo....The experience of taking part in the pilot scheme appears to have had a positive impact on people’s perception of the security of the polling station process, and on their confidence in it. This varied within each pilot model, across individual local authority areas.
Returning Officers and their staff ran the elections successfully in the pilot scheme areas, and there were no significant administrative issues in any pilot area. Polling station staff were satisfied with how polling day went and were confident that they could manage the process of people showing voter identification at future elections.”

“While a large majority of people already have access to an acceptable form of photo ID, allowing only existing forms of officially issued photo ID would not be accessible for everyone. To make sure voting at polling stations remains accessible, there would need to be other options for people who do not already have an acceptable form of photo ID. This could involve providing free of charge locally issued photo ID, as currently provided for electors in Northern Ireland. Alternatively, it could involve allowing voters to use their poll card – on the current model or a different model – as the primary or secondary route to proving identity, depending on the level of security required.”

@Domino20

Loads of replies here completely ignoring the fact that this has already been trialled in this country and each trial demonstrated significant numbers of people being unable to vote.

No they did not demonstrate “significant numbers of people being unable to vote.” Here are the actual numbers.....

Nearly everyone in these pilots who went to their polling station to vote was able to show ID without difficulty, as in 2018. Out of all those who went to their polling station, the proportion who couldn’t show ID and who did not return to vote ranged from 0.03% to 0.7%.

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/voter-identification-pilots/may-2019-voter-identification-pilot-schemes/impact-voters-experience

(However, how do you balance reducing fraud vs voter suppression / making people feel disenfranchised / losing confidence in the system etc?*

Why on earth would a safer more watertight voting system make a motivated voter lose confidence and feel disenfranchised? Just why?

If (I'm making the numbers up) you prevent 1,000 cases of fraud, but you end up preventing tens of thousands of people from voting, is that not a much worse outcome?

I cannot for the life of me understand why this might happen, except for a tiny, tiny proportion of disorganised and semi-apathetic people. People who are disenfranchised and unmotivated to vote exist in their millions now. Making voting really easy for them clearly isn't encouraging them to vote either, so making it safer but a bit harder is pretty unlikely to stop anyone who is otherwise motivated to vote.

@PlanDeRaccordement

The relevant example is what happens in the US (a country, like the UK, with no history of compulsory ID) every time a state tries to make ID compulsory, and the answer to that is: voter suppression, meant to make it as hard as possible for certain categories (especially Democrat-voting black people) to vote at all.

The US is a “the relevant example” you choose instead of Northern Ireland which is actually part of the U.K.?

Yes. Because, if I remember correctly, the 2019 Queen's speech mentioned a free ID system like in Northern Ireland:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/839370/Queen_s_Speech_Lobby_Pack_2019_.pdf

"Any voter who does not have an approved form ofID will be able to apply, free of charge, for a local electoral identity document"

As far as I have seen, the 2021 speech makes no such explicit mention about free IDs.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/985029/Queen_s_Speech_2021_-_Background_Briefing_Notes..pdf

You should also read all of this in the context of the Tories' desire to change the mayoral electoral system from the current one (which works similarly to the Australian alternative vote, whereby you express two preferences, to a first past the post, simply to favour them. First past the post is the 'democratic' aberration which can turn a small relative minority into an absolute majority (eg the SNP winning some 90% of the Scottish seats in Westminster wth 50% of the vote a few years ago - tell me that's not an aberration).

So, in light of all of this, allow me to be sceptical and to suspect the Tories actually have ulterior, not-so-noble motives.

Boris has changed position on everything and anything, and blatantly lied more than most politicians I can remember, so everything he takes must be taken with a truckload of salt. IF he were to provide an ironclad guarantee that he will provide free and easily available ID like in Northern Ireland (including providing adequate funding to the councils or to whatever entity needs to issue them), I might start to feel less nervous. Until and unless that happens, I will always be nervous about voter suppression.

@SunflowersAndLavender

(However, how do you balance reducing fraud vs voter suppression / making people feel disenfranchised / losing confidence in the system etc?*

Why on earth would a safer more watertight voting system make a motivated voter lose confidence and feel disenfranchised? Just why?

If (I'm making the numbers up) you prevent 1,000 cases of fraud, but you end up preventing tens of thousands of people from voting, is that not a much worse outcome?

I cannot for the life of me understand why this might happen, except for a tiny, tiny proportion of disorganised and semi-apathetic people. People who are disenfranchised and unmotivated to vote exist in their millions now. Making voting really easy for them clearly isn't encouraging them to vote either, so making it safer but a bit harder is pretty unlikely to stop anyone who is otherwise motivated to vote.

You just don't get it, do you?

Please make the mental effort of trying to understand that we all live in a bubble, that your situation and that of the people around you is not representative of the whole country.

It all depends on the details. IF they were to provide an easily accessible and free ID like in Northern Ireland, then yes, not a big issue. But it's a big if.

Imagine the situation where you can only apply at inconvenient hours and in inconveniently located offices not too far fetched given how much all kinds of public services have been cut). Imagine someone who gets paid minimum wage by the hour and would effectively need to take unpaid time off work just to get this bloody document. These are the potential issues that end up causing voter suppression and disenfranchisement. This is what has been happening in the US.

Life is all about balancing the best use of limited resources.
Has this proposal been costed? How much would it cost to provide a free and easily accessible ID like in Northern Ireland? Bear in mind that fewer than 2m people live in NI, while about 64m in the rest of the UK. Or is the plan to provide a not-free, not-easily accessible ID?

*What else could be done with that money? See, I don't think that throwing an unspecified amount of money at a problem whose scale no one can even remotely quantify is a good idea!

PS Not to mention that requiring an ID doesn't do anything for postal vote fraud.

If you really want to commit fraud but must present ID at the polls, you just vote by post! How is requiring ID going to make a difference? Please, please, pretty please, someone explain that to me.

Indeed, postal vote tends not to be allowed in those countries where fraud is rife, where organised crime tries to steer elections its way, where people can be intimidated to vote or not vote in a certain way. Luckily, the UK is not one such country.

@00100001 being unable to vote if you get pick pocketed is not a good reason against requiring ID. If someone steals your passport you can't fly, period. If you lose your passport after getting off the plane at Heathrow you will have a tough time convincing the Border Agency official that you are actually a British citizen with right of abode if you don't have a passport with you.
The good reasons against requiring ID are that no one can show fraud is rife, IDs won't do anything against postal fraud, and, unless a free an easily available ID system like in NI is implemented, the risk of voter suppression is real. Now, how much would this cost and are we sure that's a good use of money?

Also @00100001 , can you please answer my previous question about how you prove you are a citizen if you don't have the immigration / work records of you grandparents / greatgrandparents etc?

If you lose your passport after getting off the plane at Heathrow you will have a tough time convincing the Border Agency official that you are actually a British citizen with right of abode if you don't have a passport with you

It took me about 15 minutes with no ID, and wasn't tough in the slightest, but of course I was a middle aged conventionally looking and dressed white male.

@sirfredfredgeorge exactly; we all know that voter suppression targets another kind of demographics.

I was once kept waiting for over 2 hours at Stansted while someone checked my passport (in pristine conditions), as in, I was made to wait in a room while they held on to the passport; in the end they let me through, but wouldn't explain what prompted the 2-hour wait.

@ParentOfOne
unless a free an easily available ID system like in NI is implemented, the risk of voter suppression is real.

But the evidence of the trials done with just existing ID proved that “nearly everyone” could produce ID and that only 0.03% to 0.7% were unable to vote. So while there is risk of “voter suppression” it is a very very tiny risk and this was when requiring existing photo ID like driver’s license, passport, etc.

WITH accessible free national ID that number and risk would get even smaller. I personally think a fraction of 1% is acceptable. Less than 1% isn’t going to swing an election one way or another.

(And it won’t ever get to zero because it’s objective is to prevent fraudulent votes, so some people trying to vote will be turned away because they were either ineligible to vote or trying to vote on behalf of someone else or to vote more than once.)

@ParentOfOne

PS Not to mention that requiring an ID doesn't do anything for postal vote fraud.

If you really want to commit fraud but must present ID at the polls, you just vote by post! How is requiring ID going to make a difference? Please, please, pretty please, someone explain that to me.

Indeed, postal vote tends not to be allowed in those countries where fraud is rife, where organised crime tries to steer elections its way, where people can be intimidated to vote or not vote in a certain way. Luckily, the UK is not one such country.

Yes U.K. electoral commission also had recommendations to make postal voting more secure. They’re in the links I provided if you’d like to read them. One was not allowing campaigners to process the postal votes because historically the fraud that has been caught has been done by campaigners not counting votes or misreporting votes in order to gain a win for their party. Ie as was alleged during Scotland’s Independence Referendum. It was alleged pro unionist campaigners processing votes would record a vote for independence as a vote against, or just shuffle past votes for independence and not record them at all.

Photo IDs was just one of several anti fraud recommendations. And I don’t see what is the problem with doing any of the recommendations before others? Surely implementing some recommendations is better than implementing none of them at all?

There are many caveats.

The trials were run for local elections; do the same people vote at general elections? Or do local elections tend to attract the voters who are more likely to already have ID?

The trials were run differently, with each requiring a different set of IDs

Northern Ireland is fewer than 2 million people; rolling out a free electoral ID card to 2m people is much easier than rolling it out to 64m people.

I still do not understand how IDs would be any use in making postal vote any more secure.

To recap:
no one knows the true extent of electoral fraud
IDs won't do anything to make postal vote more secure
we still have no idea how much all of this would cost

It really seems like a no brainer to me that the whole idea has no merit

Absolutely right that voters should be required to show some form of voter ID in order to vote. How else can one protect the integrity of democracy?