And Down Goes The Good Ship Gb
News1 min ago
Looks Like Jezza Is Worried About His Crooked "block" Votes...
46 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is one of those ideas that sounds good in principle but is fundamentally flawed in practice. There is in the first place no evidence that electoral fraud of the sort that voter ID blocks is even a problem. For example, in the 2017 General Election there were a grand total of 17 allegations of "double voting", of which only two resulted in further investigations (and one conviction).
Off out shortly so can't really gather and publish more stats, but it simply isn't a crime worth tackling. Consequently, extreme measures to deal with this "problem" are likely to have other motivations. Multiple studies have shown, in the US at least, that voter ID laws will disproportionately impact ethnic minorities, and that Republican Congresspeople tend to be most enthusiastic about pushing for such laws if they live in districts with a large number of such voters. That is unlikely to be coincidence.
It's hard not to be reminded of the "Jim Crow" era in the US, when a number of superficially well-motivated policies related to voting were in reality mere fronts to impose racial segregation, eg imposing a literacy requirement at a time when black people rarely received sufficient education to be able to read and write.
Off out shortly so can't really gather and publish more stats, but it simply isn't a crime worth tackling. Consequently, extreme measures to deal with this "problem" are likely to have other motivations. Multiple studies have shown, in the US at least, that voter ID laws will disproportionately impact ethnic minorities, and that Republican Congresspeople tend to be most enthusiastic about pushing for such laws if they live in districts with a large number of such voters. That is unlikely to be coincidence.
It's hard not to be reminded of the "Jim Crow" era in the US, when a number of superficially well-motivated policies related to voting were in reality mere fronts to impose racial segregation, eg imposing a literacy requirement at a time when black people rarely received sufficient education to be able to read and write.
jim; In the last general election Labour used the services of a Pakistani who had already been convicted of election rigging.
https:/
https:/
Electoral offences *do* happen, there's no sense in pretending otherwise. But the scale of the problem simply doesn't justify such measures as this one. Voter impersonation offences, which are what ID would presumably tackle, occur at essentially rates of close to one case for every ten million votes cast.
then there is the well known, postal vote block voting that occurs in asian neighbourhoods:
https:/
https:/
The fact that lots of us here have photo ID and use it without a problem is not the point.
Many people do not. And I’d hasard a guess that most of them are just ordinary folk who happen not to have it.
And even if they are “dishonest” that isn’t an issue so long as they are not using their dishonesty to cheat when it comes to voting.
You’re making it more difficult for those people to vote.
So the question is is it worth it?
Many people do not. And I’d hasard a guess that most of them are just ordinary folk who happen not to have it.
And even if they are “dishonest” that isn’t an issue so long as they are not using their dishonesty to cheat when it comes to voting.
You’re making it more difficult for those people to vote.
So the question is is it worth it?
-- answer removed --
It's not "well-known" at all. As best as can be made out, the scale of the problem has been exaggerated. One need only look at recent, wholly unsubstantiated, claims that "millions" of votes in the 2016 US election were fraudulent to see that it suits some people's interests to take a problem that exists at a small scale and then massively inflate it.
In terms of electoral crime, voter impersonation simply does not register. Even when it does occur the effect is simply swallowed up because the odd one or two fraudulent votes will have no impact on the result of elections with margins of hundreds. Far more of a concern would be campaign finance violations, for example; although I'm not going to argue that some elections are "bought", it still stands to reason that parties campaigning should be able to do so in a level playing field, so that they have in principle an equal change of getting their message heard; financial violations break that principle even before you ask questions about where the money came from.
Instead, concerns should be directed towards why turnout remains generally very low, and why even with full turnout, something in the region of 10% of UK adults aren't even registered to vote in the first place. Since that leads to millions of "lost votes" -- albeit by choice -- as compared to the rare cases of fraudulent votes, it should be clear that the way to improve the trust and the reliability of elections is to encourage further engagement, rather than set increased restrictions, however well-meaning.
In terms of electoral crime, voter impersonation simply does not register. Even when it does occur the effect is simply swallowed up because the odd one or two fraudulent votes will have no impact on the result of elections with margins of hundreds. Far more of a concern would be campaign finance violations, for example; although I'm not going to argue that some elections are "bought", it still stands to reason that parties campaigning should be able to do so in a level playing field, so that they have in principle an equal change of getting their message heard; financial violations break that principle even before you ask questions about where the money came from.
Instead, concerns should be directed towards why turnout remains generally very low, and why even with full turnout, something in the region of 10% of UK adults aren't even registered to vote in the first place. Since that leads to millions of "lost votes" -- albeit by choice -- as compared to the rare cases of fraudulent votes, it should be clear that the way to improve the trust and the reliability of elections is to encourage further engagement, rather than set increased restrictions, however well-meaning.
//I don't have any photo ID, I have no passport and have a paper driving licence.//
Then the simplest thing for you to do, Corby, is to exchange your driving licence for a photo version. Yes I know you shouldn't "have to". But we occasionally have to do things we don't want to. Quite honestly I think you will find life becomes increasingly difficult with no photo ID.
//There is in the first place no evidence that electoral fraud of the sort that voter ID blocks is even a problem.//
Here's a passage from the opening paragraphs of Mr Richard Mawrey's report into voting irregularities in the 2014 Tower Hamlets Mayoral election. Mr Mawrey was sitting as an "Election Commissioner" in the High Court where four TH residents had brought a case for electoral malpractice against the "winner", Lutfur Rahman. Mr Mawrey began by outlining the history of "personation" (essentially somebody not entitled to vote assuming the identity of somebody who was) in the days when electoral rolls were quite small, explaining that a small amount of personation could have large influences on the result). He then went on to say this:
"The huge increase in the electorate brought about by universal franchise made personation less attractive, in that the risks involved
remained the same but the number of false votes likely to be needed to sway the result had greatly increased. By the 21st century, however, a combination of the extremely lax rules relating to the
registration of electors and the introduction of postal voting on demand made personation once again viable. The ease of postal vote fraud and the difficulty of policing it led to such a great upsurge in personation that, in the Birmingham Case [an earlier case that he had cited], the number of false votes was virtually half of all votes recorded as having been cast for the winning candidates."
It is true that the focus of that statement was on postal voting fraud. However, later in his report Mr Mawney goes into some detail when explaining his findings on how "Personation" influenced the election. These included the widespread practice of registering "ghost voters", some of them living at non-existent addresses and cases of ineligible people (including two local councillors) registering and voting in person fraudulently.
The entire report makes sobering reading. I know because I've read all 686 paragraphs. The final one says this:
"Events of recent months in contexts very different from electoral malpractice have starkly demonstrated what happens when those in authority are afraid to confront wrongdoing for fear of allegations of racism and Islamophobia. Even in the multicultural society which is
21st century Britain, the law must be applied fairly and equally to everyone. Otherwise we are lost."
It is quite clear to me that widespread voting irregularities occur across the country. The entire process needs tightening up beginning with more rigorous checks at the registration stage. Insisting on photo ID for personal voters essential in my view to demonstrate that the system is not there for manipulation.
Then the simplest thing for you to do, Corby, is to exchange your driving licence for a photo version. Yes I know you shouldn't "have to". But we occasionally have to do things we don't want to. Quite honestly I think you will find life becomes increasingly difficult with no photo ID.
//There is in the first place no evidence that electoral fraud of the sort that voter ID blocks is even a problem.//
Here's a passage from the opening paragraphs of Mr Richard Mawrey's report into voting irregularities in the 2014 Tower Hamlets Mayoral election. Mr Mawrey was sitting as an "Election Commissioner" in the High Court where four TH residents had brought a case for electoral malpractice against the "winner", Lutfur Rahman. Mr Mawrey began by outlining the history of "personation" (essentially somebody not entitled to vote assuming the identity of somebody who was) in the days when electoral rolls were quite small, explaining that a small amount of personation could have large influences on the result). He then went on to say this:
"The huge increase in the electorate brought about by universal franchise made personation less attractive, in that the risks involved
remained the same but the number of false votes likely to be needed to sway the result had greatly increased. By the 21st century, however, a combination of the extremely lax rules relating to the
registration of electors and the introduction of postal voting on demand made personation once again viable. The ease of postal vote fraud and the difficulty of policing it led to such a great upsurge in personation that, in the Birmingham Case [an earlier case that he had cited], the number of false votes was virtually half of all votes recorded as having been cast for the winning candidates."
It is true that the focus of that statement was on postal voting fraud. However, later in his report Mr Mawney goes into some detail when explaining his findings on how "Personation" influenced the election. These included the widespread practice of registering "ghost voters", some of them living at non-existent addresses and cases of ineligible people (including two local councillors) registering and voting in person fraudulently.
The entire report makes sobering reading. I know because I've read all 686 paragraphs. The final one says this:
"Events of recent months in contexts very different from electoral malpractice have starkly demonstrated what happens when those in authority are afraid to confront wrongdoing for fear of allegations of racism and Islamophobia. Even in the multicultural society which is
21st century Britain, the law must be applied fairly and equally to everyone. Otherwise we are lost."
It is quite clear to me that widespread voting irregularities occur across the country. The entire process needs tightening up beginning with more rigorous checks at the registration stage. Insisting on photo ID for personal voters essential in my view to demonstrate that the system is not there for manipulation.
Why not ask the same question spicy but without being rude. Learn some manners for once.
Yes I'm aware that there is a difference between being caught and not. But even making utterly unjustified and extreme assumptions about the difference between allegations and actual cases you still would only hit something in the region of a few hundred fraudulent votes.
There is simply no evidence, other than alarmist concerns, that the problem is anything other than low-scale. Even the Electoral Commission, on whose work TTT's article is based, states categorically that the problem is "very rare", and that there is "no evidence" of large-scale fraud of the sort that this is designed to combat.
Yes I'm aware that there is a difference between being caught and not. But even making utterly unjustified and extreme assumptions about the difference between allegations and actual cases you still would only hit something in the region of a few hundred fraudulent votes.
There is simply no evidence, other than alarmist concerns, that the problem is anything other than low-scale. Even the Electoral Commission, on whose work TTT's article is based, states categorically that the problem is "very rare", and that there is "no evidence" of large-scale fraud of the sort that this is designed to combat.
Suppressing of votes is the in thing to complain about at the moment.
You’re not legitimate as leader because my votes were suppressed because you make people prove they are allowed to vote.
I don’t have and have never had a problem with ID cards of some sort.
I fail to see how having to prove you are eligible to vote is anything but sensible.
You’re not legitimate as leader because my votes were suppressed because you make people prove they are allowed to vote.
I don’t have and have never had a problem with ID cards of some sort.
I fail to see how having to prove you are eligible to vote is anything but sensible.
>Voter impersonation offences, which are what ID would presumably tackle, occur at essentially rates of close to one case for every ten million votes cast.
Whilst I accept that the impact in most constituencies in negligible, and it is almost insignificant compared to postal vote abuse, that figure of 1 in 10 million looks far too low to me, jim as it would mean only 2 or 3 offences every general election. Now maybe only 2 or 3 get confirmed and lead to a prosecution, but it happens on a much, much wider scale I'm sure- for example there have been stories about how the polling information parties get tell them which people rarely/never vote and (all legally obtained info) thus allowing impersonators to vote using these names knowing it's very unlikely they'd have already voted
Whilst I accept that the impact in most constituencies in negligible, and it is almost insignificant compared to postal vote abuse, that figure of 1 in 10 million looks far too low to me, jim as it would mean only 2 or 3 offences every general election. Now maybe only 2 or 3 get confirmed and lead to a prosecution, but it happens on a much, much wider scale I'm sure- for example there have been stories about how the polling information parties get tell them which people rarely/never vote and (all legally obtained info) thus allowing impersonators to vote using these names knowing it's very unlikely they'd have already voted
The argument isn’t that it’s not “sensible” really. Personally I think it is quite sensible. It’s the idea that you might be making it harder for people to vote or at least discourage them.
Of course you should not it so easy they people are tempted to cheat: it’s a balance. And I’m not sure that I’m GB at least, it’s currently a “good thing” to err on the side of making it awkward. It doesn’t feel right to me to be doing something which might mean fewer people voting when - pace NJ I don’t think the National stats back it up.
Of course you should not it so easy they people are tempted to cheat: it’s a balance. And I’m not sure that I’m GB at least, it’s currently a “good thing” to err on the side of making it awkward. It doesn’t feel right to me to be doing something which might mean fewer people voting when - pace NJ I don’t think the National stats back it up.
Perhaps 1/10million is a bit too low but it still doesn't follow that every allegation made of fraud is legitimate. How many times have we seen someone "acting suspiciously" in other walks of life when it turns out that there was nothing going on untoward after all?
It therefore seems more sensible to estimate the scale of the problem based on proven cases than it is to estimate the scale based on hearsay and rumour. I'd be happy to accept that my figure is maybe an order of magnitude out -- or even two -- but even in that case you're still looking at maybe a few hundred cases. Too many, but there's no reason to penalise the millions of legitimate voters by imposing conditions on the exercise of what should be a basic and fundamental right in any democratic country.
It therefore seems more sensible to estimate the scale of the problem based on proven cases than it is to estimate the scale based on hearsay and rumour. I'd be happy to accept that my figure is maybe an order of magnitude out -- or even two -- but even in that case you're still looking at maybe a few hundred cases. Too many, but there's no reason to penalise the millions of legitimate voters by imposing conditions on the exercise of what should be a basic and fundamental right in any democratic country.
I have no idea *why* it's the case that ethnic minorities are disproportionately less likely to carry Photo IDs. But it does appear to be true based on statistical evidence. One doesn't have to be able to explain an effect to see that it is there.
It's also worth noting that young people might also be disproportionately affected.
It's also worth noting that young people might also be disproportionately affected.
Latest Posts
Should The Pasengers Also Sue....?
News3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Do Any Other Countries Hospitals Get...
News4 mins ago
Food & Drink5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.