> Where I live one is still required to present what amounts to an internal passport to do pretty much anything, despite not having any medical justification.
Except the UK is an a joke in relation to vaccine passports.
The politicians spout "authoritarian" "libertarian" bullshit as an excuse for not using vaccine passports.
But then THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT is very happy indeed to introduce a requirement for people to produce ID when voting (Elections Bill). And yet somehow none of the same politicians make any mention of "authoritarian" or "libertarian" when it comes to mandating ID for voting.
Or indeed we are talking about THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that is busy trying very hard indeed to introduce laws to limit protests (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill).
And THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that is trying very hard indeed to bring in laws (Nationality and Borders Bill) enabling them to remove British citizenship from someone even if it renders them stateless.
There are situations when it is appropriate to confirm one's identity. Going to the supermarket isn't one, and comparing it to voting - or any of the other situations vaccine passports were to be required - is a nonsense.
I can agree with some of the other concerns you've listed, but if you're going to mix them in with reasonable actions by the government like protecting the integrity of elections, I wouldn't be surprised if those other concerns are undermined.
Protecting the integrity of elections that have all been shown to have very little fraud? Mass fraud without IDs being something of a pipe dream. That doesn’t make much sense.
Aside from that being a different concern, even if we were to assume that is true, I don't see why it follows that election security shouldn't be improved.
Regardless, election fraud has happened many times in the UK, most often from the politicians[1][2][3] (the links would be endless, I'll stop at three), and the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps[4].
However, an audit[5] was undertaken by Democratic Audit, who are funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (both are non-partisan), and here is what they found:
> The emergence of evidence of electoral malpractice in English elections during the 2000s ranks among the most concerning emerging developments identified by this Audit. Evidence of malpractice began to mount from 2005 onwards, after an election court convened in Birmingham found five men guilty of large-scale electoral fraud, involving thousands of postal ballots, at local elections in June 2004. In his written judgement, the election commissioner, Richard Mawrey QC, referred to ‘evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic.’
> While the Birmingham case represented the most systematic proven case of attempted ballot rigging, there have been numerous other convictions for electoral fraud in the UK since 2000. Court cases relating to large-scale fraud in local elections in Slough in 2007 and Peterborough in 2004 resulted in six convictions each. Following a lengthy police investigation and two re-trials, five men were eventually convicted in September 2010 for electoral fraud offences in the Bradford West constituency during the 2005 general election (the first relating to fraud in a UK general election for almost one hundred years). In total, more than 100 people have been found guilty of electoral malpractice in the UK since 1994. The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties.
> The emergence of electoral fraud as an issue in UK politics cannot be divorced, therefore, from changes in electoral law since the 1990s, which introduced provisions for proxy voting and the widespread availability of postal voting. In particular, the introduction of ‘postal voting on demand’ via the Representation of the People Act 2000 created obvious opportunities for malpractice, especially when combined with a ‘rather arcane’ system of electoral registration.
They go into more detail but I would suggest alleviating yourself of the notion that the current system isn't being tested by those looking for unfair advantage. If you read the Election Commission's views on these incidents you might come away thinking they were small things, yet it's also become easy to see they are not entirely fair nor are they fit for purpose.
This stuff. At least some of them is about proxy and postal voting. That has no relation to IDs.
The obvious reason to not “improve election security” is when that’s not the reason it’s being done. When it’s being done to attempt to suppress voter turn out.
If the end result of as many valid votes of willing voters as possible being counted while no one fraudulently gets votes.
I don’t see much difference between one candidate who loses a portion of the votes they would have gotten because of “election security” laws and provisions that were not done only to improve security.
I’ve personally not heard of people bringing up ID related voter security measures who didn’t have a partisan interest in making voting harder/lowering votes of whatever party they are against.
Is this different? Not specifically how you feel. I’m not questioning You. But the politicians who are pushing for this. Are they pushing for election integrity truly just for that reason? I skimmed a bit on the UK. It doesn’t appear as if the politicians are much different than most other places. But I didn’t read up a lot
> At least some of them is about proxy and postal voting. That has no relation to IDs.
Firstly, that’s not true. As quoted above:
> The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties.
That requires processes that are slack about identity. The requirement to prove/provide identity at certain points in the process would render these problems moot. If you wish to focus solely on in-person voting then say so, but that’s not the same as there being no relationship.
Secondly, as with any conspiracy theory, you would have to:
- show me how you knew their intentions without recourse to mind reading
And with restpect to this particular case:
- show how needing ID would reduce (legitimate) votes cast (I hope it’s not something like this[1])
- explain why increased security is a bad thing (taking into account the ease and low cost of this solution)
It would be just as easy to claim that those who are against such measures wish to benefit from the fraud. That wouldn’t be possible without mind reading and I lack that ability. However, it does correlate, those against better election finance protections tend to benefit from them (Conservatives and Labour). Those against better proxy vote, postal vote and in-person voting fraud tend to benefit from it (Labour). In either case I don’t care, to improve the legitimacy of elections via simple measures like showing an ID are reasonable, cheap, and easy. What’s the downside?
Sending one of these viral meme right wing videos…Slanted, edited, partisan stuff isn’t any better than what an average liberal person is thinking.
I hope the next link isn’t to a right wing influencer “owning the libs” by debating college kids who don’t spend dozens and dozens of hours a month on the topic.
—-
A downside or more so against the “well why not” is time committed to this. There is limited time for things. In the US there was a viral video that showed things that actually occur at the state/provincial level. Where legislators vote for absentee legislators. Something like that should be handled first.
I know two people who didn’t have any form of [valid] ID for a year and multiple years, in each case. Recently. As adults. Forget going through research, studies, and such. Not letting either of them vote seems to be a downside to me. It took months of slowly prodding along to get each identification. Stuff that isn’t easy to do. Takes time. Obstacles that might be near impossible to do depending on your stage in life and if you have no one to help you.
> conspiracy theory
I don’t think being incredulous and doubting the words of major western political parties is a conspiracy theory.
Why are you for a conspiracy to withhold voting from people I know like above? /sarcasm
—
From a higher up comment:
> the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps
[Completely] Doubting the electoral commission seems to fall in line with your viewing my take as a conspiracy theory.
> Sending one of these viral meme right wing videos…Slanted, edited, partisan stuff isn’t any better than what an average liberal person is thinking.
It's virality or not is irrelevant, and what slant is possible from the simple questions those people were asked? Maybe you could ask for a livestream instead of a video next time, to remove the edits… but why?
> I hope the next link isn’t to a right wing influencer “owning the libs” by debating college kids who don’t spend dozens and dozens of hours a month on the topic.
If it's relevant then perhaps.
> A downside or more so against the “well why not” is time committed to this. There is limited time for things.
People are so rushed that they don't have time to get ID? You said the "viral meme right wing video" "isn’t any better than what an average liberal person is thinking" and yet that sounds like the responses in the video.
> In the US there was a viral video
This is starting to smell of hypocrisy
> that showed things that actually occur at the state/provincial level. Where legislators vote for absentee legislators. Something like that should be handled first.
No, something like that:
a) can be handled simultaneously
b) isn't relevant to the point we're discussing
c) and I already pointed out that stuff like that should be handled.
> I know two people who didn’t have any form of [valid] ID for a year and multiple years, in each case. Recently. As adults.
And?
> Forget going through research, studies, and such.
So no viral meme right wing videos, and no research, studies, and such. Are we going to be left with only your protestations as valid evidence?
> Not letting either of them vote seems to be a downside to me.
They are allowed to vote, they simply need to provide ID.
> It took months of slowly prodding along to get each identification.
Security is often in opposition to laziness, yes. I do not fall down on the side of sloths though.
> Stuff that isn’t easy to do.
That is utterly false.
> Takes time. Obstacles that might be near impossible to do depending on your stage in life and if you have no one to help you.
We're back to the slanted and partisan video. Maybe it was an accurate portrayal of the views of a certain group of people?
> > conspiracy theory
> I don’t think being incredulous and doubting the words of major western political parties is a conspiracy theory.
You're not being sceptical, you're mind reading and asserting things to be true that can only be so if there is a conspiracy. Not all conspiracy theories are wrong, conspiracies happen, but the desire to paint your opponents as evil and divine their intentions while dismissing evidence contrary to your view and the use of self-defeating logic is a sign of the pejorative sort of conspiracy theory.
> Why are you for a conspiracy to withhold voting from people I know like above? /sarcasm
Did I mention something about painting opponents as bad people?
> From a higher up comment: > the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps
> [Completely] Doubting the electoral commission seems to fall in line with your viewing my take as a conspiracy theory.
The Electoral Commission has been showing in open court to be incompetent. Their plan wasn't a secret either. Do you know what a conspiracy is?
Except the UK is an a joke in relation to vaccine passports.
The politicians spout "authoritarian" "libertarian" bullshit as an excuse for not using vaccine passports.
But then THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT is very happy indeed to introduce a requirement for people to produce ID when voting (Elections Bill). And yet somehow none of the same politicians make any mention of "authoritarian" or "libertarian" when it comes to mandating ID for voting.
Or indeed we are talking about THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that is busy trying very hard indeed to introduce laws to limit protests (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill).
And THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that is trying very hard indeed to bring in laws (Nationality and Borders Bill) enabling them to remove British citizenship from someone even if it renders them stateless.
Its an absolute farce.