Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
ID for voting? What do people think?
I'm totally in favour of this. It's common sense IMHO. I can't see why some folks are opposed to it.
Every time I start a new job, open a bank or credit account or pick up a parcel I have to produce some kind of ID. What's the big deal about showing some ID before you vote?
I'm very in favour of ID cards too. I'm fed up of having to dig out copies of utility bills and passport copies for ID. I have to do this quite frequently for work. It's such a pain. I want to have one central thing that identifies me beyond doubt. If they can manage this in India then ...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Antoinette on
-
If she pays taxes into the national pot, she should get a say in how it's spent. Why should she need to claim "citizenship"? She was married to a Brit for decades and has two middle aged British children. She should get a vote automatically.
-
-
Well that is not how it works generally.
Resident Commonwealth citizens can vote in patliamentary elections based on reciprocity and due to remnants of Empire. EU citizens based on reciprocity due to EU treaty agreements.
Do you know of anywhere else where you get the right to vote purely based on your tax payer status?
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah on
-
I was born in NZ where all permanent residents are allowed to vote. My Dad never bothered to get citizenship (despite living there over 40 years) because he never needed to. In fact I don't have a NZ passport (I'm entitled to one but why go to the expense?) and I still vote in their elections.
East Ham and Brent North were the only constituencies in 2015 with a majority of voters who were born elsewhere, but that's not to say they're not British. I was born elsewhere, but I was still born British. Most Commonwealth citizens living here are British citizens, as they need to acquire citizenship in order to stay.
Tottenham is in the top 20 seats with migrant voters, but this report says it's such a safe Labour seat migrants were unlikely to influence the outcome. Hornsey and Wood Green is not in the top 20.
There's an interesting discussion of barriers to voting in the report as well - mentioning factors such as level of English and mistrust in the new registration system (having to share more data such as date of birth and National Insurance number).
-
-
Surely when we are required to produce a birth certificate, a 2 pint blood sample and a photo of our grandparents to take out a new phone contract, the top brains of the civil service can generate a process for identifying those eligible to vote for our politicians ?
Much as I alwys enjoy the pantomime of the (usually,) groups of ladies in their cardies in a draughty church hall, ruling a pencilled line thru' my name after subjecting me to a hard stare on production of my crumpled ballot card I would suspect that the scrutiny of my son's form rep election is a little more watertight.
And Ken, enough from you now, off you trot and take Nigel with you, and if there's space in the van for The Daily Mail staff...
-
-
In the USA the Democrat party is vehemently against requiring voter ID as the party depends on illegal immigrants to support its base and these people can only vote when it is easy to commit such fraud (as in California).
This has led e.g., the ACLU to sue in some states that pass laws to strengthen voter ID requirements. I suspect if Livingstone is involved the motives here in the UK are similar.
A great piece of undercover journalism by James O' Keefe has him get (former Obama Attorney General) Eric Holder's voting card. O'Keefe was knowledgeable enough not to actually accept the ballot as that would have been tantamount to a crime--one which many illegal immigrants aren't so bothered to commit.Here is the holder undercover video:
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Knavel, not really getting the logic of this argument. If voter fraud was so widespread and tons of illegal immigrants voted unlawfully, how did Clinton not win?
-
-
Well having free ID cards would certainly knock back any arguments about the poverty effect on voting. I'm actually more concerned about the database that would sit behind the ID cards than the ID cards themselves. If you have a scenario where any petty official from dozens of government departments can access your information (as they already can to a limited extent under RIPA) that could have some serious knock on effects.
-
-
Are you on FB and Google Chrome? Just look at the profiling that those companies can obtain on you just from your surfacing habits. Have you signed up for any smart meters? There you go. So having the id card system would provide benefits that outway that particular worry since we ALREADY are in the era of big brother.
The Black Mirror series on TV gives great indication on how things may turn out in the future.
-
-
You did of course then realise that the UK is a special place that stands out in the world for these excentricities. It us going to become great again soon too!
-
-
I don't think my phone company cares about my id, just my credit rating...
-
-
The only issue in terms of voting fraud has been with regard to postal voting. Postal voting used to be confined to a very small number of people; those who were housebound, infirm or otherwise unable to vote in person. This opened the door to fraud and was used in exactly this way. There was no real reason to introduce it and it could be rescinded. The unncessary change from household registration to online registration is reckoned to have removed up to two million people from the voting register. In America, restrictions mean many black voters are unable or unwilling to vote. The same is happening here. This is an attempt to restrict the number of poorer, less engaged and less informed people from voting.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
