▲ 230 ▼ Voter ID in England led to racial and disability discrimination, report finds (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by thehatfox@lemmy.world to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk 97 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] omgitsaheadcrab@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 years ago (4 children) But surely you can't just let people vote without identifying them? permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Oneeightnine@feddit.uk 33 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean, for a start it's a solution without a problem. We don't really have an issue with voter fraud in the UK. All this has done is disenfranchise people who could previously vote without needing an often costly ID. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 2 years ago (3 children) Photo ID is free permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's unnecessary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, I think voter ID is alright, but when you historically doesn't have it and don't really need it, it just seems to be a barrier for barrier's sake. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WellThisIsNew@fjdk.uk 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) It costs time and effort, something that disabled people often have less of. Voter fraud is extremely low in the UK, and most of what does occur isn't stopped by these changes (the most common type is, for example, parents submitting a postal vote on behalf of their (18+) children without asking them), So here's a question for you: If the number of people disuaded from voting due to the new ID laws significantly outnumber* the amount of fraud that's prevented by this law, was the law a positive change? *To the point that it has a larger effect on election outcome permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 2 years ago We've had voter I.D. here in Northern Ireland for ages and I haven't heard any complaints permalink fedilink source parent [–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago Tories lost a lot of votes because old people forgot to bring ID and then didn’t bother going back again. So regardless of whether its free, it still disenfranchises people https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65602231 permalink fedilink source parent [–] merridew@feddit.uk 13 points 2 years ago You give your name & address at your local polling place, and it is checked off by a polling officer against the Electoral Roll. So yes, you could pretend to be someone else, but they would need to have not already voted. And you could only do it once per polling station, because you'll be recognised by the polling officers. And for what? permalink fedilink source parent [–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Name + DOB + address All you need them to give you for verification. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AmberPrince@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can only speak for the US, and even then, only for my state of Illinois, but I had to provide my ID and proof of residency when I registered to vote. After that just my name, address, and signature were needed during the actual election. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snooggums@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago In Kansas and it was like that when I started voting, then they introduced the ID requirement at some later point. Voter fraud was never an issue, but it did penalize minorities just like gerrymandering so it did what it set out to do. Republicans couldn't be happy with a majority, they want absolute control. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Oneeightnine@feddit.uk 33 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean, for a start it's a solution without a problem. We don't really have an issue with voter fraud in the UK. All this has done is disenfranchise people who could previously vote without needing an often costly ID. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 2 years ago (3 children) Photo ID is free permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's unnecessary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, I think voter ID is alright, but when you historically doesn't have it and don't really need it, it just seems to be a barrier for barrier's sake. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WellThisIsNew@fjdk.uk 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) It costs time and effort, something that disabled people often have less of. Voter fraud is extremely low in the UK, and most of what does occur isn't stopped by these changes (the most common type is, for example, parents submitting a postal vote on behalf of their (18+) children without asking them), So here's a question for you: If the number of people disuaded from voting due to the new ID laws significantly outnumber* the amount of fraud that's prevented by this law, was the law a positive change? *To the point that it has a larger effect on election outcome permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 2 years ago We've had voter I.D. here in Northern Ireland for ages and I haven't heard any complaints permalink fedilink source parent [–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago Tories lost a lot of votes because old people forgot to bring ID and then didn’t bother going back again. So regardless of whether its free, it still disenfranchises people https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65602231 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 2 years ago (3 children) Photo ID is free permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's unnecessary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, I think voter ID is alright, but when you historically doesn't have it and don't really need it, it just seems to be a barrier for barrier's sake. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WellThisIsNew@fjdk.uk 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) It costs time and effort, something that disabled people often have less of. Voter fraud is extremely low in the UK, and most of what does occur isn't stopped by these changes (the most common type is, for example, parents submitting a postal vote on behalf of their (18+) children without asking them), So here's a question for you: If the number of people disuaded from voting due to the new ID laws significantly outnumber* the amount of fraud that's prevented by this law, was the law a positive change? *To the point that it has a larger effect on election outcome permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 2 years ago We've had voter I.D. here in Northern Ireland for ages and I haven't heard any complaints permalink fedilink source parent [–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago Tories lost a lot of votes because old people forgot to bring ID and then didn’t bother going back again. So regardless of whether its free, it still disenfranchises people https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65602231 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's unnecessary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, I think voter ID is alright, but when you historically doesn't have it and don't really need it, it just seems to be a barrier for barrier's sake. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, I think voter ID is alright, but when you historically doesn't have it and don't really need it, it just seems to be a barrier for barrier's sake. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WellThisIsNew@fjdk.uk 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) It costs time and effort, something that disabled people often have less of. Voter fraud is extremely low in the UK, and most of what does occur isn't stopped by these changes (the most common type is, for example, parents submitting a postal vote on behalf of their (18+) children without asking them), So here's a question for you: If the number of people disuaded from voting due to the new ID laws significantly outnumber* the amount of fraud that's prevented by this law, was the law a positive change? *To the point that it has a larger effect on election outcome permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 2 years ago We've had voter I.D. here in Northern Ireland for ages and I haven't heard any complaints permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 2 years ago We've had voter I.D. here in Northern Ireland for ages and I haven't heard any complaints permalink fedilink source parent
[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago Tories lost a lot of votes because old people forgot to bring ID and then didn’t bother going back again. So regardless of whether its free, it still disenfranchises people https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65602231 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] merridew@feddit.uk 13 points 2 years ago You give your name & address at your local polling place, and it is checked off by a polling officer against the Electoral Roll. So yes, you could pretend to be someone else, but they would need to have not already voted. And you could only do it once per polling station, because you'll be recognised by the polling officers. And for what? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Name + DOB + address All you need them to give you for verification. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmberPrince@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can only speak for the US, and even then, only for my state of Illinois, but I had to provide my ID and proof of residency when I registered to vote. After that just my name, address, and signature were needed during the actual election. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snooggums@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago In Kansas and it was like that when I started voting, then they introduced the ID requirement at some later point. Voter fraud was never an issue, but it did penalize minorities just like gerrymandering so it did what it set out to do. Republicans couldn't be happy with a majority, they want absolute control. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snooggums@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago In Kansas and it was like that when I started voting, then they introduced the ID requirement at some later point. Voter fraud was never an issue, but it did penalize minorities just like gerrymandering so it did what it set out to do. Republicans couldn't be happy with a majority, they want absolute control. permalink fedilink source parent