Love how this change was long predicted to disenfranchise thousands and thousands of voters for no observable benefit – it then did disenfranchise thousands and thousands of voters and now there’s gonna be people still defending the policy cos those people were “stupid and didn’t deserve to vote anyway”.
1.2% is fucking huge. Like I was vaguely aware this would be a problem. I am shocked by the level.
Now we need to know the breakdown of how they would have voted. If they lean strongly one way or the other, that’s absolutely enough to swing a couple of dozen seats.
Is it 1.2% of the electorate or 1.2% of the people who bothered to vote?
All this to supposedly counteract the 1 or 2 people who usually do any form of election fraud per election. That will be thousands of people denied their right to vote, easily.
How many of that 1.2% of people who were turned away came back to vote later, with ID?
It said the observers spent about half an hour at each polling station and then extrapolated, which gives us a rough idea of how serious the problem was but there are some flaws with this method – including that there’s no way they would know if someone they’d seen turned away had gone home to get ID and then returned later.
What time of day were they observing – was it across the whole day, or just between 09:00 and 17:00, or just over lunchtime?
How many people made up that 1.2% of people in the raw data? That could be 250 people observed voting and a whopping total of 3 people turned away, or it could be 10,000 people observed and 120 people seen turned away. Same percentage, huge difference in the actual number.
Are the observing group unbiased election researchers or do they have a political motive to prove certain things?
This report does give some indication but there’s also a lot of information and variables missing. I wish each polling station recorded this kind of information, because from the article it doesn’t sound like any official record was made…
Maybe I’m dumb but why is asking people to prove who they say they are for a legal document so controversial? Most banks and other similar things ask for id to do anything with them so why is voter id so bad?
The government also suppressed young people’s votes by not sending us our voter cards
Voter suppression bullshit from a corrupt and evil fascist Tory government.
1.2% lol. The way this reddit goes on, you’d have thought it was 50%. You need ID for everything and there were 8 or 9 acceptable forms of ID to choose from. If you couldn’t be arsed to provide this when voting on things that affect everyone in the country, then tough shit.
The irony being its probably disproportionately effected pensioners that vote in person over the younger that vote by post.
So it screwed over more people than actually committed or attempted election fraud? Cool, very normal.
Wait im from Northern Ireland, as far as i know we’ve always needed Photo ID to vote, is it only a new thing in england? Not to be rude but it just seems like basic common sense to me that you should have an ID to vote, i saw some people saying people cant afford id, but i checked and theres a ‘voter authority certificate’ which is free?
Voter fraud is very low, especially in the UK it seems. It’s interesting how we don’t seem to look at what the other European countries do. Quite a few EU countries require voter ID… but they get a free pass it seems.
The difference being I suppose, is their ID provided for free? Perhaps that is the missing piece.
Is there any count of how many went home, got their passport and came back to vote?
How % of voter fraud have we had on average over the last 12 years? Anyone know?
I guess if this is less than the fraud, then it’s working I guess. Tbh it seemed like a poor turn out of the local elections last week.
Hang on. Wasn’t I meant to get a postal vote? I’ve been working away! Huh?
i refused to show my ID and im never voting again
i told my MP.
case closed.
its that easy folks
just dont play the game if they gonna start by accusing us of being criminals
1.2% is huge…so 98.8% is small….those who did bring their ID….I like this new age maths
19 comments
Love how this change was long predicted to disenfranchise thousands and thousands of voters for no observable benefit – it then did disenfranchise thousands and thousands of voters and now there’s gonna be people still defending the policy cos those people were “stupid and didn’t deserve to vote anyway”.
1.2% is fucking huge. Like I was vaguely aware this would be a problem. I am shocked by the level.
Now we need to know the breakdown of how they would have voted. If they lean strongly one way or the other, that’s absolutely enough to swing a couple of dozen seats.
Is it 1.2% of the electorate or 1.2% of the people who bothered to vote?
All this to supposedly counteract the 1 or 2 people who usually do any form of election fraud per election. That will be thousands of people denied their right to vote, easily.
How many of that 1.2% of people who were turned away came back to vote later, with ID?
It said the observers spent about half an hour at each polling station and then extrapolated, which gives us a rough idea of how serious the problem was but there are some flaws with this method – including that there’s no way they would know if someone they’d seen turned away had gone home to get ID and then returned later.
What time of day were they observing – was it across the whole day, or just between 09:00 and 17:00, or just over lunchtime?
How many people made up that 1.2% of people in the raw data? That could be 250 people observed voting and a whopping total of 3 people turned away, or it could be 10,000 people observed and 120 people seen turned away. Same percentage, huge difference in the actual number.
Are the observing group unbiased election researchers or do they have a political motive to prove certain things?
This report does give some indication but there’s also a lot of information and variables missing. I wish each polling station recorded this kind of information, because from the article it doesn’t sound like any official record was made…
Maybe I’m dumb but why is asking people to prove who they say they are for a legal document so controversial? Most banks and other similar things ask for id to do anything with them so why is voter id so bad?
The government also suppressed young people’s votes by not sending us our voter cards
Voter suppression bullshit from a corrupt and evil fascist Tory government.
1.2% lol. The way this reddit goes on, you’d have thought it was 50%. You need ID for everything and there were 8 or 9 acceptable forms of ID to choose from. If you couldn’t be arsed to provide this when voting on things that affect everyone in the country, then tough shit.
The irony being its probably disproportionately effected pensioners that vote in person over the younger that vote by post.
So it screwed over more people than actually committed or attempted election fraud? Cool, very normal.
Wait im from Northern Ireland, as far as i know we’ve always needed Photo ID to vote, is it only a new thing in england? Not to be rude but it just seems like basic common sense to me that you should have an ID to vote, i saw some people saying people cant afford id, but i checked and theres a ‘voter authority certificate’ which is free?
Voter fraud is very low, especially in the UK it seems. It’s interesting how we don’t seem to look at what the other European countries do. Quite a few EU countries require voter ID… but they get a free pass it seems.
The difference being I suppose, is their ID provided for free? Perhaps that is the missing piece.
Is there any count of how many went home, got their passport and came back to vote?
How % of voter fraud have we had on average over the last 12 years? Anyone know?
I guess if this is less than the fraud, then it’s working I guess. Tbh it seemed like a poor turn out of the local elections last week.
Hang on. Wasn’t I meant to get a postal vote? I’ve been working away! Huh?
i refused to show my ID and im never voting again
i told my MP.
case closed.
its that easy folks
just dont play the game if they gonna start by accusing us of being criminals
1.2% is huge…so 98.8% is small….those who did bring their ID….I like this new age maths