Printable View
Well,*I'm only taking you seriously. You said, there was endemic fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Thus all votes should be called into question. Especially the ones where one side won with*a very*narrow margin.
It only makes sense, doesn't it?
No ballot has been won in recent years by a very narrow margin, last election won by a very narrow margin was the Welsh devolution referendum in 1997 and I think it's a bit late to re-run that one.
Again, you need to check the definition of the word endemic as opposed to perhaps pandemic which you seem to have read it as.
Well, if it's not a*massive problem and it also doesn't serve as grounds for a re-run... then I really don't see why such*measures are needed.
This here sounds to me like a solution in dire need of an actual problem. Which is always a bad idea.
Really? Since when was prevention worse than a cure?
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the Electoral Commission all recommend the use of ID in voting.
Moving the goal post, I see.
Again: Is it an actual problem which actually leads to wrong results?
No it is not leading to wrong results. Never said it was. Nobody said it was. Not me, not Pickles, not the Electoral Commission and not the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe etc
The idea it has led to wrong results was a figment of your imagination you are the only person to have brought it up all thread. That's not called a goal post, it's called a straw man.
I'm not an expert on Voter Suppression Tactics in Early 21st Century America (<- title of a future history book), but I think the issue with it over there is not the requirement for identification in and of itself, but the requirement for identification and then making it ridiculously difficult or convoluted for "certain groups" (working class black people) to actually obtain said identification.
I'm sure the Tories would never do anything like that.
That last line was a joke.
If it doesn't lead to wrong results then where's the problem? If it isn't broken don't fix it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The Tory problem is that British immigrants and minorities vote at a much higher frequency than their American counterparts. Can't have that happening.
Yes exactly that is the problem. Considering here the solution includes multiple forms of ID including ID you can get for free it is patent bollocks that this is suppression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The Electoral Commission and others have recommended we fix it as it's insecure. Having had their recommendations why wait until AFTER it changes a result before we fix It? It is broken even if that break hasn't led to a crisis yet. I hope you never work in maintenance with that attitude (yes it's broken but we've not had a disaster yet so why fix it)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Loki should we rename you kathaksung? Since when was everything a conspiracy theory?
No, it's just a coincidence that the Tories are doing a 180 on their ID policy once they realized the effect of that policy in America. :rolleyes:
They're not though.
How can it be "broken" if there are no actual problems? I hope you never work in maintenance because you'd only cause problems with unneeded*make-work which only holds up fixing the real issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
How are those informal talks going by the way? Maybe your PM should bring a lunchbox the next time she comes to Brussels. Very economical and I understand she's got a bill in the mail.
I must say that I find it a bit far fetched to say that the UK's problems with voter identification are comparable with those in the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's broken because it's insecure and the Electoral Commission, OSCE etc have all said so and said we should fix it. Just because there's no crisis yet doesn't mean that it's not an actual problem. You're like a council that knows a bridge is cracking and says that since the bridge hasn't fallen down yet there shouldn't be any repairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Yes I do work with (and pay for) maintenance. I recently had my businesses annual gas service and the gas engineer reported a part that needed replacing although it hadn't failed yet, I got the part replaced. There hadn't been a gas leak yet so why bother I suppose with your attitude? Just because there'd been reports that said there was a problem that needs fixing, why not just wait and ignore it and hope nothing goes wrong?
It's really interesting to contrast the willingness to apply the precautionary principle in this situation with the unwillingness to do the same in other situations purely based on ideology.
Well with Randblade following racist and xenophobic leaders of course what he writes about minorities and foreigners is suspect. However, I don't think that the desire of the UK to limit the vote to those people who are actually eligible to vote is all that unrealistic. It's a bit strange though that they want to do that in a way that directly contradicts the same people's aversion to a national ID-card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You don't think there are regular contacts between American and British legislators? You think one doesn't learn from the other?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I presume there is some contact, but the mere fact that things look similar doesn't mean that they are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Indeed particularly when the UK legislation is already in existence in one part of the UK and addresses the concerns that US liberals supposedly have. I don't see any GOP legislatures proposing for identity requirements with a polling identity card made available for free as an act of suppression. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Or US equivalents of the independent Electoral Commission and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe saying this should be fixed.
It introduces the potential for voter suppression, to fix a problem that doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Consider this: it is extremely difficult to sway an election with voter fraud. I honestly have no idea why people bother - ooh someone voted 4 extra times for Party X, that'll swing a constituency of 60 thousand people. Not unless you have, at minimum, hundreds of people doing it in which case you stand a very good chance of getting caught.
Now consider how easy it is to fuck people over once you introduce this kind of system with perfect deniability - "unfortunate delays" in getting people's applications for identification processed in the run up to the election, "unforeseen computer errors" wiping thousands of people's IDs from the system so they it comes up with an error when they try and vote, with nothing but a single line of lovingly crafted SQL, inserted via an injection attack, which just happens to wipe a few hundred more people from one party than another in a swing seat. Introducing a ludicrously convoluted process for checking IDs, then "accidentally" making sure certain polling stations have staff shortages. The possibilities are limitless.
This is fixing a non-existent problem by introducing something with massive potential for abuse. I would view anyone who suggests such a thing with extreme distrust.
How do you prevent that type of abuses by having a less formal system? If your vetting system is arbitrary rather that regulated, the potential for vote suppression seems bigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Yes it's a load of codswallop. Wiping thousands of voters IDs so they can't vote? You could already if that were possible wipe people off the electoral register in that case and job done. Considering there will be a plethora of forms of ID and only one electoral register it seems that the existing register would remain the logical target with or without ID if someone was so inclined and capable.
You realize the inverse is true too, right? The same token does mean that the voter suppressing effect is also not going to swing an election, particularly not if steps are taken to minimize the effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Why would the Tories do that?
Because the fundamental premise of your analytical framework is wrong and not every action undertaken by the Tories or other conservatives in the UK is an attempt to ruin the country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't follow your reasoning. In theory the aggregate effect of large scale voter suppression measures should be expected to be far greater than that of in person voter fraud. Even if it isn't great enough to swing an election it constitutes a greater harm. Whereas in person voter fraud disenfranchises voters by a tiny fraction of a percent each, voter suppression represents up to 100% disenfranchisement of a large number of voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You might argue that voter suppression does not occur or that there is no significant risk of it swinging an election, which would be debatable but a fair claim to make. However I don't think it's easy to argue that the harm caused by voter suppression is as small as that caused by in person voter fraud, unless you don't consider the infringement of the right to vote to be a harm in and of itself, both directly and indirectly through wider effects on democracy.
This looks very much like projection of the American problem on the British attempt to deal with people voting without being eligible to do so. It's not like vote suppression is a longstanding British tradition. If Brits thinks it might become a standard practice they have bigger problems than the question of identification at the polling station.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I was speaking in general terms in that post in response to Fuzzy's objection, not about any particular country.