Photo ID for voting - how'd it go for you ....

[Saracen999]

.... assuming you bothered voting, and are in an area where there were elections?

Me? Didn't bother voting. I'm not convinced it makes a blind bit of difference round here, and there's never been a ;none-of-the-above' option. More importantly, neither Mrs Saracen nor myself felt well enough to turn out and go.

I do hear reports of peole being turned away, though. Not good, but in general, I can't really argue against having to prove eligibility and photo ID is one way, especially given the free ID option exists.

Not having gone, I do wonder how they both verify your ID and maintain the notion of an anonymous vote? Not that it has been truly anonymous for many, many years. It would just be a bit of a pain to go through records to tie up a given ballot paper to a given identity, but it's long been possible.

[Jonj1611]

I didn't bother to be honest. After being around a few years you learn that they are all as bad as each other. As you said there is no none of the above option so I gave it a miss. Plus the fact it was pouring down all day

[b0redom]

I rocked up with my passport, they wanted my name and address and checked the person on the passport was me. It was a bit rubbish though as they didn't check the address against the passport, so I imagine if I was Fred Smith, I could turn up with the same ID for multiple addresses.

Honestly I think that a photo ID card which is linked to your NI number wouldn't be such a bad thing. Everyone gets an NI number at 16 or presumably when they are eligible to work if they're non UK nationals originally. You could even sync that up with a passport number/driving license number.

You give police etc the ability to input an ID number into some system and it can pull back the latest picture from whatever ID along with other information pertinent to their role/location, but only on the one record.

Seems to me that would fix a LOT of problems and make fraud quite a bit harder.

[b0redom]

I didn't bother to be honest. After being around a few years you learn that they are all as bad as each other. As you said there is no none of the above option so I gave it a miss. Plus the fact it was pouring down all day

Fair enough, but you forfeit your chance to whinge then. I would prefer to see some sort of PR system, and realistically around me my vote carries almost no weight, BUT the proportion of the population who don't vote could potentially create a violent swing one way or the other.

[Jonj1611]

I didn't think your address was in your passport?

[b0redom]

That's what I meant.

[Jonj1611]

Fair enough, but you forfeit your chance to whinge then. I would prefer to see some sort of PR system, and realistically around me my vote carries almost no weight, BUT the proportion of the population who don't vote could potentially create a violent swing one way or the other.

I don't forfeit anything as who I would have voted for won anyway There is always time for a good whinge. However the General Election I will be placing my vote. Local around here is a foregone conclusion, was a landslide as per usual

[Jonj1611]

That's what I meant.

I am guessing that was down to a timing issue? Would have taken too long to check passports with addresses etc as assume you would have needed a computer to do that.

[Ttaskmaster]

Not having gone, I do wonder how they both verify your ID and maintain the notion of an anonymous vote? Not that it has been truly anonymous for many, many years. It would just be a bit of a pain to go through records to tie up a given ballot paper to a given identity, but it's long been possible.

They check your ID and stated address to make sure you're on the register and thus eligible to vote.
They then give you a piece of paper off a pad, which has a unique reference number on it. I did not see them write the number down anywhere, so unless they somehow record who filled out which UID'd ballot, it should be anonymous.

If there's no-one you'd want in power, just spoil the ballot, as those are still noted in the stats.
If 20 people turn out to vote, that's only 11 that the Hateful Scumbag Party have to sell on their BS ideas... but if 20,000 turn up and 19,980 of them all spoil their ballots, that should highlight some shortcomings in the system.

[jimbouk]

In the post, been doing for years. Saves a bit old faff of having to get to a place at a time and now with ID. So yeah, pass on the original question

[[GSV]Trig]

I'm away at the mo so didn't vote.

Wonder how many turned up and got turned away without ID though..

[ik9000]

Honestly I think that a photo ID card which is linked to your NI number wouldn't be such a bad thing. Everyone gets an NI number at 16 or presumably when they are eligible to work if they're non UK nationals originally. You could even sync that up with a passport number/driving license number.

You give police etc the ability to input an ID number into some system and it can pull back the latest picture from whatever ID along with other information pertinent to their role/location, but only on the one record.

Seems to me that would fix a LOT of problems and make fraud quite a bit harder.

Careful Tony, back in your box with your national biometric ID card Mr Blair. It's still a bad idea for all the reasons it was a bad idea back then. At no point should you have to give anyone your NI number who isn't involved with your finances. And once you have a single defacto ID reference it becomes the single defacto target for ID fraud. And if it gets compromised you can do NOTHING until it's resolved as you would be asked for it for EVERYTHING important. Want to lock the bank account? Need the ID. Want to open a new one that spamsters might not know? Need the ID, but you've just reported it compromised. Oh balls. Want to get a mortgage/move job/register a child/take out insurance/loan/child credit etc etc. Can't do anything without that singular ID. It's fine until it's compromised and then that single card and the database behind it become a millstone. And everyone on here is presumably more of the school that all your eggs in one basket is not usually a good idea. *Cough* Lastpass. *Cough.* Companies become lazy relying on the singular ID as gospel, so a fraudulent one does far more damage.

It's utter rubbish you should have to declare, publicly, to a returning officer sufficient details about yourself to credit fraud you. There has to be a better system than this. As an article I read last night points out, younger and poorer people are more likely to be put off by this demand to show photo ID. Not all young voters may even have a driving licence or passport, and until they need them it would be an unnecessary expense, particularly given the lengthy delays in processing these since the pandemic.

[ik9000]

I'm away at the mo so didn't vote.

Wonder how many turned up and got turned away without ID though..

quite a few according to the news report I read last night (though that was only talking about a few polling stations in monitored)

[b0redom]

Careful Tony, back in your box with your national biometric ID card Mr Blair. It's still a bad idea for all the reasons it was a bad idea back then. At no point should you have to give anyone your NI number who isn't involved with your finances. And once you have a single defacto ID reference it becomes the single defacto target for ID fraud. And if it gets compromised you can do NOTHING until it's resolved as you would be asked for it for EVERYTHING important. Want to lock the bank account? Need the ID. Want to open a new one that spamsters might not know? Need the ID, but you've just reported it compromised. Oh balls. Want to get a mortgage/move job/register a child/take out insurance/loan/child credit etc etc. Can't do anything without that singular ID. It's fine until it's compromised and then that single card and the database behind it become a millstone. And everyone on here is presumably more of the school that all your eggs in one basket is not usually a good idea. *Cough* Lastpass. *Cough.* Companies become lazy relying on the singular ID as gospel, so a fraudulent one does far more damage.

It's utter rubbish you should have to declare, publicly, to a returning officer sufficient details about yourself to credit fraud you. There has to be a better system than this. As an article I read last night points out, younger and poorer people are more likely to be put off by this demand to show photo ID. Not all young voters may even have a driving licence or passport, and until they need them it would be an unnecessary expense, particularly given the lengthy delays in processing these since the pandemic.

Fair points I suppose. In any case I don't see what the photo ID thing gives you at a polling station. If you REALLY wanted to commit voter fraud, you'd just get some fake IDs made up and/or rig proxy/postal ballots like they (allegedly?) did in Tower Hamlets

[kalniel]

Fair points I suppose. In any case I don't see what the photo ID thing gives you at a polling station.

Mostly I think it helps skew the voting demographic to the favour of the party making that decision...

But perhaps it was just something they felt showed they were being 'tough on fraud' for.

[Percy1983]

Mostly I think it helps skew the voting demographic to the favour of the party making that decision...

But perhaps it was just something they felt showed they were being 'tough on fraud' for.

I have heard this but don't understand the logic as last I checked passports, driving licenses and the free IDs weren't exclusive to any one party.

On the fraud front its a tough one to gauge as people say there wasn't any fraud so it isn't needed but I can see a system with no fraud checks not detecting fraud isn't really shocking. I mean if I wanted I am confident I could have got a couple of extra votes in surrounding wards easily enough with a little effort without the ID checks.