Voter ID pilot Schemes

As for opening a bank account in Australia, since the 1980's a "Point System," has been in place whereby you may produce at least two documents, which are allotted points according to what they are. Details are here:

https://www.australia-migration.com/page/Opening_a_Bank_Account_in_Australia/190

In one note on the page this remark is made:

"This system, while mechanistic, is arguably better than the identification system prevailing in the UK which seems to depend on the whim of a bank official."
 
...If a voter’s name does not appear on the official ‘certified’ list, a voter can still cast a ballot in the form of a ‘declaration’ vote, and its eligibility is determined later, once relevant checks have been carried out:

You are issued a declaration vote if your name and/or address details cannot be found on the certified list used at the polling place at which you have come to vote, or if your name has already been marked as having voted. The envelope used to seal your ballot papers is called a declaration vote envelope. Your declaration vote ballot papers are inserted into the envelope and forwarded to the division in which you are claiming enrolment. The envelope has a counterfoil which is removed and filed in a 'declaration records' folder. This is a record that you voted at that particular polling place. You 'declare' that you are entitled to vote by signing the envelope...
Thanks for info. UK elections have a similar arrangement known as a "tendered vote", whereby someone refused a vote in the normal way, eg because their name has already been marked off as having voted, can "tender" their vote which then receives special handling and later adjudication by the Presiding Officer.
 
So is the Guardian saying Voter ID is racist because voter fraud is more prevalent in one ethnic group?
Perhaps, they also feel non-whites are too numb to be able to get ID, what with them being from primitive cultures and the like. How can non-whites be able to cope with such a difficult concept.

I've posted this before on another thread but I think it sets out what the "caring, compassionate" part of society think about effniks.

 
I would think there are two main kinds of false ID, the kind where the entire document or card (including the details) is a forgery and the far more practical (and dangerous) type where the document or card itself is genuine, but the details appearing thereon are false. Although it must be said, if you have the chutzpah, you might get by with something which looks as though it's come out of a Cornflakes packet, whereas if you lack confidence, the "best" false ID you could get might well be useless to you.

At the moment I understand it may take several documents to prove one's ID. However, surely that is better than having one card which might be lost or stolen, or which might be applied for under several false pretenses? Then there's another thing to consider; when officials see such a card, they tend to automatically think, because it is a genuine card, that the details on it are all correct.

At the end of the Second World War many a German who had more reason to fear arrest than an honest man would have, would simply wait until there was a heavy air raid with a lot of corpses left lying about. He'd then find a dead 'un who looked like him, was of a height, build, and age, then just swap his details for those the corpse had been carrying. On top of that, one or two of the more notorious Intelligence Agencies apparently made use of the same circumstances to fabricate very good false ID's for their operatives.

In the present day there are several countries where war or some other catastrophe might allow the same ruse. Then, there is a whole host of crooks who make a pretty good living stealing other people's ID's and credit cards, often enough in order to fund a meth or other drug habit.

OK, there is one way to ensure everyone has a genuine card with genuine details. Make everyone who applies for a card get their fingerprints taken, then put the person's thumbprint(s) on the card. Now one swipe of the card plus the person's thumbprint read into the system, should instantly verify the identity. Good luck with getting the public to agree with that though. I have read that in a very few murder cases, various British Police have fingerprinted entire regions of the UK so as to eliminate masses of names from their inquiries but, after each such request all the prints taken (save those of the guilty party) have been destroyed in full public view.
 
Last edited:
I live in Australia as it happens and this is what obtains at the moment:


Under the existing Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 it is compulsory for Australian citizens aged 18 years or older, and who have lived at the same address for a month, to register their name and address on the electoral roll. Enrolment can be made online or by completing a form available from the Australian Electoral Commission.[17]

To enrol, citizens need to provide evidence of identity: a driver's licence, Australian passport number or have someone who is already on the roll to confirm the enrolee’s identity.[18]

While it is commonly understood that voting is compulsory for Australian citizens, in practice you are required only to present yourself at a voting booth and have your name marked off the roll. Because casting a ballot is done in secret, it is impossible to tell in a particular case whether a valid vote has actually been cast. A voter may have deposited a blank ballot paper in the box, for example.

On polling day, AEC officials ask each prospective voter the following questions:

  • What is your full name?
  • Where do you live?
  • Have you voted before in this election?

If a voter’s name does not appear on the official ‘certified’ list, a voter can still cast a ballot in the form of a ‘declaration’ vote, and its eligibility is determined later, once relevant checks have been carried out:

You are issued a declaration vote if your name and/or address details cannot be found on the certified list used at the polling place at which you have come to vote, or if your name has already been marked as having voted. The envelope used to seal your ballot papers is called a declaration vote envelope. Your declaration vote ballot papers are inserted into the envelope and forwarded to the division in which you are claiming enrolment. The envelope has a counterfoil which is removed and filed in a 'declaration records' folder. This is a record that you voted at that particular polling place. You 'declare' that you are entitled to vote by signing the envelope.[19]

Thus, under present legislation, a person is not required to show ID in order to cast a ballot at a Federal election.

Nor, I might add, in any State or local government election where voting is also compulsory.

From: Voter ID – Parliament of Australia
Simples. Let's do it!!!
 
Guilt? What are you babbling about?
You know full well what I'm saying ,so your attempts at being obtuse are quite pathetic.
You are advocating that voters should be treated as attempting to vote fraudulently ,unless they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are who it says on the polling card. Obviously you will no mind living in a State with reduced civil liberties in order to root out a minority of people who abuse the system.
Shoplifters far out number Fraudulent Voters so would you find it acceptable ,if your local Supermarket demanded proof that you aren't a shoplifter before allowing you into the store, similarly would you be happy to have to produce ID and NHS card before being allowed to see your GP.
 
I would think there are two main kinds of false ID, the kind where the entire document or card (including the details) is a forgery and the far more practical (and dangerous) type where the document or card itself is genuine, but the details appearing thereon are false. Although it must be said, if you have the chutzpah, you might get by with something which looks as though it's come out of a Cornflakes packet, whereas if you lack confidence, the "best" false ID you could get might well be useless to you.

At the moment I understand it may take several documents to prove one's ID. However, surely that is better than having one card which might be lost or stolen, or which might be applied for under several false pretenses? Then there's another thing to consider; when officials see such a card, they tend to automatically think, because it is a genuine card, that the details on it are all correct.

At the end of the Second World War many a German who had more reason to fear arrest than an honest man would have, would simply wait until there was a heavy air raid with a lot of corpses left lying about. He'd then find a dead 'un who looked like him, was of a height, build, and age, then just swap his details for those the corpse had been carrying. On top of that, one or two of the more notorious Intelligence Agencies apparently made use of the same circumstances to fabricate very good false ID's for their operatives.

In the present day there are several countries where war or some other catastrophe might allow the same ruse. Then, there is a whole host of crooks who make a pretty good living stealing other people's ID's and credit cards, often enough in order to fund a meth or other drug habit.

OK, there is one way to ensure everyone has a genuine card with genuine details. Make everyone who applies for a card get their fingerprints taken, then put the person's thumbprint(s) on the card. Now one swipe of the card plus the person's thumbprint read into the system, should instantly verify the identity. Good luck with getting the public to agree with that though. I have read that in a very few murder cases, various British Police have fingerprinted entire regions of the UK so as to eliminate masses of names from their inquiries but, after each such request all the prints taken (save those of the guilty party) have been destroyed in full public view.
Hmmm why not go the whole hog and have all citizens chipped, then scanners could be used to access your citizenship records ,passport details ,bank account balances and criminal records when walking down the street or entering the supermarket or indeed going into a bar, it would stop most criminality but would need to be accepted by the law abiding majority.
 
You know full well what I'm saying ,so your attempts at being obtuse are quite pathetic.
You are advocating that voters should be treated as attempting to vote fraudulently ,unless they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are who it says on the polling card. Obviously you will no mind living in a State with reduced civil liberties in order to root out a minority of people who abuse the system.
Shoplifters far out number Fraudulent Voters so would you find it acceptable ,if your local Supermarket demanded proof that you aren't a shoplifter before allowing you into the store, similarly would you be happy to have to produce ID and NHS card before being allowed to see your GP.
You should havero present a medical card upon using the NHS.. whats the diiference between that and the EU Health Insurance card?

What civil liberty is being eroded by having a person present ID to vote.. considering the right to vote is a civil liberty?

Ps we already use ID in NI to vote why is my civil liberties not under threat the past 20 years?
 
No, but that wasn’t my point. If a fraudelent vote is cast for a rival candidate in my constituency then it effectively nullifies my vote.

Also, I’ve never been murdered but I still expect the authorities to take some steps to keep the incidence of such crimes down.

Finally, at the risk of seeming like an unbearable pedant, please note that an ellipsis contains precisely three dots. Extra dots don’t make your arguments any more convincing.
OK you can give up some of your civil liberties if you like but I don't want to thank you, especially as the majority of fraudulent votes are usually identified and the Law applied. You don't require a 10lb hammer to open a monkey nut shell either (other nuts and hammers are available).
Please note two separate Laws are not required to prevent a single Offence.
 
You should havero present a medical card upon using the NHS.. whats the diiference between that and the EU Health Insurance card?


What civil liberty is being eroded by having a person present ID to vote.. considering the right to vote is a civil liberty?


Ps we already use ID in NI to vote why is my civil liberties not under threat the past 20 years?
Are you happy to be assumed you are acting fraudulently without any evidence to the contrary?
Why should two forms of ID be required to exercise your voting rights? your ID is and has always been accepted as the Polling Card you have.
All our civil liberties are predispose and accepted that you are acting lawfully in your everyday life as a citizen, it would be draconian in the extreme if we acted in the opposite don't you think......
 
We all postal vote in this house, 4 adults and once you have jumped through the fairly low set hoops its a convenience that ensures at least that 4 votes are cast in this house. The signatures are updated and checked against the council register every year, I could I suppose if I really wanted to double the number of voters but as we aren't crooks and don't normally have 8 adults at one address as a norm I would expect to be caught out!
I'm for keeping postal voting, its the rules that need enforcing, typical knee jerk reaction to a problem is to ban instead of enforcing!
Why do you have a postal vote?

Why can you not vote on polling day? What are you doing all day Thursday that you can't tootle off to your polling station 5 minutes away?
 
Why do you have a postal vote?

Why can you not vote on polling day? What are you doing all day Thursday that you can't tootle off to your polling station 5 minutes away?
My sis is disabled and votes postally. As does her husband who is also her carer. That's what it SHOULD be used for.

(And she did work as a nurse for 23 years before becoming disabled, so has paid taxes, before anyone starts!)
 
So is the Guardian saying Voter ID is racist because voter fraud is more prevalent in one ethnic group?
Yes. Despite evidence that it is statistically insignificant, even in areas with the ethnic make up of Tower Hamlets.

Postal vote fraud, however....

But since the CPS can't bring itself to prosecute MPs for electoral fraud, despite firm evidence, I don't see they will lift a finger to prosecute Mr Mahmood for allegedly voting on behalf of his uncle on polling day
 
My sis is disabled and votes postally. As does her husband who is also her carer. That's what it SHOULD be used for.

(And she did work as a nurse for 23 years before becoming disabled, so has paid taxes, before anyone starts!)
Exactly. Need, not convenience should be the determining factor in who gets postal votes.

Also, the most votes cast on polling day gives a greater legitimacy to the result. All listen to the arguments for the same length of time and vote at the same point in time. If it's important to vote, it's important to think about what you are voting for as long as possible.
 
It's nothing to do with Tory policy it's to do with reducing civil liberties as a reaction to a perceived problem which isn't in reality a problem [/B]but it serves to distract you from the more serious problems around. It is quite pernicious of a Govt using reduced freedoms especially as they are usually attributed to a Socialist State but you seem quite oblivious to the results of these Policies did you miss the Windrush problems caused by the same reduction in freedoms.
Would you be happy to show ID and be searched when leaving the Supermarket, when was the last time you were required to prove your citizenship to access your local Library,School or Hospital, are you happy to see your hard fought for civil liberties removed piece by piece if so then hey crack on but I for one are seriously worried about the direction of the current Govt in this regard.


My bold... what country, or should I say PLANET are you living on, "isn't in reality a problem", have you not seem the rising tide of voting fraud, the virtual industrial abuse of our NHS & benefit system by, mainly incomers, who are abusing our over generous/naïve society. If you take the time to read some of the cases quoted by posters on this thread you would see that in certain constituencies it is virtually the norm for it to be abused, especially with one particular immigrant loving party in using postal votes to ensure they get re elected.
We are no longer living in an age where "an Englishman's word was his bond", indeed many so called British today are in no way British in any sense of the word except when it comes to enjoying the benefits of being called British. Those days are long gone and we must be more vigilant to avoid the consequences of fraud, if that upsets your somewhat naïve views on carrying personal identification , TOUGH, give our officials the tools to stop & hopefully punish those who wish to undermine our society with this widespread abuse. Postal voting 'unviable' says judge
snip "He said: "Campaigners came to the house and they asked my mum to vote for them and actually my mum, not being able to read English, she didn't know where to put the cross, so one of the people put the cross in the box for her and said, 'There you go now you can just sign it and we will take it off you.
"Your votes are supposed to be anonymous but when people come to your house and are literally doing it for you that is not you voting is it? That is them voting for you and voting for themselves."
Mr Mawrey, a deputy High Court judge and election commissioner, said in one case last year he had come across 14 different ways that postal ballots could be manipulated"
.
 
As for opening a bank account in Australia, since the 1980's a "Point System," has been in place whereby you may produce at least two documents, which are allotted points according to what they are. Details are here:

https://www.australia-migration.com/page/Opening_a_Bank_Account_in_Australia/190

In one note on the page this remark is made:

"This system, while mechanistic, is arguably better than the identification system prevailing in the UK which seems to depend on the whim of a bank official."
Are the points required set by the government or by the banks?
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="TheHatsRevenge, post: 8534892, member: 25486"...especially as the majority of fraudulent votes are usually identified and the Law applied...[/QUOTE]

How can you say that with any conviction?
Nobody can know how many fraudulent votes are cast.
In theory you and I could be the only two genuine voters; and I'm not sure about you.
 
Perhaps we should all have a thumb(s) print on record?
Those without sufficient digits could be issued exemption cards. It would take a pretty determined fraudster to impersonate any one with an exemption.
Thumb prints could be used for travel purposes. A quick swipe on the way out and another on return. Anyone entering the country is then recorded.
 
Are you happy to be assumed you are acting fraudulently without any evidence to the contrary?
Why should two forms of ID be required to exercise your voting rights? your ID is and has always been accepted as the Polling Card you have.
All our civil liberties are predispose and accepted that you are acting lawfully in your everyday life as a citizen, it would be draconian in the extreme if we acted in the opposite don't you think......
But I already use photographic ID to cast my vote and I don't consider it intrusive of the State nor a hinderence.

It has completely eradicated people turning up at the polling office and potentially influencing the vote by casting an illegal vote here in Northern Ireland.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top