advertisement


Voter suppression: UK Voter ID

gintonic said:
maybe anyone over 60 counts as half a vote, 70 0.25 - over 80s banned from voting....
Click to expand...
The only downside to this is that from about the 2065 elections those that remember this shower of S**ts running the country into the ground will have limited control on keeping them out of government :)
 
Tony L said:
I’m not a Labour voter. As someone on the furthest extremes of the conspiracy theory wing of the Tory Party you are however up to your neck in this. I just want to live in a fair and transparent proportional democracy without any of your public school elites rigging all the rules.
Click to expand...
You are way down the hole of hysterical conspiracy theory. Best not to blather from ignorance.
 
billo said:
No taxation without representation.
EU citizens living here and paying taxes here are already allowed to vote in local elections, so it's no great leap
Click to expand...
The EU requires EU citizens be able to stand and vote in EU Parliament elections and local elections. Nowhere in the EU can non-citizens vote in national elections. The presumption is that you get a vote at home. If you want a vote, become a citizen, subscribe to nation you live in. I don't see a problem with EU policy on this.
 
Paul R said:
You are way down the hole of hysterical conspiracy theory. Best not to blather from ignorance.
Click to expand...

I won’t be taking any advice from a climate science-denying public school Brexiter on that. Were you at the Nat-C thing? Seems right up your street!
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
By your argument, female suffrage, or giving the right to all adults was gerrymandering. The moral difference is that one proposal is giving a group a right (which they should arguably have had anyway) whereas the other is an attempt to deny or nullify that right. I’d say there’s a gulf of moral difference.
Click to expand...
If you read what I wrote you will see you're introducing a straw man.

And it's hard to see how introducing voter id nullifies any rights. Only the ignorant, illiterate or lazy failed to be able to vote, and, as I posted way up thread, young people have IDs. They need them to buy glue, knives, Red Bull, alcohol, get into clubs and so on. They are used to proving their right to a service. An impact on doddery blue rinses is hardly surprising. I don't support it because I don't see it serves any purpose. I might support making it tougher to get a postal vote, because I see much greater opportunity for fraud and because I think taking part in the voting process on election day is a good thing.
 
Tony L said:
I won’t be taking any advice from a climate science-denying public school Brexiter on that. Were you at the Nat-C thing? Seems right up your street!
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you're so comfortable posting lies.

You could try engaging in a debate, supporting your opinions with reason rather than stronger adjectives.
 
Paul R said:
Only the ignorant, illiterate or lazy failed to be able to vote, and, as I posted way up thread, young people have IDs. They need them to buy glue, knives, Red Bull, alcohol, get into clubs and so on.
Click to expand...

Ignorance and illiteracy are not a crime. Not everyone gets the education you received. In the multi-cultural area I live vast numbers will not have Tory-approved ID as their religion bans alcohol and they won’t have the income to own a car. Of course you knew this. It was the whole point and Rees Mogg finally admitted it.

PS If I have “lied” please correct me.
 
Paul R said:
If you read what I wrote you will see you're introducing a straw man.

And it's hard to see how introducing voter id nullifies any rights. Only the ignorant, illiterate or lazy failed to be able to vote
Click to expand...
It's not a straw man, it's just a logical extension of what you argued. You said there was no moral difference between extending the franchise, and making it harder to exercise the franchise. I'm simply pointing out that, historically, extending the franchise has righted some significant wrongs - wrongs that were previously held to be the proper order of things. You're arguing that the way things are now is the proper order of things. And if the ignorant, illiterate or lazy are excluded, that's OK, because, well, ignorant, lazy and illiterate.

I've argued on here before that we do need a better-informed electorate, but I've tried to argue from a position of empowerment and education, not from exclusion.
 
Paul R said:
Yet there is no moral difference between introducing voter ID in the hope of excluding voters who tend to vote in one way and extending the franchise to those too young to drink or non-citizens in the expectation they will tend to vote the other.

Voter ID has the cover of preventing fraud, Labour's proposals are pure 'gerrymandering'. I'm not sure ceding the high ground here is politically astute. Not to mention the irony of offering EU citizens a right they do not have inside the EU.
Click to expand...
There’s a vast moral difference between an attempt to narrow democracy and an attempt to widen it. One is for less democracy, the other is for more.

Jacob Rees Moog has confessed that voter ID was a mistake that backfired because it disenfranchised older voters https://shows.acast.com/c94a5041-3d43-419a-9d17-a557fb51e056/episodes/6462be66ca844f00112ea1f0

The moral case for preventing fraud is dishonest because voter fraud is minuscule.
 
Paul R said:
I don't understand why you're so comfortable posting lies.

You could try engaging in a debate, supporting your opinions with reason rather than stronger adjectives.
Click to expand...

11631939-large.jpg


Your climate-change denial is a matter of public record on this forum.
 
Just a reminder that Good Law Project are challenging the Tories voter suppression strategy legally. Their campaign is here. Please consider supporting it. Given Rees Mogg’s admission it is likely a pretty solid case now.
 
Paul R said:
If you read what I wrote you will see you're introducing a straw man.

And it's hard to see how introducing voter id nullifies any rights. Only the ignorant, illiterate or lazy failed to be able to vote, and, as I posted way up thread, young people have IDs. They need them to buy glue, knives, Red Bull, alcohol, get into clubs and so on. They are used to proving their right to a service. An impact on doddery blue rinses is hardly surprising. I don't support it because I don't see it serves any purpose. I might support making it tougher to get a postal vote, because I see much greater opportunity for fraud and because I think taking part in the voting process on election day is a good thing.
Click to expand...
PKB-tastic!

Nice to see you back, with all your junk hanging out.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
As has now been admitted by senior Tory JR-M. If they were interested in combatting voter fraud, they'd tighten the rules around postal voting.
Click to expand...

Stating DoB and providing a signature to be checked by computer against a previous submission is already much more rigorous than voting in person.
 
National Conservatism actually sounds like a 1930s style proto-fascist movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top