advertisement


Voter suppression: UK Voter ID

matthewr said:
National Conservatism actually sounds like a 1930s style proto-fascist movement.
Click to expand...

It would be a modern proto-fascist movement were it not for Rees Mogg, whose presence alone subtracts 100 years minimum from anything.

PS Thinking about it I assume it was held in the Natural History Museum so they could rant against evolution and point to 5000 year old dinosaurs.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
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.
Click to expand...
I equated the intents, not the actions. The rest of your post follows from your mis-reading. I don't support voter id, and never have. I'm ambivalent about reducing the age, but on balance think that young people today are taking ever longer to grow up so probably not. And only citizens should vote in national elections. If you choose not to become a citizen then that's something you give up. But you probably retain a vote in your home country.
 
Nick_G said:
11631939-large.jpg


Your climate-change denial is a matter of public record on this forum.
Click to expand...
Curiously a characteristic of low intelligence is an inability to cope with hypotheticals and abstractions.
 
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...

Paul R said:
I equated the intents, not the actions. The rest of your post follows from your mis-reading.
Click to expand...
I had responded:
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...
You accused me of making a straw man argument there, which is just a tad ridiculous. If there's a straw man anywhere in our exchanges, it is in yours.

If we accept (which I do not) that the intent is similar in both the cases you cite, then it remains true that one method removes the franchise, while the other extends it. That in itself fatally undermines any claim to 'moral equivalence'. That, coupled with the fact that I don't accept your assertion as to the motives of Labour, is my point. You choose not to engage with that point, but instead fabricate a different argument. There's your straw man.
 
ks.234 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you posted that.

The moral case for preventing fraud stands alone, it's absolute. The rationale for voter id is that it reduces fraud. But it has a cost, while only a moron would turn up to vote without id, the checking of id adds significant friction and time to the voting process and puts the polling station staff into potentially awkward confrontations. So given there is no evidence of in-person voting fraud there is no justification for voter id.
 
Paul R said:
And only citizens should vote in national elections. If you choose not to become a citizen then that's something you give up. But you probably retain a vote in your home country.
Click to expand...
Picking up on this bit. You make this assertion blithely, as though it is an immutable truth. And again, referring back to my earlier post, denying the vote to women, or lower class men, was once considered an immutable truth. On what basis do we deny the franchise to non-citizens who have nevertheless settled and made their lives in this country? Do they not deserve a say in its future - their future? Should they not have some leverage to help defend their interests against a government which considers them second class 'citizens'?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I had responded:

You accused me of making a straw man argument there, which is just a tad ridiculous. If there's a straw man anywhere in our exchanges, it is in yours.

If we accept (which I do not) that the intent is similar in both the cases you cite, then it remains true that one method removes the franchise, while the other extends it. That in itself fatally undermines any claim to 'moral equivalence'. That, coupled with the fact that I don't accept your assertion as to the motives of Labour, is my point. You choose not to engage with that point, but instead fabricate a different argument. There's your straw man.
Click to expand...
You're stating the obvious.

Restricting the franchise in hope of electoral advantage is morally equivalent to extending the franchise in hope of advantage. Are you really suggesting that Labour would be making these proposals if they thought an electoral disadvantage would follow? It's why these questions, like constituency boundaries, should be managed by independent public bodies.

Did you know that the minimum age for marriage has just risen from 16 to 18? I think if you want to reduce the voting age to 16 you need to bring everything into line. Marriage, contracts, gambling, drinking, voting, sentencing. Just advocating for voting looks a lot like seeking to achieve electoral advantage without addressing any hard questions of what being an adult should mean.
 
Paul R said:
Did you know that the minimum age for marriage has just risen from 16 to 18? I think if you want to reduce the voting age to 16 you need to bring everything into line. Marriage, contracts, gambling, drinking, voting, sentencing. Just advocating for voting looks a lot like seeking to achieve electoral advantage without addressing any hard questions of what being an adult should mean.
Click to expand...
Again, you make your point without backing it up with anything tangible. Just an assertion of what you say should be the case. That's fine, you can state your opinion, but it is simply that. It has no special power here, or anywhere else. Why does everything have to be aligned? Why should voting be confined to 'adults'?
 
What about UK citizens overseas? We lose our vote. OK we don't pay UK taxes, but still live with costs like passport renewal and the consequences of UK laws with overseas reach.
 
davidsrsb said:
What about UK citizens overseas? We lose our vote. OK we don't pay UK taxes, but still live with costs like passport renewal and the consequences of UK laws with overseas reach.
Click to expand...
Yes, quite. If UK citizens settled abroad lose their right to vote, why shouldn't non-UK citizens settled here acquire a right to vote?
 
It shouldn’t be a partisan thing. If you believe in the basic concept of democracy you believe in the basic concept of democracy. If someone is permanently living and paying tax somewhere then they deserve full representation. The political right always fear democracy as they know there is never a legitimate mandate for their ideology. They will never win on a level playing field, and they know it. Their gerrymandering is theirs to defend. I believe in a full proportional democracy and accountability. I have absolutely nothing to fear from anyone being allowed a voice.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Picking up on this bit. You make this assertion blithely, as though it is an immutable truth. And again, referring back to my earlier post, denying the vote to women, or lower class men, was once considered an immutable truth. On what basis do we deny the franchise to non-citizens who have nevertheless settled and made their lives in this country? Do they not deserve a say in its future - their future? Should they not have some leverage to help defend their interests against a government which considers them second class 'citizens'?
Click to expand...
Of course it's an assertion. The leverage would be to become a citizen. I don't think it unreasonable to restrict people who've chosen to maintain a separate national interest from influencing UK national interest. I think it would be reasonable to simplify the path to citizenship if it is actually too expensive and difficult. But my impression from some posts on Twitter (so obviously authoritative) is that many who moan on these grounds are actually not fully committed to the UK.

My history is hazy, but IIRC the franchise was extended to all men over 21 after WW1 as a consequence of the sacrifices, people expected to die for their country should get a say in how it is run, and also to older women with property. Thus establishing an approximate political balance. No 'gerrymandering' there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top