The Brits Are Stealing Our Idiots
It's just for chuckles, not a serious discussion. There have been countless Voter ID discussions and the 'anti's' are seldom able to support their opposition, but when I saw this tweet it brought a chuckle.
The gist: apparently the UK government is now requiring an ID to vote. It also appears that, at most, the cost to citizens would be the cost of a photograph(?)
Even if that is a simplification it doesn't change the point. The Brits have their own hyperbolic political idiots - just like us.
Here's this guy's reason:
ID cost may deter poorer voters, Coventry councillor claims
"People may have to choose between food and footing the bill of photo ID if they wish to vote in the future, a leading city politician claims.
The public will have to show photo ID at the ballot box as soon as May's local elections.
Proposals for the move were passed by Parliament in December and the government said it would prevent voter fraud.
But it could leave families weighing up costs, according to a Coventry critic.
Abdul Khan, deputy leader at Coventry City Council, said of residents: "They may well decide 'look, we're going to use that money to support our family'."
GAIs this really funny or is it sad? We are talking basically about society, where it is, and where it ultimately may be headed.
So, here is my unfiltered view, the liberal mind is a claptrap, just full of absurd or nonsensical talk and ideas.
What a load of crap. --- I can imagine if the photo cost was covered for citizens, they would come up with "well the poor need transportation, and drink as well as food while in line for the free pic. Sound at all familiar?I don't think this is about liberal minds or where society is. It is about a scheming self-serving politician. With a comparison of the cost of a photo being the difference between eating or voting what else could he be? It's just baloney.
GADon't know about Britain, but I can print a photo for 12 cents at WalMart. If that keeps someone from eating there is a far larger problem somewhere.
I must come back at you --- I mean your headline says a lot... Piked up on sarcasm right at the top.
Then there was this --- "ID cost may deter poorer voters, Coventry councillor claims
"People may have to choose between food and footing the bill of photo ID if they wish to vote in the future, a leading city politician claims."
Who says something like this? Do you feel, as a rule, this would come out of the mouth of a conservative? I think one is commonly more likely to hear this from a liberal politician.
In fact, I could dig up quotes from liberal Democrats that pretty much did make almost the identical statement in regard to making citizens pay for photo ID.
I thought my context shared I agree that the politicians are the spoon that stirred the controversy.
"What a load of crap. --- I can imagine if the photo cost was covered for citizens, they would come up with "well the poor need transportation, and drink as well as food while in line for the free pic. Sound at all familiar?"
As we saw the Democrat politicians do during COVID voting. Accusing Republican lawmakers of making it as hard as they could for the poor to vote.
Perhaps I took my analogy too far? Not sure what you were looking for. It mimicked Democratic politician concerns over vote ID, and the cost hardships it could put on the poor. Hey, sorry, I feel we see more liberals having the cost concern in regard to voter ID laws. Hence, my analogy was born.
So, let me rephrase my response. Yes, it would appear our politicians have a lot in common with the Brits politicians. Gosh, so easy, why did I not think of this response, to begin with?
Alright, you win with the exception of the concern stated below:
"States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting."Are you sure those are discriminatory, or were those rules made for very valid reasons?
Example: what are the requirements for a Texas concealed weapons permit, in the area of proving identity? What are the requirements for a student ID? Is either one easily forged? How difficult is it to put the wrong name on one?
Depending on the answers, it may not be discriminatory at all, even if one race, sex, religion, etc. has a greater problem with voting as a result.OK, Wilderness, I follow your argument, but those rules will need to be proven to have an objective purpose so that our groups are to be satisfied that they are not just conjured up by rightwing politicians to discourage liberal vote groups for political reasons.
One state or Federal ID should be as good as any other, and if not I need definitive evidence explaining why.You seem to have a lot of 'needs.' ;-)
GAIn the face of the rightwing oriented legislatures in many states and their incessant plots, those needs seem pretty valid to me. You don't think that I am just going to trust them to do things on the up and up, do you?
And yes, we discussed this before and I came to agree with your opinion that picture voter IDs are reasonable. OK, but still.... we will insist..
Conservatives complained about the security of the vote and the need for state or federal issue picture ID, I was willing to go along. But they cannot tell me now that even that can be sifted without a reason, so now we have to keep the cauldron churning until they come clean.
I simply don't like the idea of authorities thinking that they can do anything that they want based on sheer caprice. That is not understood well by conservatives.That you disagree with the reasons or reasoning of the right does not mean it is "sheer caprice". Most of it has very valid reasoning, and reasons, behind it.
Fine, the valid reasons need to be shared and evaluated and shown to be based on neutral objective standards and not political ones.
They are, you just vilify them because you don't agree with them.
Do you not say the same thing about the left?
Not vilify, Trust but verify....
I take it a bit further, verify, then trust.
If things are being done above board why is their anything to fear, when I want to look over shoulders?Yes, verify then trust.
"If things are being done above board why is their anything to fear, when I want to look over shoulders?"
Perhaps because as much as we would like to have it, politicians do not and cannot always act in public. There is, and will always be, some back room dealings. And, to be honest, it is in our best interest that that be so - those back room dealings are what makes compromise, something we desperately need but do not get.While politicians operate in "the back room", their deliberations once brought into the open can and is subject to scrutiny and criticism by those that may question the deliberations and how the conclusions have been arrived at particularly if there has been question fairness involved.
Is there any political conclusion that you don't pass through your "fairness" filter? What you're saying is that you demand you know and approve of every word in every deliberation, and what I'm saying is that is a sure fire way to end all cooperation and compromise.
Not just me, Wilderness, many...
I don't like politicians operating under cover because that is where unethical behavior can foment and be concealed.
I don't trust Republicans generally, but if you are doing things in a neutral manner and above board, there is nothing to fear. I don't trust until things are out in the open for evaluation for evaluation by all as to cause and purpose.
Isn't that what you want except that you apply it to democrats and the left?
Compromise has to be based on transparency from both sides.
Yep, that’s all part of ‘The Separation of Powers’ in a good democracy i.e. the Executive, the Legislature and the Judicial. In the USA the Executive is the President and the Legislature are the two houses; although there isn’t a proper separation of power between the Executive and Judicial.
For the UK the Executive is the Government, the Legislature is Parliament and there is a proper separation of power with the Judicial.
On top of that there are additional measures in place to better make the UK Government ‘accountable’, including for example, but not exclusive to:
• The introduction of the ‘Freedom of Information’ Act introduced by the Labour (Socialist) Government in 2005, and
• The Role of Parliamentary Cross-Party Select Committees
What are select committees? https://youtu.be/cTtP39bLYBgMy issue with conservatives here is my opinion that everyone is accountable in a Democratic system, there are no "prima donnas" who are free to act without oversight as that keeps everyone honest.
We are on the same page. Throughout history there has always been the question of one branch overreach in power over the other. Right now, the Supreme Court is a concern as being overly politicized where the objectivity of their rulings and decisions are in question.
Thanks for the link....While I 100% agree that SCOTUS is over politicized, who would you suggest as the overseer of that body? The lead Democrat in the House?
What could we do to remove the politics from SCOTUS? Even if it were a national vote we would still see members being elected based on politics. Could we set up a Constitutional review board to review each SCOTUS decision to "ensure" that it agreed with the intent of the founders when they wrote that document? How could we ever ensure that board is not political in nature, given the Democrats (on the whole) view it is a "living document", subject to change in interpretation at will while Republicans see it is set in stone until modified as described in the Constitution?I follow your point, I might suggest some sort of term limits for the jurists, to keep them from becoming powers unto themselves for the duration of their lifetime.
Maybe. But if I had to guess it would simply end up like Congress, switching affiliation every few years. Maybe even more polarized that it is now.
Frankly, I have a tough time understanding how a SCOTUS judge, tasked with interpreting and applying the Constitution, can do anything but that. Personal feelings and politics have zero place in their thoughts or deliberations, but is all too often the determining factor. How can they be so far out of line with their job - is there just no honesty or integrity in even the highest court in the land?Interpretation and application is still a subjective exercise, where personal judgement and experience almost cannot be avoided. I, for example, thought that the striking down of Roe was draconian and will have aftershocks through society that we are just beginning to see.
If a jurist term were for 10 years, when that time elapsed who knows which President and his political party will be around to make another selection. It can't be as political because no one will know what and when. For example, Right now we have a Supreme Court top heavy with conservative jurors, by 2030 they would have to be replaced by which ever President and party is in power at the time."I, for example, thought that the striking down of Roe was draconian and will have aftershocks through society that we are just beginning to see."
Exactly what I'm talking about. Draconian or not, it doesn't matter - the only thing that matters was whether the original decision was in line with the Constitution. The results don't matter, whether it is moral or not (by today's morality codes) doesn't matter, the politics don't matter, the desires of the people don't matter. Only that it matches the Constitution.
If it matches, and the people find it abhorrent, then it's time to change the Constitution, not declare that it says what it doesn't simply because this juror or that one doesn't like what it says.
What you're saying is exactly what I said; with term limits the swings from side to side will simply be more frequent. Not that it will go away. Not sure that is good for the country, either.Being fixated on any one side for the better portion of a lifetime, with attitudes set in cement, in an ever changing society does not sit well with me.
The Constitution is a guide as it cannot address every possible issue that would occur 250 year beyond its inception. Established law, Roe vs Wade, while conservatives say there was a not Constutional basis, could have been more moderate in its pulling back as it did. And the interpretation from the court was that of a conservative interpretation, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.
What "matches" the Constitution is just as often a subjective exercise, while conservatives would have me believe that their ideological interpretation of things is always the correct ones.Your comment here is a glaring example of exactly what I said; liberals believe in a "living" Constitution, changeable at will to match what is desired. It is not descriptive of the duties of a SCOTUS judge at all.
"Roe vs Wade, while conservatives say there was a not Constutional basis, could have been more moderate in its pulling back as it did."
Meaning the court could have ignored what it saw as law and done something different. Something more palatable to the masses, something more in line with liberal politics.
We shall forever disagree on this matter, for I do not see the Constitution as any kind of "guideline" that is changed to match political leanings of either side. It is indeed set in stone, changeable only with great effort.
"What "matches" the Constitution is just as often a subjective exercise". The difference, Credence, is that conservatives make a definite effort to understand the meaning of the words and the mindset of those that wrote them. The intent of the writers. Liberals make a definite effort to "Interpret" the words into what they want them to say. And that effort is contrary to what the entire Constitution is intended to be or do. It doesn't matter how badly you want something, using that kind of rationalizing is incompatible with the intent of the Constitution or the good of the nation. My opinion, of course; you will disagree and that's your right.Yes, we will to disagree on that observation....
One of the things that bug me about SCOTUS is that they very often do not address the problem. Perhaps it's a result of the way suits have to be filed, but if their opinions were to the root (including the specific complaint) we would be better off.
The RvW thing is one such; if the original decision had been made based on law rather than a vague "privacy" issue we wouldn't be here. SCOTUS needed to define when that fetus becomes a person, with all the rights the rest of us have but instead wrote up something about privacy as if the actual complaint never existed.Interesting, Wilderness
For example, this excerpt from an article discussing the 9th Amendment may be relevant.
To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment…
While there is no specific verbatim utterance of the “right to privacy”, the combination of the meaning of several amendments indicates that there was an understanding by the Founding Fathers of this principle.
When one combines the intent of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments there is clearly an implied if not expressed concept of a privacy right that upon examination is not so vague.
The 9th Amendment makes it clear that every single personal preference regarding the conduct of ones personal life and choices is not subject to legislation by state or federal entities but is well among the rights retained by the people. Otherwise, why not come after contraception or even your choice of BVDs?
Do we really want to legislate the conditions surrounding personal and intimate relationships among consenting adults? What is to prevent the conservative interpretations of the Constitution and overreaching state legislatures from doing just that? Conservatives want to make an exception for abortion being part of that privacy right even at the nascent and zygote stages. That is what had happened last year, and rather than a correct application of Constitutional law, it amounts to just another opinion from right wing oriented thinking.
So, what is the law? Conservatives believe that strict construction require that every possible issue has to be explicitly address by the Constitution or no such right exists. I don’t see how practical that is?You misunderstand. RvW was not about privacy; it was about abortion being legal. It may have been couched as privacy in order to gain legal standing to abort a fetus, but it was always about legalizing abortion itself.
And that is why we have once more addressed the issue; because the decision did not encompass the root complaint and question; is abortion legal or is it murder?
And this type of thing is not unusual; SCOTUS very often ignores the big question and the reason the suit is brought in favor of ruling on a much narrower issue.
As far as the Constitution delineating rights: it does not do so and was not intended to do so. Instead it lists the rights government has; everything else is individual. That liberals (for the most part, but conservatives are in there too) try to treat it is the opposite (that if not specifically denied government can do anything) does not change the intent of the document.Abortion in its many facets is subjective and not subject to absolutes. There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights regarding protecting zygotes or life at conception. How did that rise to be a tenet of Constitutional law?
The BIG question was decided on ideological grounds with conservatives using the Constitution as a shroud.
In following your discussion with wilderness e.g. how to keep politics out of the judicial system:-
In the UK to ensure a separation of power between the Executive and Judicial, although new Supreme Court Judges are Appointed by the King on the advice of the Prime Minister; the Prime Minister does not have any say in who he advices should be appointed – The Prime Minister receives recommendations from a selection commission as to who to appoint as Supreme Court Judge: So it’s just a rubber stamp process and has nothing whatsoever to do with politics.
In fact no one knows what the politics of the Supreme Court Judges are in the UK; that is matter that is personal and private between them and the ballot box.
In the UK there are 12 Supreme Court Judges, of which one is ‘President’ (senior); and all appointments are for life.
To avoid a tie, all cases are heard by a panel containing an odd number of Supreme Court Judges; thus, the largest possible panel for a case is 11 justices. For "high constitutional importance" or "great public importance" more than 5 judges sit in the Supreme Court, for more trivial matters just 3 or 5 judges are required.
SELECTION COMMISSION (who actually decides the next Supreme Court Judge)
The selection commission is made up of:-
• The President Judge (Senior Judge) of the Supreme Court
• Another senior UK judge, who is not Supreme Court Judge, and who is not interested in being nominated.
• One member from each of the following: Judicial Appointments Commission for England & Wales; the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland; and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. By law, at least one of these members cannot be a lawyer e.g. they need to be a layperson (who is not qualified in law).
SELECTION PROCEDURE
Before the Selection Commission makes its recommendations it has to first consult the following people:-
1. Judges of the Supreme Court.
2. Other Senior Judges who do not want to be nominated.
3. The Political leaders in the other three Nations; Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.
The selection must be made on merit, in accordance with the specified qualification criteria, to ensure that the judges will have between them knowledge and experience of all three of the UK's distinct legal systems (England/Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland), having regard to any guidance given by the Lord Chancellor, and of one person only.It seems that unless a justice becomes apolitical upon selection, then of course folks know what their political ideologies are. They are the same the day after selection as they were the day before. You folks just don't seem to make it an issue.
Otherwise, your description sounds like a reasonable option. However, remembering that the topic started off talking about idiots, and thinking about the political circus that would surround us trying to form a selection committee like yours, we should add the adjective 'scheming' to the idiots label.
GA"In fact no one knows what the politics of the Supreme Court Judges are in the UK; that is matter that is personal and private between them and the ballot box."
Same as the US. But those politics can be gleaned from reading past decisions, from looking at public statements, etc. They do not need to be publicly, declared to be understood.Interesting, Arthur, the British government goes to great lengths to create an independent judiciary. A few more hurdles and bridges should perhaps be put in place requiring approval from wider independent sources of selection before a justice can take a seat. Right now, we are rife in politics and the poles are diametrically opposed in a way that resist being healed.
Here, the President selects, with only the advice and advisors that he wishes to obtain. The Senate has oversight and has to confirm the President's selected candidates. There is politics throughout the process, Republican Presidents tend to select "conservative" jurors, while Democrat presidents generally go for moderate to liberal jurors based on their the records of their previous decisions in lower courts.
The Senate has to confirm nominees, the Republicans in the Senate in not confirming a selection made from Barack Obama with the death of Antoinin Scalia in 2016, still has me upset with them. Skirting Constutional obligation for sheer political reasons must not and cannot be allowed, but this is part and parcel of the American political system that needs reform.
Thanks Credence for your feedback in the selection process in the USA; it’s basically in line with the process I’ve seen on CNN in recent years, and helpful as your explanation fills in a few gaps in my knowledge.
Unfortunately we can no longer get CNN as a free service on TV in the UK, since the end of 2021 it’s now only available on a subscription service – And I don’t see any point in paying to watch CNN when there are plenty of other free news channels to choose from.You already knew and understood, you always seem to have your finger on the pulse. Of that, I have no doubt.
You are right, here I am being virtually garroted by the cable and rising prices for ever more trashy, commercial laden channels. I thought that I was paying their exorbitant rates for the privilege not to have to watch them. But, alas....
I might appear to “always seem to have my finger on the pulse” in that I tend to only engage on topics that I have a level of understanding, knowledge and or experience in; topics in these forums that I know little about I tend to avoid, or just read out of interest and not participate in.
Things are a little better over hear with the choice of TV services in that not only do we have a choice of cable/satellite services e.g. Virgin Media (cable TV) or Sky (Satellite TV) giving healthy competition – but we also have ‘FreeView’ which not only broadcasts a large selection of popular TV channels but is also a free service.
Both Virgin Media and Sky TV broadcast virtually the same range and numbers of TV channels, so there is little difference between them, except that if you subscribe to Virgin Media you also get high speed broadband using optic fibre to the home, and the landline phone also uses the optic fibre; whereas Sky can only provide a similar service by subcontracting broadband and the landline phone service to BT (British Telecoms) using their, predominantly, dated copper wires to the home – Albeit BT is gradually upgrading to optic fibre.
So whether you use Virgin Media or Sky TV is personal choice, and for those who don’t watch loads of TV, the free service provided by Freeview provides an excellent alternative. In the UK the Freeview receiver is by law now built into each new TV sold, so when you buy a new TV it automatically comes with Freeview.
What is Freeview Play? https://youtu.be/AeUtf215cO4
Of course, there are also streaming services, like Netflix, and for less than $15 a month Netflix provides an additional good service at a modest price (good value for money).
As regards adverts – in the UK, all BBC channels are advert free, as is Netflix; and for channels that do have adverts, under EU/UK law adverts are limited to a maximum of just 12 minutes an hour; besides, most of the time most of the programmes we want to watch on cable TV (Virgin Media) we pre-record to watch later, so that when we do sit down to watch them we can just skip over the adverts.
Where you say that in the USA the politics of Supreme Court Judges are not known, then why do Republican Presidents appoint Republican Judges and a Democratic President appoint Democrat Judges when a vacant post on the Supreme Court comes up on their watch?
Well yeah GA, what works for one country wouldn’t necessarily work for another country.
I take your point that (as individuals) the Supreme Court Judges are not going to be apolitical, the same that (as individuals) civil servants are not apolitical. But as an institution (in the UK) Supreme Court Judges are apolitical, just as the British civil service is apolitical.
As regards Supreme Court Judges (just as senior civil servants); they are not appointed because of their politics, and because in Britain most prominent people in society keep their politics to themselves when an appointee is made (be it Supreme Court Judge or Senior Civil Servant) politics doesn’t come into it – They are selected on their merits and their suitability for the post.
Yeah, I can imagine that if the USA tried to emulate the British system that any such selection committee would tend to lean towards a closed shop of ‘scheming’ idiots. However, in the UK system, those that are on the selection committee for Supreme Court Judges and those who have input into the selection process are wide and far spread (which avoids the risk of a close nit group of scheming idiots) e.g. involves input from all the four nations (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales) from both Judges, and political leaders from Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland), and must include at least one lay person, such as an Admin worker with no legal qualifications or experience.
Although the political leaders of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have some input, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government are both Socialist Governments, which helps to balance out any political leanings of the Northern Ireland Government; and under the system the UK Government has no input into the selection process – their role is just to advice the King on who has been selected by the selection committee.Your explanation seems to illustrate what I meant by you folks not making politics such an issue in the selection process. Unfortunately for us, we have made politics a national sport that usually buggers everything it touches.
It is probably reasonable to think your selection process is not free of all politics, but it doesn't seem to be as completely driven by them as ours is.
GAIf there is any politics in our legal system its not obvious e.g. all 'rulings' made by the Supreme Court is decided on legal grounds, and the full, and lengthy, transcript of the legal reasons for the decision is always made public.
One vital role of the Supreme Court is in the interpretation of the constitution e.g. as Britain has an 'unwritten' constitution it's not always clear what the constitution is, so when the government is challenged on being unconstitutional (which has happened a lot since 2016) it's the Supreme Court that has the final say - almost invariably, finding against the Government - I'm not aware of one decision yet that has gone in the Government's favour.
Oh lordy, lordy, Cred. It's about scheming politicians bud, not the issue of ID or no ID.
GA
First, I have no problem with an 'appropriate' photo ID to vote in person. And, I have no problem with a state verifying a person's eligibility to vote by mail including signature validation when received.
As far as the OP, yes, I got a chuckle from it! Seems, the U.S. does not have the sole ownership of political shenanigans, eh?
To gain perspective it depends on what the government considers an appropriate photo if that is an option. With poking about I see in the UK it is £9.99 ($12.40) for a passport photo and a visa is £14.99 ($18.60). But, a citizen card cost £15 the same as a visa photo. A driver's license is £119 or $163. Seems the citizen card is the best option if it is acceptable for voting.
A citizen card means about three gallons of gas here in Calif. Personally, a gallon of gas means two weeks of normal everyday life driving. A citizen card would mean 1-1/2 months driving. So, it would depend on one's budget, right? But, is that enough to make the argument he is proposing?Aren't the citizens being conditioned {by climate alarmists} to eat bugs? Dig up some juicy worms, locate a solid, working ant hill and Viola` money is freed up for i.d., then it's off to vote for the restoration of sanity.
The cost of the ID Photo isn’t an issue; most people have valid photo IDs anyway e.g. passport, driving licence, and in my case my ‘Free Bus Pass’ which every UK citizen gets when they reach State Retirement Age.
And voter fraud isn’t the issue either; it’s just a ruse by the Conservative Government e.g. voter fraud is very low in the UK, not high enough to influence any election.
The real reason for introducing the photo ID is that those most likely to be deterred from voting, for physiological reasons, are those who are least likely to vote Conservative.
In practice it will make little or no difference in most constituencies, but in marginal constituencies where whether Conservatives, Labour or Liberal Democrats winning the seat is dependent on less than 100 votes, then it could make a difference in favour of the Conservatives.
It’s for the same reason that Scotland and Wales (both Socialist governments) lowered the voting age in Scotland and Wales to 16, because the younger voters are far more likely to vote socialist than conservative.Having just fact-checked; on the 11th May 2021, when this bill was being debated in Parliament, the UK Government admitted that there had been only 6 cases of ballot fraud in the last General Election in 2019.
That is similar to the Voter ID arguments in the U.S. Same points; political motivation, (seems right to me), and disenfranchisement of some of 'the other party's voters, (also seems right to me).
Even so, those arguments don't change the reasonableness and value of Voter ID cards.
GAIt does if one set of state issued ID's are treated differently from another without clear and objective explanations for the difference.
We've had this discussion before. I wasn't reopening the Voter ID thing again, I was poking at political idiots.
GA
Yeah, realistically I can’t see any real issue with photo ID in the UK, especially as you don’t need to get a special photo ID card e.g. valid photo IDs will include passport, driving licence, student card etc. and in my case my ‘Free Bus Pass’ (which everyone over State Retirement 65 gets) – so most people will already have a valid photo ID anyway.
One query; you mention Voter ID cards, and in looking on the Internet I couldn’t find a clear description on how people register to vote in the USA?
In the UK the process to register to vote is fairly automatic, as outlined below:-
1. In the UK, every October, or six weeks before an Election (if before October), our Local Government posts a form to the head of the household.
2. It’s the legal responsibility of the head of the household to put the full name and age (if under 18) of every person living in that household, then for the head of the household to sign the form, and to return the form to the Local Government.
And that’s it, everyone in the household over the age of 18 is then registered to vote, and 3 weeks before an election each person eligible to vote will receive their own personal ‘voter ID card’ telling them where and when to vote – But you don’t have to take your card with you. When you turn up at the voting booth you say who you are and they tick you off their list. The only difference in the future is that they will ask to see a valid photo ID when you vote.
In the UK, when your local government gets the form back they use it to not only register people to vote but also as a register for jury service e.g. if you are registered to vote then there is always a chance that you may be picked to do jury service.
As a follow up, if the head of the household doesn’t return the form, they will be sent reminders, and ultimately face a hefty fine of $1,200 for not returning the form.
These days of course, you now have the option to complete the form electronically on-line.
When it comes to voting there are provisions for people who can’t physically get to the voting booth e.g. disabled, on holiday or as a university student living away from home. In these cases, then six weeks before the election you can apply for a postal vote; or if you are a university student then apply to vote in the constituency of your university rather than in your home constituency.
Is the whole process much different in the USA?The specifics of registering to vote may vary but the concepts are essentially the same.
Folks get voter registration forms when they turn 18. One can also register by checking a box when applying for any state function/service/ID; e.g. driver's license, welfare program application, etc. We also have mail-in balloting.
My perspective is that voting is the most important privilege a government offers. It should be worth any effort needed to exercise it.
One old and worn argument that makes sense to me is that folks will make the needed ID efforts to get everything from 'Rewards' cards to cell phones to car rentals, but fight requiring any similar effort to vote for the leaders of a nation.
GA
As a "Brit", I resent the idea that we would go around stealing idiots. We don't need to steal idiots from anyone, British politics has a long and proud tradition of producing first-class idiots of all political persuasions.
Many of us would be happy to export a variety of idiots to any country that feels that it doesn't have enough - we don't resort to theft - at least not in this field.
I think an apology is called for.
You have it. I forgot that we inherited many of our cultural tendencies. Mea culpa.
GA
Accepted, of course. Please feel free to apply to His Majesty's Government should you wish to try out one of our models.
Related Discussions
- 233
Holder against Voter ID cards
by American View 12 years ago
Here is a quote from Holder, do you agree? Do you find it interesting that no one can get into the Democratic National Convention if they do not have a picture ID, but you do not need one to vote? “…some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang in the balance.”-- Attorney...
- 145
Voter photo ID requirement: racist?
by Holle Abee 13 years ago
I just read an opinion piece in the NY Times about requiring a govenrment-issued photo ID to vote. The author, a GA congressman, believes this practice discriminates against African Americans. I don't get it. Anyone can get a photo ID easily - it doesn't have to be a driver's license. One of my...
- 32
Broward Election Fraud - Now Can We Finally Pass a Voter ID Law?
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
The story sounds like a headline ripped from a third-world nation. Election supervisors illegally adding votes, more and more votes appearing from hidden alcoves, and when challenged, Brenda Snipes is refusing to allow anyone to see or count the votes. Florida election laws are violated...
- 22
Most Americans Want Voter ID
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
I agree with voter ID. It seems that 80 percent of the nations want as well."Amid plenty of partisan rancor over election integrity and voter suppression, a new national poll indicates that most Americans support requiring voter identification to cast a ballot and easier access to early...
- 562
Illegals Voting For Republicans
by American View 7 years ago
If all the I illegal Aliens said tomorrow they are voting Republican, would the Dems desire Voter ID cards, would they want the voter rolls updated, would they have backed Obama's amnesty for the young illegals?
- 13
How are Voter ID laws racist?
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
In America, you need to show proof of Identity for just about everything EXCEPT voting. The left-wing media constantly decries that voter ID laws would be racist, but they never have spoken up about the idea of showing proof of identity to board a plane racist. Nor do they call out...