Voting

[karohemd]

A question: Do you need to bring ID to vote? The polling card doesn't mention anything.
(as I'm not a Brit national, I can only vote in local not general elections, sadly)

The answer is you don't. Isn't that a bit dangerous? Polling cards are delivered through the letterbox, anyone could have gotten hold of mine, go to the polling station and vote.
That's just ridiculous.

Comments

[essbee80.livejournal.com]

You shouldnt need ID just your polling card. At my local I dont even need to take that as its just a small town

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

*blinks* What would prevent anyone else from turning up, claiming they're me and vote?

[bibliogirl.livejournal.com]

Apathy, in large part.

[essbee80.livejournal.com]

Nothing I guess except I doubt anyone would though I live in a small town where everyone knows me so havent ever considered it that much

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

Only the vigilence of the staff at the polling station. I think if there's considered to be a risk then candidates can appoint representatives to watch, and the electoral officials make sure there's somebody there all day.

In Northern Ireland you do need photo ID to vote because the risk of fraud is considered to be high.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Your living in a house with nobody who would impersonate you. And impersonating another voter being illegal, although stealing bicycles is also illegal and nobody ever seems to get arrested for that either...

[oedipamaas49.livejournal.com]

yes, but in my college, at least, polling cards end up in people's pigeonholes. Anyone could easily wander through (it's open to the public) and grab a dozen cards. And the students, being almost all first-time voters, would probably just assume that they hadn't been registered to vote in Cambridge.

The entire system is completely wide open to fraud. It just relies on nobody caring enough to cheat.

Thanks for reminding me!

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

The telephone number of the Electoral Services part of the Cambridge Guildhall is 01223 457 048, their email address is found on their website which is Googleable, and they accept people going to see them in person to check whether you should have got a polling card or not. If anybody reading this hasn't got one and thinks they should have, or isn't sure, this is a good time to check. Or tomorrow within working hours.

I worry that this time, somebody cares enough to cheat.

[bibliogirl.livejournal.com]

You don't need to take anything with you, just give them your name and address when you go along to vote.

[kathminchin.livejournal.com]

Nope - just your polling card

[bibliogirl.livejournal.com]

-- you don't need your polling card.

[kathminchin.livejournal.com]

depends. In Birmingham they got very shirty with me when I didn't have mine

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

My polling card says that you don't need it but I guess the area I'm in is smaller than your voting district (or whatever you call it).

[kathminchin.livejournal.com]

*nods* I'm in the middle of the city centre, and Birmingham's not small after all

[bibliogirl.livejournal.com]

Given recent polling-related events in Birmingham, I'm not too surprised. ;) But I'm reasonably sure that the cards we received (before we said "we want a postal vote") said that you didn't _have_ to take the card with you.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Whereas in Birmingham I've taken my card along and not even been asked for it.

Don't forget that if international inspectors oversaw our elections then the FPP, the two-party race, postal voting issues and the lack of checks and balances on in-person voting would make them throw their hands up in horror.

Just as well we ain't a constitutional democracy, really...

[eryx-uk.livejournal.com]

I don't know that its dangerous. They can't do anything with it but vote. Doubt you could get away with it more then twice if you were odd enough to try.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

Someone assuming my identity is dangerous enough...

[eryx-uk.livejournal.com]

That is true.

[bibliogirl.livejournal.com]

If someone was to turn up at a polling station to find that their name was already ticked off as having voted, and they could show ID proving their name and address, I would guess that this would be flagged to the authorities and the other ballot paper might be discounted.

That said, anyone's welcome to turn up at my local polling station and try to vote in my name; I have a postal vote and thus I can't vote on the day.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

the other ballot paper might be discounted

How can they tell which one it was?

[bibliogirl.livejournal.com]

They'd have a note of which ballot paper had been issued to that person (ballot papers are numbered). Never having taken part in an election count, I don't know if there's a facility for "keep an eye out for ballot paper number X and remove it when you find it"

[kathminchin.livejournal.com]

Having taken part in a count - yes there is. It's a pain, but there you go

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

Erm, sorry *ignorant German here*, aren't votes supposed to be secret? If there's a list who got which ballot paper it isn't...

[blue-cat.livejournal.com]

Guessing here:

I work in pharma trials and the patients details are supposed to be 100% protected BUT at the same time if there is a big problem we need to make sure we can find the patient.

So we use initials & DOB and we know the doctor, who knows who his patients are, if there is a problem we provide initials/dob to the doctor to find the patient.

I would guess that the list of numbers is kept locally while the votes are counted elsewhere, and only if there is a problem will people ask for it to be tracked back.

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

UK votes are entirely traceable. It's a bit crap, but in practice it isn't used unless there's been some gross fraud. Yes, those are exactly counter to the ID card arguments, and indeed probably exists mostly because we don't have mandatory state authorised identity. Nobody expected consistency from legislation did they?

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Most Britons probably think the votes are secret too, if they haven't observed carefully. I was quite surprised, the first time I voted, to see them writing down my voter number on the ballot paper counterfoil!

Just another one of the wonderful benefits of an 'unwritten constitution'...

[deliberateblank.livejournal.com]

It is easy, given a ballot paper, to find out who cast it.

It is much harder, given a person, to find out how they voted.

The difference allows checking of suspected fraud (thus discouraging such) whilst also discouraging casual widespread invasion of the secrecy of the vote. The ballot is also supposed to be destroyed a reasonably short time after the result is finalised, therefore preventing mechanised attacks.

Candidates are entitled to watch over the ballot handling, so at least one person would hopefully have an incentive to cry foul if something dodgy was going on.

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

Actually, they wouldn't be asked for ID, but there vote wouldn't be counted as such, either. If someone turns up to the polling station and they've already voted, they should be issued with a special (pink) ballot paper called a tendered ballot. This isn't included in the count, but allows them to record their vote.

If the election is subsequently challenged by an election petition, then the election court can look at all the ballots (including the tendered ballots). Obviously if there are a large number of tendered ballots (comparable with the majority in the election) then the election court is rather likely to rule the election unsafe and order a re-run...

-roy

[davefish.livejournal.com]

As a wise man once said,
Vote early, vote often

[blue-cat.livejournal.com]

Since the UK doesn't have national ID they can't request for this to be shown.

They will however often ask you to confirm address etc. And I guess if I tried to vote on behalf of hubbie they would spot that I am not a bloke at least!

But I have voted without ID or polling card - I think they rely on the apathy of people who don't vote to not worry about it.

I think we should have mandatory voting in national elections.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

I think we should have mandatory voting in national elections.

Ooh, a controversial opinion! (which, incidentally, I share)
However, the ballot paper would have to include an option to abstain or a "none of the above" entry.

[blue-cat.livejournal.com]

yes. However my background (all be it distant) is Australia, where it is compulsory and if you don't it is a fine. Personally I think if you don't vote, then don't Fvking complain about who is in charge or any polices etc - I am quite with the campaine thing of 'If you don't do politics then....' - I sometimes describe myself as a liberal facist - do what you want but if you fvk things around then be prepared to take some tough penalties. :P rant over. I plan to vote Lib-Dem. I live in a desperately conservative area (remained so throughout the last 2 elections with a 20% majority last time) - my vote is unlikely to change that but it gets noted.

Some info on Oz voting:

http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/voting/voting.htm
and http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/faqs/vote_gen.htm#2 which gives the following info:

What happens if I do not vote?
Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.

If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

Interesting approach.

[neilh.livejournal.com]

Personally I think if you don't vote, then don't Fvking complain about who is in charge or any polices etc

I plan not to vote for any of the scumbags standing here - its an active non-vote rather than a passive can't be bothered. I don't know of a better way of expressing it other than standing myself, and I didn't have a deposit handy when the election was called....next time.

[blue-cat.livejournal.com]

a former friends said that a far better form of Non-vote is to spoil your ballot paper - as in write across it 'No confidence' or equivalent.

Spoilt papers are counted - ok, doesn't distinguish between idiots who cant put an X in a [ ] but not voting doesn't distinguish between apathy, a broken leg or 'no confidence' either.

At least it shows that you could be bothered to get to the voting booth - but as I said, I suport mandatory voting.

[neilh.livejournal.com]

If they distinguished the types of spoilt, then yes, I'd agree with that, but as it is it doesn't actually send any message, just that theres a lot of idiots in a place.

Mandatory voting would have to be accompanied by 'None of the above', who would, I suspect, win rather too often.

Googling for UK Spoilt ballot vote

[blue-cat.livejournal.com]

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=514822

An Electoral Commission report says there were 100,005 spoilt ballot papers at the 2001 election. This must be slightly lower than the true figure because five constituencies did not supply information on spoilt papers.

The Commission's report, called "2001 general election, postal votes, proxy votes and spoilt ballot papers", says:

"The number of spoilt ballot papers rejected at counts was 100,005, 0.38% of the total votes cast. " "Ballot papers are rejected under the following headings:
a) Want of official mark
b) Voting for more than one candidate
c) Writing or mark by which the voter could be identified
d) Being wholly unmarked or void for uncertainty
e) Rejected in part

The information on spoilt ballot papers is incomplete, as no returns were made from the following 5 constituencies; Manchester Gorton, Portsmouth North, Wolverhampton North East, Wolverhampton South East and Wolverhampton South. Despite these gaps, there were 6,597 more ballot papers rejected on 7 June 2001 than in 1997, although the turnout was over 10% greater in 1997. A total of 0.09% more ballot papers were rejected in 2001. The biggest single difference was in the category (d) spoilt ballots, “Being wholly unmarked or void for uncertainty”."

or perhaps this is more in your line: http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0504181076164054.htm "'Spoil Vote' campaign to protest against UK electoral system "

Re: Googling for UK Spoilt ballot vote

[neilh.livejournal.com]

Thing is that they're not listening to the 'none of the above' message, all of the above get lumped together in a single number of 'spoiled papers', if it was an official candidate then it'd be worth casting, as it is it is attempting to send a message through a covert chanel in the hope that someone takes notice when it gets there.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Turn up and spoil your ballot paper. Explain why you feel as you do.

[whotheheckami.livejournal.com]

It's Britain - it's meant to be ridiculous. I thought you were getting used to it? ;@)

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

There's something new every month, it seems. :o)

[angelustenebris.livejournal.com]

Well, as a Presiding Officer in the last two elections (one European, one local) I can give you some interesting facts. In England, you have no requirement to bring ID, or even your polling card, to vote. You turn up, and give the polling clerk your name and address. They give you your ballot paper.

Personation (pretending to be someone you're not in order to vote) is illegal, but in practice pretty difficult to prove.

If someone turns up claiming to be someone who has already voted, then they're given a separate ballot paper (usually in pink) and this is then placed in a separate bag. Allegedly (according to the Returning Officer for my district) these votes are then "ignored, cos it's all just too complicated to find out who voted when..."

So for all of you wanting to perpetrate electoral fraud, take a bag of handy disguises, vote early and vote often!!!!

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

ignored, cos it's all just too complicated to find out who voted when...

I think you'll find that they're ignored in the count because the law says they should be ignored in the count. It's not for the returning officer to resolve how people voted in the event of electoral fraud; that's for the election court.

Tendered (pink) ballots are ignored in the count; however they may be considered by an election court following an election petition... Sadly election petitions are relavitvely unusual, due to cost, I gather...

[angelustenebris.livejournal.com]

I think you'll find that I didn't say that tehy were ignored but that that was the Returning Officer's direct quote. You're right, of course, about what happens to them, but in practice no-one cares too much about them, because of the rarity of any petition. It is therefore all too easy to perpretrate electoral fraud should you wish.