On 08/01/14 11:48, Owen Blacker wrote: > The Electoral Commission wants to risk further disenfranchising > minorities to solve a problem which does not exist. > > http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/01/08/why-voter-id-will-disenfranchise-minorities
"It is all very well for the Electoral Commission to say that none of these problems reared their heads in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a significantly different demographic make-up to England. There is no point comparing the effect there to the effect in urban London." And yet this article seems to think it's instead directly comparable to North America. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. "The plan is also worryingly close to introducing a form of ID cards by the back door. It demands that citizens posses proof of identity before they may carry out their right to vote. It's a dangerous precedent." I would like someone to make a cogent case that it's entirely reasonable for people not to have to prove, to at least some degree, they are person X before they cast person X's vote. I agree that a voter ID law should not be used to introduce ID cards by the back door, and I agree that we don't need passport-level ID proofs to keep fraud at acceptable levels (which is what "fraud prevention" really does). But I'm uneasy about ORG campaigning for the idea that identifying a voter is who they claim to be is in no way important. Gerv -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [email protected] or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
