Voter ID led to racial and disability discrimination

I dont drive so Ive just paid best part of £100 for a new passport purely for ID purposes as I dont intend to travel abroad again.

It's totally unnecessary given the lack of evidence for voter fraud. It's political parties that need watching.

Before there was postal voting, people complained that they were disenfranchised because of physical disability, or being on treatment or suffering an illness that meant you were immunocompromised.
We now have postal voting.

The question is

Was it necessary to prevent voter fraud.

The answer

No

I'm afraid that personal views of what one would do contribute nothing to the debate. Every individual has the right to choose to vote in whatever way they would like to. It's not up for criticism.

Bear with me but if I were immunocompromised my preferred option would be a postal vote. In fact we have had postal voting for a number of years.

Hmm. I'm a pensioner and disabled - neither prevents me from proving who I am.

If I wanted to, I could have a postal vote. Many disabled/older/other people use this system.

Our local council advertised, for months, how everyone could get a free ID card, so cost wasn't an issue.

I have to prove who I am to do a lot of things, especially with government/banking, so I can't see the need for the fuss.

This issue is not a hill I'd choose to die on in battle. The system is here to stay now.

Then it has done what it was intended to do.

I think that the fact that the report still supports voter ID makes their conclusions more valid than if they they were recommending abolishing voter ID.

Where’s the hard evidence?
Saying that polling clerks are more likely to fail to etc is not evidence.
The case of Andrea Barrat wasn’t discriminatory, she could have a postal vote.Of course they refused her if she wouldn’t unmask so they could have a quick peek.What does she do at passport control in an airport?
I’d be wary of this report.The next time around for voting people will be more aware of what they need to do to cast their vote in person, but can always do the easy thing and vote by post.

MaizieD Now please explain why it ......
Actually I don't have to explain anything. I asked a question and you tried to answer it.

From an Electoral Commission overview of electoral fraud over 5 years:

In the past 5 years, there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud.

Of the 1,386 cases of alleged electoral fraud reported to police between 2018 and 2022, 9 led to convictions and the police issued 6 cautions.

Most cases either resulted in the police taking no further action or were locally resolved by the police issuing words of advice.

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/electoral-fraud-data

Now please explain why it was necessary to disenfranchise at least 14,000 voters, and to allow the possibility of racial and disability discrimination on the strength of 9 convictions and 6 cautions (cautions being more serious than the general public realise) over 5 years? Disenfranchisement is far more likely to skew the result of an election than is practically non existent voter fraud.

How would you prevent voter fraud which we know has happened in the past?

I bet here was age discrimination as well.

They were warned.

They don’t care