this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4427 readers
247 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The authors found that “polling clerks are more likely to fail to compare a photo ID to the person presenting that document if the person is of a different ethnicity”.

They also highlighted the case of Andrea Barratt, who is immunocompromised and was blocked from entering a polling booth after refusing to remove her mask for an identification check.

WTF am I even reading? The problem is that some clerks are too stupid to identify non-white persons? And that someone else refused to take off the mask for 2 seconds to show her face!!?

At least it's not the usual racist bullshit from the US where non-white people are allegedly too stupid and/or poor to get an ID...

[–] Mex@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Exactly as everybody warned.

[–] throw4w4y5@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

this was always the plan, since minorities and disabled citizens in the UK tend not to vote conservative.

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Meanwhile Labour plan to give people with Settled Status the vote, who they probably expect to vote for them. This cherry picking of the electorate isn't going to benefit anyone.

[–] Shalakushka@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago

Yes, disenfranchising people is exactly the same as enfranchising people, your big centrist brain has it all figured out

[–] omgitsaheadcrab@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But surely you can't just let people vote without identifying them?

[–] Oneeightnine@feddit.uk 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I mean, for a start it's a solution without a problem. We don't really have an issue with voter fraud in the UK. All this has done is disenfranchise people who could previously vote without needing an often costly ID.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] WellThisIsNew@fjdk.uk 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It costs time and effort, something that disabled people often have less of.

Voter fraud is extremely low in the UK, and most of what does occur isn't stopped by these changes (the most common type is, for example, parents submitting a postal vote on behalf of their (18+) children without asking them), So here's a question for you:

If the number of people disuaded from voting due to the new ID laws significantly outnumber* the amount of fraud that's prevented by this law, was the law a positive change?

*To the point that it has a larger effect on election outcome

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 2 years ago

We've had voter I.D. here in Northern Ireland for ages and I haven't heard any complaints

[–] ByteWizard@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago

And less votes for their guy, which is the actual problem. Saying minorities can't get an ID is pure racism. But it's fine when they do it.