Not permitted to vote?

I was interested to learn that some form of ID is apparently now required if you wish to vote in an election in England. There have also been some serious concerns expressed that this has prevented some people from exercising their right to vote. 

As I really don't know enough about what is happening there to express an opinion I will say no more. I can however say something about the situation in this country.

We do not currently need any form of ID to vote. If our name appears on the electoral roll (and we are required to register) then we must vote. Very few people are exempt from voting, mostly on religious grounds.

When we go to vote we are asked if we have voted in that election before, our names are manually crossed off the roll, and we are given the papers. We must "mark" the papers and put them in the relevant boxes.  

In reality there is nothing to stop people putting in blank ballot papers. There is no actual requirement to vote as such. Officials will however prevent you from taking the ballot papers you receive directly to the relevant boxes because of the requirement to "mark" them. I am well aware of someone I know who claims he always writes "none of the above" and then puts the papers in the boxes. It is almost certainly true. He "doesn't believe" in the voting process.

I have also met someone who was investigated because he was assumed to have voted more than once. When the rolls were checked it was discovered his name had been crossed off in multiple locations. Fortunately for him he had actually had a postal vote and was out of the country on the day of the election. Someone else was trying to make trouble for him. The authorities had a good idea of who it might have been but it was never proven. It did however mean that someone else managed to vote enough times to cancel out his own legitimate vote.

There was also an occasion when, following election day, we woke up to the news that a small group of troublemakers had apparently managed to vote more than hundred times. They must have spent some time planning and researching it because they apparently used the names of people not likely or not able to vote. If they were ever caught we did not hear about it.

Exactly how they did it is something I don't know but I do know it was possible because there is no requirement to present any form of ID when you tell the electoral staff who you are. All you need to do is state your name and address and that you have not already voted in that election. 

There are also many, many breaches of trust where people require assistance to fill out the ballot papers. It is an issue which I once researched and presented to a Senate Inquiry. They questioned me at length. Despite the findings and the acknowledgment there was an issue nothing has changed. It is probably considered "too hard" and "not likely to make a difference". I continue to disagree. 

It is a matter of "trust" I suppose and our Electoral Commission seems to be satisfied that it works, that very few people abuse that trust. It may well be true. I don't know. They may also suggest that the amount of fraud is so small it makes no difference to the outcome. I am less sure about that. Elections can be manipulated. Our "preferential" system is wide open to it. The major parties will tell you they don't participate in it but it happens, especially when people unthinkingly follow the "how to vote" (for me) card handed to them just a few metres from the entrance to the polling station.

I have said elsewhere in this blog - and on more than one occasion - I believe there is a right to vote. I also believe it is a responsibility. I do not however believe anyone should be compelled to vote or even to "attend the ballot box". I also strongly object to anyone stealing the vote of another. We have both compulsion and the strong possibility of theft, especially of the less able, in this country.

The vast majority of people do have a form of ID here. The question has to be whether we need to use it to prevent an abuse of trust.