Saying who we say we are

for the purpose of voting is surely just commonsense? 

A little while back in this blog I mentioned that there is a move to try and compel people to provide ID before they vote. This is being opposed by some. 

For those of you who are not familiar with the Downunder voting system I need to explain two things. 

First, we have a system of "compulsory voting". What this actually means is there is compulsory attendance at the ballot box. Nobody can actually force you to vote but you are required to accept the ballot papers and then return them. Between accepting them and returning them it is expected you will "mark" them - i.e. vote.

Second, because of this system we have an "electoral roll". The public form of this is a list of all the people in the electorate who have enrolled to vote. If you are a citizen then you are required to be on the electoral roll. The roll has your full name and your address - nothing more. There is a "silent" roll for people who may be at risk of harm or harassment.  

In order to be entered on to the electoral roll you need be a citizen and provide an appropriate form of ID - or be vouched for by  someone who is on the roll.

If you cannot get to a polling station you can have what is known as a "postal vote" - the papers will be posted to you and you can post them back or give them to someone you trust to take to a polling station. Someone on the electoral roll has to witness your signature on the envelope - and both are checked.

If you do go to a polling station then, at present, you can simply walk in and say "I am ...." You will then be asked if you have already voted in the election being held and then given the ballot papers. The name is then ruled off - something designed to prevent people from voting more than once.

It is a fairly simple system. There is room for voter fraud. 

I know something about this because some years ago I did some research into the problems people with disabilities had when trying to exercise their right to vote. In doing so I came across other groups who were also experiencing problems. 

How widespread the problems are is difficult to ascertain.  Some people were unaware that their right to make a choice was being taken from them. Others felt under pressure to "do as I was told" and some never voted at all. What happened was that somebody else would go to the polling station and say, "I am..." and that was all they needed to do in order to obtain the vote of another person.

This was happening not just to people with disabilities but to the very frail and elderly, to some people in ethnic communities - particularly the  women, and to others in difficult domestic circumstances. It was clear that the problems were more widespread than any government has wanted to admit. Having to produce any form of ID would have markedly reduced this problem.

So why don't people want a system where people are required to produce ID in order to exercise their right to vote? The argument that some people won't have ID is not something I can go along with. The number of people affected by that would be miniscule - because you needed ID in order to get on the roll in the first place.  The number of people who have their vote taken from them by others would be much higher. It might also cause some names to be removed from the roll - those of people who have died or are not competent to vote. 

This is not about people losing the right to vote. It is about people gaining the right to vote and to vote according to their own wishes. Those who oppose this move must believe it would benefit the party they support.