hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826 
|
Post by hedgehog on Jan 8, 2016 20:59:19 GMT
Fraud would be facilitated by centralisation of information. Tax and benefit fraud are clearly facilitated by the lack of integrated information, its all too easy to make false housing benefit claims. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Jan 8, 2016 21:46:33 GMT
Fraud would be facilitated by centralisation of information. Tax and benefit fraud are clearly facilitated by the lack of integrated information, its all too easy to make false housing benefit claims. I was thinking in terms of identity theft facilitating far not forms of fraud. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 8, 2016 23:44:03 GMT
I think Stuart is being a bit disingenuous by proxy. It's all very well saying that all intending voters have to do is fill in a form, but those pushing IER and the boundary review based on strict electorate statistics know perfectly well that not everyone will bother to fill in the form. They also know that those who don't bother are overwhelmingly in social groups less likely to vote Conservative, and also living in areas where the Conservatives are not competitive. I'm still of the opinion that automatic voter registration should be instituted. Your post suggests that Conservative voters are 1) brighter 2) better educated 3) more civic minded 4) more responsible and 5) actually give a fcuk. If so surely that is a condemnation of the supporters of another well known national party? And should that reason lead to registration by third party to tidy up after their could not care less attitude? If so, why do you suggest it? Purely for party political advantage? If so, is that a good enough reason to expend public money and effort? And if again said persons cannot be bothered to register what of earth makes you think they will vote? And if they don't will the same team be required to 'vote them' just as it did to 'register them'? is it too much to ask a citizen to register by taking a few minutes over a form and then using the Freepost option? If so, just where are we leading this Molock citizenry to and for what possible purpose? It is a very Eloi proposal. My second take on this wonders if the fall in numbers merely reflects the absenting of sham/phony/ghost voters who had never lived there or once lived there or were associated there as one of many locations where they were registered during periods of no permanent abode, studentship, many abodes, frequent movement? I would still like the registration to be made at the registration office in person and unaccompanied by a helper/agent/responsible person/spiritual leader/community elder/ parent/husband. I would further like the registration to involve use of ID Cards production, but as we don't have them (yet) I suggest use of the NIC number and use of a national cross check to see who has registered in more than one place so that a simple routine can be followed at general elections to ensure no one votes more than once or in more than one place. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jan 8, 2016 23:49:04 GMT
The issue is that the rights that come with citizenship are not supposed to be conditional.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 8, 2016 23:50:53 GMT
The issue is that the rights that come with citizenship are not supposed to be conditional. Why not? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 10, 2016 10:53:53 GMT
When we hear where people have dropped off, I'll be surprised if the correlation is strongest with Labour vote. Areas with relatively settled communities are likely to see comparatively small changes, regardless of voting intention. The correlation will be strongest with the proportion of private renters and with the proportion who've recently moved, for the fairly obvious reason that most people's first action when they move is not to check they're able to vote at the next set of elections. That applies as much to Conservative as to Labour voters, it's just that Labour voters are more likely to be private renters or to move regularly.
You can call it laziness, but politics is not the first thing on most people's minds and we should acknowledge this. A democracy guided by the votes of people like me and carlton would be a godawful trainwreck. You need the input of people who have less strong opinions and therefore you need to make it easy for them to participate. IER is obviously better than household registration (though it'll do nothing to stop fraud, because if you're already inventing a person then it's not a big stretch to invent an NI number), but it does need to be more comprehensive. Things like American 'motor voter' laws (though in our case, I think the better linkage would be with council tax and/or GP registration) would be easy to implement and would make a major difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 10, 2016 14:13:54 GMT
When we hear where people have dropped off, I'll be surprised if the correlation is strongest with Labour vote. Areas with relatively settled communities are likely to see comparatively small changes, regardless of voting intention. The correlation will be strongest with the proportion of private renters and with the proportion who've recently moved, for the fairly obvious reason that most people's first action when they move is not to check they're able to vote at the next set of elections. That applies as much to Conservative as to Labour voters, it's just that Labour voters are more likely to be private renters or to move regularly. You can call it laziness, but politics is not the first thing on most people's minds and we should acknowledge this. A democracy guided by the votes of people like me and carlton would be a godawful trainwreck. You need the input of people who have less strong opinions and therefore you need to make it easy for them to participate. IER is obviously better than household registration (though it'll do nothing to stop fraud, because if you're already inventing a person then it's not a big stretch to invent an NI number), but it does need to be more comprehensive. Things like American 'motor voter' laws (though in our case, I think the better linkage would be with council tax and/or GP registration) would be easy to implement and would make a major difference. I disagree. A democracy informed and guided by people like you and me would be infinitely preferable in every respect. We make our choices on the basis of a lifetime of educated informed involvement with many aspects of our society. We understand and engage with many perhaps even most of the important issues. A distillation of all those carltons and EALs across the nation is the very best form of real democracy. You believe that the wider the mandate and the higher the turnout the more useful and democratic the result. I utterly reject that form of thinking. A 100% turnout would result in the dilution of informed participatory involvement to a cheap tawdry result much more based in half-truths half-understood, pap populist views imbibed undiluted from media source of preference, fashionable nonsense, celeb hanger-on credulity, tribal community nonsense, envy, malice, prejudice and every form of thoughtless slackness. The more I think of it the more I want registration to be more difficult, rigorous and certain. Personal, unaccompanied, face-to-face registration at the Registration Offices, involving the production of passport/driving licence/household bills/bank statement/etc., and far more restrictive access to postal voting with a more rigorous check on the supporting evidence with the postal vote, and more attention to the nature of that supporting evidence. I would consider abandoning the right to proxy voting altogether. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 9:29:28 GMT
That's surely the true purpose of the exercise. ... Sent from my GT-I9195 using proboards At last, someone seeing through the cheap Tory's attempts to cheat elections by grossly underepresentating cities and students. Oh do give over. Getting rid of "twelve in a house" fake registrations is very important, this nonsense about victimising students is crap. Utter crap. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 11, 2016 10:11:28 GMT
At last, someone seeing through the cheap Tory's attempts to cheat elections by grossly underepresentating cities and students. Oh do give over. Getting rid of "twelve in a house" fake registrations is very important, this nonsense about victimising students is crap. Utter crap. Except that IER doesn't prevent fake registrations and it has demonstrably had an effect on student registration. Although incidentally, certain university cities did see a rise in electorate in the run-up to the general election, due to successful registration campaigns (Cambridge was one.) I haven't made an exhaustive study of it, but they seemed to be primarily Russell Group whereas the falls were largest amongst Million+ campuses. So in fact it's effect is less to under-represent students and more to under-represent poorer and less middle-class students. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 14:04:43 GMT
Oh do give over. Getting rid of "twelve in a house" fake registrations is very important, this nonsense about victimising students is crap. Utter crap. Except that IER doesn't prevent fake registrations and it has demonstrably had an effect on student registration. Although incidentally, certain university cities did see a rise in electorate in the run-up to the general election, due to successful registration campaigns (Cambridge was one.) I haven't made an exhaustive study of it, but they seemed to be primarily Russell Group whereas the falls were largest amongst Million+ campuses. So in fact it's effect is less to under-represent students and more to under-represent poorer and less middle-class students. Students have been overrepresented because of double registration. They still will probably be overrepresented to an extent. I would limit registration for the GE register to one seat per person. Ultimately the fair end result should be that the number of votes cast per seat is similar. I imagine this helps to achieve this somewhat. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 11, 2016 14:14:12 GMT
So low turnout areas get lower representation?
Got any other brilliant gerrymandering ideas? Perhaps constituencies could be equalised on the basis of annual income tax receipts? Or output of agricultural produce?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 15:22:26 GMT
So low turnout areas get lower representation? Got any other brilliant gerrymandering ideas? Perhaps constituencies could be equalised on the basis of annual income tax receipts? Or output of agricultural produce? Perhaps I'm being dim here, or simply blind to something very obvious, but I can't get my head around the principle which supposedly underlies objections raised in this thread to the new electoral registration system and its application to the forthcoming parliamentary redistribution. I'm not having a go at Davıd Boothroyd specifically here. Why should the census - which is carried out decennially, is notoriously inaccurate, published late, and and increasingly meaningless after the first year - be preferable to the electoral register, which (though subject to some of the same shortcomings) is compiled annually and cross-checked aginst other data sources? Given the significant disparities in age structure between different areas, why should gross population figures be used to calculate electoral representation? Should not voters rather than all persons (as far as possible) have equal value? If not, why? The issue of electoral fraud - raised several times on this thread - is a distinct one, though related. I'm an acquaintance of Cllr. Peter Golds, who was instrumental in exposing the abominations going on in Tower Hamlets, just a couple of miles to the west of here, where Labour was the main victim. He has made five proposals which I support - - A review of postal voting on demand.
- Prosecutions for falsified electoral registration.
- An end to the mobbing of polling stations.
- An end to interference with voting inside polling stations themselves.
- A requirement to produce a form of ID when receiving a ballot paper.
However, equal weight for equal votes seems even more fundamental.
Once again, what am I missing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 11, 2016 15:32:41 GMT
We do have equal weight for equal votes. Everyone's vote is worth 1.
The Member of Parliament represents the whole constituency, not just those on the electoral register. No MP would turn away a piece of casework from someone in their constituency merely because the person bringing it up was not registered.
You don't seem to have spotted that the main problem with the electoral register isn't that it contains a few hundred bogus entries, but that it fails to contain entries for several million people who are entitled to register but haven't. The Census is far, far more accurate at finding people.
|
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Jan 11, 2016 15:43:56 GMT
So low turnout areas get lower representation? Got any other brilliant gerrymandering ideas? Perhaps constituencies could be equalised on the basis of annual income tax receipts? Or output of agricultural produce? Perhaps I'm being dim here, or simply blind to something very obvious, but I can't get my head around the principle which supposedly underlies objections raised in this thread to the new electoral registration system and its application to the forthcoming parliamentary redistribution. I'm not having a go at Davıd Boothroyd specifically here. Why should the census - which is carried out decennially, is notoriously inaccurate, published late, and and increasingly meaningless after the first year - be preferable to the electoral register, which (though subject to some of the same shortcomings) is compiled annually and cross-checked aginst other data sources? Given the significant disparities in age structure between different areas, why should gross population figures be used to calculate electoral representation? Should not voters rather than all persons (as far as possible) have equal value? If not, why? The issue of electoral fraud - raised several times on this thread - is a distinct one, though related. I'm an acquaintance of Cllr. Peter Golds, who was instrumental in exposing the abominations going on in Tower Hamlets, just a couple of miles to the west of here, where Labour was the main victim. He has made five proposals which I support - - A review of postal voting on demand.
- Prosecutions for falsified electoral registration.
- An end to the mobbing of polling stations.
- An end to interference with voting inside polling stations themselves.
- A requirement to produce a form of ID when receiving a ballot paper.
However, equal weight for equal votes seems even more fundamental.
Once again, what am I missing?
What are you missing ? Lots 1 example , the abuse of votes in Brighton ( and other South Coast resorts ) nursing homes carried out by mostly Conservatives over the last 50 plus years . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 16:02:13 GMT
We do have equal weight for equal votes. Everyone's vote is worth 1. The Member of Parliament represents the whole constituency, not just those on the electoral register. No MP would turn away a piece of casework from someone in their constituency merely because the person bringing it up was not registered. You don't seem to have spotted that the main problem with the electoral register isn't that it contains a few hundred bogus entries, but that it fails to contain entries for several million people who are entitled to register but haven't. The Census is far, far more accurate at finding people. That is disingenuous: you are perfectly aware that what I'm referring to is the weight of a vote in one constituency compared to that in another with a significantly different registered electorate. No MP would turn away a piece of casework from someone in their constituency merely because the person bringing it up was not registered.
That is even more disingenuous: nobody has suggested that he (or she) would. What empirical evidence is there that changing the system will disenfranchise "millions of people" as opposed to simply removing dead entries? It may be a reasonable assumption that "bedsit land" contains a higher than average proportion of unregistered people, but how to quantify that? And how appropriate would it be to overweight electorates in constituencies which are assumed to be affected in any case? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 16:06:30 GMT
Lots 1 example , the abuse of votes in Brighton ( and other South Coast resorts ) nursing homes carried out by mostly Conservatives over the last 50 plus years . The abuse of postal votes I have already mentioned, and proxy votes are a similar case. However, that is also irrelevant to my main point, which is about who should be on the register in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 11, 2016 16:31:42 GMT
If you're accusing me of being disingenuous, then I have to ask: Are you being deliberately thick? On the first point you've managed to lose yourself in your own argument. 'The weight of a vote in one constituency compared to that in another with a significantly different electorate' cannot possibly matter because they never come into contact; it is not about the weight of votes at all. What you plainly mean is to compare the level of representation in Parliament, not the number of votes. But the point to be made about that is that is what we have, approximately, under the previous rules (save for a deliberate over-representation of Wales which I agree should now be ended). Concentrating on egregious over- or under-sized constituencies obscures the fact that most constituency electorates are actually fairly close to the quota. Insisting that they are confined within a very narrow band might be argued to cure a very minor problem, but at the cost of causing a much bigger one - it means there have to be constituencies that have no logic to them. We sometimes call this the Mersey Banks problem. While you sail away crossing the Mersey estuary, my second point seems to have flown right over your head. The fact is that Members of Parliament don't just represent electors; they also represent the unregistered, whether they are entitled to register or not. So if you want equal representation of areas of the country, then that means equal numbers of people - not electors. (And don't try suggesting this is a political fix. There is an argument in principle for trying to equalise casework loads, which would mean inner city constituencies would become very small indeed.) What empirical evidence is there about the terrible state of the electoral register? Lots. Here are all the Electoral Commission reports on the accuracy and completeness of the Electoral Register: www.electoralcommission.org.uk/our-work/our-research/electoral-registration-researchIf you look at the most recent, you'll find that the Local Government Register was 84.7% complete in 2014, that being under household registration. The number not correctly registered is given as "Approximately 7.5 million". And there isn't anyone who disagrees that IER will mean fewer registrations. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 11, 2016 16:41:59 GMT
While you sail away crossing the Mersey estuary, my second point seems to have flown right over your head. The fact is that Members of Parliament don't just represent electors; they also represent the unregistered, whether they are entitled to register or not. So if you want equal representation of areas of the country, then that means equal numbers of people - not electors. (And don't try suggesting this is a political fix. There is an argument in principle for trying to equalise casework loads, which would mean inner city constituencies would become very small indeed.) Out of curiousity, how much difference would it make between drawing constituencies based on total population, and drawing them based upon total adult population? Given that children will generally be accessing their representatives through their parents, I could see a much better case for the latter than the former. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,772
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 11, 2016 17:42:46 GMT
If you look at the most recent, you'll find that the Local Government Register was 84.7% complete in 2014, that being under household registration. The number not correctly registered is given as "Approximately 7.5 million". And there isn't anyone who disagrees that IER will mean fewer registrations. That's not a problem if the register is under-registered, it just makes the register a proxy for population, multiply the register by 1000/847 and you get the population. It's only a problem if different registers have different under/over registrations in different areas when using those registers to group those numbers together. If you have an area where odd numbered subdivisions are under-registered and even numbered divisions are over-registered it makes no difference to apportionment if that apportionment groups under- and over- registered subdivisions together equally. (eg a90 a110 b90 b110 c90 c110 d90 d110 would give 90+110 90+110 90+110 90+110, 4 sets of 200) It becomes a problem for apportionment if under- and over- registered subdivisions are not evenly grouped together. (eg a90 a90 b100 b120 c120 c100 d90 d90 would give 90+90 100+120 120+100 90+90, 2 sets of 180 and 2 sets of 220) For a lot of apportionment purposes variation in registration is not sufficiently concentrated for it to not get balanced out amongst a spread of other variations in the local area that it is grouped with, so for a lot of apportionment purposes the register is a fixed multiple proxy for population. Yes, the wider the area you are considering and the wider the apportionment units you group subunits into the more those variations have a chance to become visible. For instance, in Sheffield the population is a fairly consistant 1.46 times the electorate(1), in Whitby the population is 1.24 times the electorate(2). But, using the register is an arthimetically valid way of subdividing Sheffield by population, or subdividing Whitby by population; but not of subdividing a conjoined SheffieldWhitby. In the run up the the current Sheffield ward review I did some research on population vs registered electorate across Sheffield(3). Most people's initial expectations are that "poor" areas are under-registered, so I expected, in common with popularly-voiced opinion, that Brightside would be under-registered. I was surprised to find it wasn't. Or rather, it was, but it was only under-registered by just about exactly the same as the rest of the city. Almost every ward in Sheffield has a few percent fewer adults with UK citizenship voting rights as listed on the electoral register as the same as counted in the census. Three wards stood out from the varying around the mean. Central was 10% below the mean, probably due to a combination of rapid housing development and population increasing faster than the register could keep up, and lots of overseas students, boosting the nominal number of eligible adults in the census numbers. Ecclesall and Fulwood were noticably above the mean. The reasons for that I found harder to pin down. My best guess was that those areas could have a higher-than-average number of students studying outside Sheffield but still registered in Sheffield, so boosting the register numbers but retarding the census numbers. However, the conclusion was that for the purpose the numbers were being used for , ie, chopping up Sheffield into 28 subunits, the electoral register figures were a close enough proxy to the population to be a proxy for population. So, yes, elector numbers are not a perfect proxy for population numbers, but depending on what you are using them for they are a close enough proxy for population numbers. (1) Sheffield 2011 census: 551,800; 2011 register: 375,862 (2) Whitby 2011 census: 13,213; 2011 register: 10,626. (3) mdfs.net/maps/Sheffield/lgbr2013/evidence/Registration.doc |
|
