Papers, please! Voter ID laws and why they're a bad thing.
A question I keep seeing on social media is this: "Why don't we have stronger voter ID laws in force in New Zealand?" Well, here's my opinion on why we don't, and why that's actually a good thing.
Two points:
1.) Strong voter ID laws have a history of disenfranchising vulnerable members of the population. These same vulnerable people also historically tend to vote for left-wing parties and candidates, because parties on the left wing are more likely to care about their issues.
2.) The incidence of voter fraud in New Zealand is tiny. There is no justification for bringing in stronger laws, when there is no need for them.
Here's a little more depth:
I worked as an issuing officer on election day. We didn't ask voters for ID, because we wanted as many people to be able to vote as possible. Voting is a civil right. Issuing officers are not gatekeepers for that reason.
The way it works is like this: if your name is in the printed electoral rolls held at the voting place, you can cast an ordinary vote. If your name is not in the roll, then you cast a special vote. This includes people who are not sure whether they are enrolled or not. If you know you're not enrolled, and it is election day, you cannot vote. You can enrol to vote at any point until the advance voting places close on the day before election day.
One of the things that issuing officers were taught to do at this election was to ask each voter "Can you confirm that you are [voter's full name]?" as part of the issuing process. (The confirmation just had to be given verbally, but I saw an AWFUL lot of driver's licenses.) That question is the only form of ID that NZ voters were expected to provide.
The ordinary votes are counted at the end of the day, while the special votes go off to be counted at electoral HQ. Part of the reason why special votes take two weeks to count is that they are vetted at HQ, to make absolutely sure that the people who voted are enrolled. If your vote is deemed invalid at that point, that is why. The ordinary votes get recounted at HQ as well, to weed out duplicate votes. Any duplicate votes are deemed ineligible.
The votes that are deemed "informal" on the night -- both candidate informals and party informals -- are those voting papers where the voter's intention is not clear. For example, they may have ticked all the candidates or parties, or not ticked any. A voting paper can be deemed "informal" for a candidate, yet still be deemed a valid party vote if only one part of the ballot paper is unclear, and vice versa. It doesn't matter whether you tick, cross, circle, fill in the tickybox, or cross out every other party or candidate in order to show your intention. You don't even need to mark the tickybox -- you can mark whereever on the page that you want, as long as the counters can figure out who it was you voted for. All votes are vetted thoroughly with strict procedures.
As I said above, voter ID laws historically disenfranchise vulnerable members of the population, who (also historically) tend to vote for left-wing parties. Laws like this have long been used as a tool by right-wing politicians and parties for that reason. If you don't have any ID, you're not going to bother voting even if you're enrolled. And as we all know, low voter turnouts tend to favour the right.
Wanting stronger ID laws means that you're falling for their bullshit. Don't be that person.
Also, what would constitute valid ID? A driver's license? I don't have one. A passport? Can't afford it. Government-issued photo ID costs money. I am a complete election geek, and if stronger voter ID laws were in place, I wouldn't be able to vote. And that scares the HELL out of me. You can bet that if the current government brought in stronger voter ID laws, they'd make the acceptable forms of ID in question to be as limited and as hard to get as possible.
And the incidence of voter fraud in New Zealand, like the incidence of benefit fraud, is tiny. Nobody would do it themselves, but everyone can point to a friend of a friend who "voted heaps of times! I saw it on Facebook!" Like the image of the woman who keeps getting pregnant while she's on a benefit, the stereotype of the evil vote fraudster refuses to die. It's a harmful stereotype, and we need to stop it in its tracks. If you're looking for a reason why National won the most recent election, you should take a good look at their lavish marketing campaign. Not at some made-up bogeyman who is just out to steal your vote.
And if you're angry at the people who didn't vote in this most recent election, and you're STILL worried about voter ID laws not being strict enough? Think again. High voter turnout and strong voter ID laws do not go hand in hand.
It's our right to vote. It's wrong to restrict that right.
Two points:
1.) Strong voter ID laws have a history of disenfranchising vulnerable members of the population. These same vulnerable people also historically tend to vote for left-wing parties and candidates, because parties on the left wing are more likely to care about their issues.
2.) The incidence of voter fraud in New Zealand is tiny. There is no justification for bringing in stronger laws, when there is no need for them.
Here's a little more depth:
I worked as an issuing officer on election day. We didn't ask voters for ID, because we wanted as many people to be able to vote as possible. Voting is a civil right. Issuing officers are not gatekeepers for that reason.
The way it works is like this: if your name is in the printed electoral rolls held at the voting place, you can cast an ordinary vote. If your name is not in the roll, then you cast a special vote. This includes people who are not sure whether they are enrolled or not. If you know you're not enrolled, and it is election day, you cannot vote. You can enrol to vote at any point until the advance voting places close on the day before election day.
One of the things that issuing officers were taught to do at this election was to ask each voter "Can you confirm that you are [voter's full name]?" as part of the issuing process. (The confirmation just had to be given verbally, but I saw an AWFUL lot of driver's licenses.) That question is the only form of ID that NZ voters were expected to provide.
The ordinary votes are counted at the end of the day, while the special votes go off to be counted at electoral HQ. Part of the reason why special votes take two weeks to count is that they are vetted at HQ, to make absolutely sure that the people who voted are enrolled. If your vote is deemed invalid at that point, that is why. The ordinary votes get recounted at HQ as well, to weed out duplicate votes. Any duplicate votes are deemed ineligible.
The votes that are deemed "informal" on the night -- both candidate informals and party informals -- are those voting papers where the voter's intention is not clear. For example, they may have ticked all the candidates or parties, or not ticked any. A voting paper can be deemed "informal" for a candidate, yet still be deemed a valid party vote if only one part of the ballot paper is unclear, and vice versa. It doesn't matter whether you tick, cross, circle, fill in the tickybox, or cross out every other party or candidate in order to show your intention. You don't even need to mark the tickybox -- you can mark whereever on the page that you want, as long as the counters can figure out who it was you voted for. All votes are vetted thoroughly with strict procedures.
As I said above, voter ID laws historically disenfranchise vulnerable members of the population, who (also historically) tend to vote for left-wing parties. Laws like this have long been used as a tool by right-wing politicians and parties for that reason. If you don't have any ID, you're not going to bother voting even if you're enrolled. And as we all know, low voter turnouts tend to favour the right.
Wanting stronger ID laws means that you're falling for their bullshit. Don't be that person.
Also, what would constitute valid ID? A driver's license? I don't have one. A passport? Can't afford it. Government-issued photo ID costs money. I am a complete election geek, and if stronger voter ID laws were in place, I wouldn't be able to vote. And that scares the HELL out of me. You can bet that if the current government brought in stronger voter ID laws, they'd make the acceptable forms of ID in question to be as limited and as hard to get as possible.
And the incidence of voter fraud in New Zealand, like the incidence of benefit fraud, is tiny. Nobody would do it themselves, but everyone can point to a friend of a friend who "voted heaps of times! I saw it on Facebook!" Like the image of the woman who keeps getting pregnant while she's on a benefit, the stereotype of the evil vote fraudster refuses to die. It's a harmful stereotype, and we need to stop it in its tracks. If you're looking for a reason why National won the most recent election, you should take a good look at their lavish marketing campaign. Not at some made-up bogeyman who is just out to steal your vote.
And if you're angry at the people who didn't vote in this most recent election, and you're STILL worried about voter ID laws not being strict enough? Think again. High voter turnout and strong voter ID laws do not go hand in hand.
It's our right to vote. It's wrong to restrict that right.