Is it universally understood? By whom? In the US sure, but in my country it’s always been mandatory to ID yourself when voting. It kind of makes sense to me.
I also see a lot of weasel wording in this article. “Anecdotal evidence … suggested some people may have been unfairly treated because of their race.” and it quotes a single case of a lady with a disability that was denied entry.
It does also list a number of legitimate concerns, but those are not inherent to the concept of voter id but rather (intentionally?) poor implementation.
I don’t trust the tories any further than I can throw them and I’d happily believe they’re deliberately trying to exclude some groups but this article is very poorly written and the guardian feels like it’s falling more and more into clickbait/ragebait territory.
Is it universally understood? By whom? In the US sure, but in my country it’s always been mandatory to ID yourself when voting. It kind of makes sense to me.
I also see a lot of weasel wording in this article. “Anecdotal evidence … suggested some people may have been unfairly treated because of their race.” and it quotes a single case of a lady with a disability that was denied entry.
It does also list a number of legitimate concerns, but those are not inherent to the concept of voter id but rather (intentionally?) poor implementation.
I don’t trust the tories any further than I can throw them and I’d happily believe they’re deliberately trying to exclude some groups but this article is very poorly written and the guardian feels like it’s falling more and more into clickbait/ragebait territory.