Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Dreylin]

So is this a speck/log thing, or are the Euros here actually talking about Catalonia right now?

I doubt the Spanish government could have found a more epic way to bungle this .  I hope this doesn't turn into another ETA situation.

Darrell

I dunno, what /do/ you do as a national government once the courts have declared it illegal but the regional government says basically "screw that" and decides to go ahead anyway?

You can't just sit back and let it go ahead because even if it's been declared illegal, the perception of a "free & fair" vote becomes reality. So you have to try to disrupt it to make it invalid, but of course that's not going to stop them declaring victory.

Of course even if you allow it to go ahead and win the vote, it still doesn't go away (Scotland).

[darrelljs]

Democracy is, like, America's thing

The Greeks on the forum are going to be angry with you.

Darrell

[Bacchus]

once the courts have declared it illegal

Never happened. The courts suspended the specific Catalan laws which provided for the referendum. That makes the voting lack legal grounds, rather than illegal [i.e. a crime]. Not sure how putting an empty box in a building or puting a piece of paper in that box can be illegal.

[Huinesoron]

I dunno, what /do/ you do as a national government once the courts have declared it illegal but the regional government says basically "screw that" and decides to go ahead anyway?

You can't just sit back and let it go ahead because even if it's been declared illegal, the perception of a "free & fair" vote becomes reality. So you have to try to disrupt it to make it invalid, but of course that's not going to stop them declaring victory.

Of course even if you allow it to go ahead and win the vote, it still doesn't go away (Scotland).

My suggestion would probably be to treat it as a protest - essentially a petition writ large. Okay: at least 38% of the people in Catalan say they would rather be an independent country (42.3% turnout, with 90% voting for independence). The local government supports them. That speaks of massive issues that you, as the national government, need to address. The first thing you do is thank the people for caring that much, while reminding them that this was not a legal referendum (apparently). The second thing you do is look at their actual grievances and see if you can reasonably fix them.

But governments really hate changing in response to pressure. The failure of repeated strikes by doctors, transport workers, and the like in the UK to create any meaningful change shows that. And taking a reasonable line here would feel too much like giving in.

Which goes back to what I was saying about what governments are for, really. If your response is 'we can't do what the Spanish people want, that would make us weak!', then you're barking up the wrong tree entirely.

[TheHumanHydra]

I've never understood this. What exactly is so difficult about letting everybody vote that America has such trouble with it?

The electoral system I'm used to goes like this:

-They survey every house (by mail; I think we had an option to reply by internet) to see how many people there are eligible to vote.
-(Presumably) in the background, they check to see how many of those people are actually eligible.
-They send a polling card out for each person, saying where their polling station is.
-On election day, the polls are open from about 6am to 10pm. You walk in, tell them your name and address, and they tick off the list that you've been. You vote. You leave.

Our polling station covers a couple of dozen roads; I've been both in the morning and at night, and never encountered queues (at any of the places I've voted, actually, though I've never lived city-centre). We also have access to postal voting, or voting by proxy if need be.

@Huinesoron,

America aside, the "let everyone vote" system that exists in Britain can only exist in a society where no significant force exists that seeks to play unfair. Already in Britain this has ran into significant trouble in Tower Hamlets. In the vast majority of countries, there exists far more infrastructure around voting, and a system similar to a British one would just be laughable and collapse at the first try.

Consider, in the UK, what's stopping people from surveying the electoral roll, which are public, and then just taking a busful of people around the polling stations, and representing themselves as local residents? Nothing except goodwill. And this actually happens in countries where organisations feel comfortable in doing something like this, parties do it. And why wouldn't they?

It works similarly in Canada, though I can't remember any survey; I've always just taken the option to have Revenue Canada share my relevant information with Elections Canada when I file my taxes. To answer the question about bussing around to different polling stations, the government tells you which one to go to and if you go to another one (like, say, if you've moved) you won't be on their list and will have to update your information with them; they will presumably check, at least by random sample, to make sure you haven't double-voted, and if you have you must pay thousands of dollars and possibly go to jail. I'm pretty sure the polling stations don't close until everyone's through, but it only takes you five or ten minutes anyway, because they're everywhere and open late enough (take time off work? What?), and you can vote in advance if you know you can't make it on the day, besides.

[Bacchus]

What I meant is that, armed with a list of names appropriate for each polling station, you bus say 20 people around, and they present themselves as local voters at each station. There will be no double votes, but if the actual voters turn up, they will see that their vote has already been cast.

[TheHumanHydra]

What I meant is that, armed with a list of names appropriate for each polling station, you bus say 20 people around, and they present themselves as local voters at each station. There will be no double votes, but if the actual voters turn up, they will see that their vote has already been cast.

Ooooh. But this is why we have photo ID deriving from official government documents, and proof-of-address from bills or government documents that would have to be forged or stolen. Does the UK not have this? In any case, it doesn't seem to add significant time to the voting process.

[Mr. Cairo]

What I meant is that, armed with a list of names appropriate for each polling station, you bus say 20 people around, and they present themselves as local voters at each station. There will be no double votes, but if the actual voters turn up, they will see that their vote has already been cast.

But there's only one voting card per voter, and you need to present that when you vote. When you register to vote you use your NI (National Insurance, like a SIN) number, and give your address. In order to have an NI number, or change your address on the electoral roll, you need to present proof of address (like a bill). In fact, it might be that the gov't uses the address already associated with your NI number when you register, but I can't remember exactly. In any case, you get your voter card in the mail, and present that at the polling station.

But the main thing preventing people from busing around and pretending to be local voters is the voting card thing. Even if you fake them, it'll be really easy to spot the fraud when the genuine locals turn up with their cards and try and vote, and I imagine they do random testing to look for fake cards.

Edit: nevermind, turns out I misremembered. I guess there's nothing stopping people from pretending to be someone else and voting that way, even if it's a wildly impractical way of trying to rig an election

[TheHumanHydra]

But there's only one voting card per voter, and you need to present that when you vote.

Er, yeah, that too. I derped.

[Bacchus]

But this is why we have photo ID deriving from official government documents

That's exactly the subject of discussion, neither in the UK, nor, until recently, in the US, did you have to present any form of ID at all. The alleged disenfranchisement is the requirement to present a piece of photo ID (driver's license, id card, passport, etc)