Monday, 14 April 2014

ID or not to ID

Should people have to identify themselves before being permitted to vote? By which I mean more than the current, perfunctory "Last name, first name, address" malarkey.

Apparently, voting is important, so they tell us (just exactly who "they" are is not germane); too important to demand proof that you are entitled to cast a ballot. Besides, the poor can't be expected to be able to identify themselves!

Huh? In this country, being "poor" (try looking up how that is actually defined some day) means that you are receiving some of my money (you know, taxes and redistribution and stuff), and to do so, the .gov GIVES you an identity document called a CentreLink card. I would be TOTALLY nonplussed if that was different in any other western country.

So you are either "poor", and thus have a FREE ID, or you are not, and you have some other form of ID that you may or may not have paid for - like a driver's license, a firearms license, a student card, a passport. You know, one of many official documents that come with a photograph.

Just exactly how is it a burden on the free exercise of your right to vote to make you reach into your pocket and flash a plastic card before getting to make your mark?

If it IS a burden on voting rights, then why is it NOT a burden on your right to free stuff to have to carry your CentreLink card to claim payments?

On a related note, I have discovered a way to win the war on poverty overnight.

Define being "poor" as being unable to afford tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, a smart-phone, and an overseas holiday because all the money that you EARN goes on food, shelter, clothing, and other essentials.

I bet you see a 95% reduction in the list of people living in poverty. Now give a million dollars (once) to all those left on the list - it would still be cheaper than the system we have now.

No comments: