Here’s the response I’ve sent to the Electoral Registration Transformation Programme ([email protected]) in response to the consultation on the draft legislation for individual electoral registration, which closes on 14 October. For the background on the benefits of individual electoral registration, see What’s the point of switching to individual electoral registration?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft legislation which has been published to implement individual electoral registration in Great Britain. The publication of a full draft for public consultation is a very welcome improvement on the way in which some other electoral changes have been handled in recent years.
On the principle of individual electoral registration, I am very supportive of the government’s intention to introduce it. During the years I was attending the Electoral Commission’s Political Parties Panel on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, representatives of all the main parties frequently expressed their support for the principle, so seeing it introduced is a welcome response to those long-standing calls from across the political spectrum and from the independent regulator, the Electoral Commission.
In that respect I agree with Michael Wills, the then Labour Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, who said in Parliament on 13 July 2009, “I hope that all Members will agree that this historic shift will enrich our democracy”.
I agree though with the government’s proposal to scrap the intermediary “voluntary individual registration” phrase proposed by Michael Wills as it would have provided an intermediary phase with few of the benefits but many of the costs of a full individual registration scheme.
There are, however, two points of important detail on which I disagree with the government’s proposals.
First, it is proposed to remove the legal requirement to register to vote. I oppose this as a proposal being made at the wrong time, in the wrong way and without full consideration of its impact as key factors are missing from the official Impact Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis:
- It is a significant shift in the principle of electoral registration which, regardless of its inherent merits, has not been preceded by the extensive debate, cross-party agreement and Electoral Commission support which the principle of introducing individual registration has.
- The proposal is not necessary to make individual electoral registration work, and to introduce such a major change of principle at the same time as introducing individual electoral registration risks undermining the primary aim unnecessarily by reducing registration rates at the very time when the switch to individual registration makes maintaining them more challenging.
- By making electoral registration voluntary, the change would also in effect be making jury service voluntary, given the reliance on the electoral register for jury service. I note the phrase “jury service” does not appear once in Cm 8108: Individual Electoral Registration nor in the accompanying Impact Assessment. If the government is intending to create a new separate system to avoid making jury service voluntary, it is a major flaw in the consultation for it not to be mentioned (and it is hard to see how it can be intending to create such a system without introducing costs which are not mentioned in the official Cost Benefit Analysis). Alternatively, if the impact on jury service has simply not been considered, that in itself would be a major reason to drop the proposal as it means the government’s decision-making process has omitted a significant issue.
- The Impact Assessment refers to the advantages in fighting crime of an accurate and complete electoral register, yet it does not consider the consequence impediment to fighting crime from voluntary registration reducing the completeness of the electoral register.
In other words, making electoral registration voluntary is not a necessary part of individual registration, has been raised as an idea relatively late in the day and would have important impacts on jury service and crime fighting which are omitted from the official Impact Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis, as well as not being mentioned in Cm 8108.
The obvious conclusion from that is that this is a rushed proposal that has not been properly considered. The sensible response therefore is to drop it.
The second point on which I disagree is the suggestion that a full annual canvass, with comprehensive door knocking, might not be carried out in 2014, and instead be replaced with a predominantly posted-out system based on records that, as the Impact Assessment itself acknowledges, will contain many errors.
Given both the importance of accurate electoral registers in the run-up to a general election and also the need to communicate with people the changes being introduced, maintaining a full annual canvass in 2014 would bring two major benefits. Moreover, given the risk of a post-general election drop in registration levels in 2015 which then affects the electoral register to be used for the next Parliamentary boundary review, there is a strong case to continue with a full canvass in 2015 and only subsequently review the options for reduced canvassing.
Yours etc.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Another myth that should die: The Victorians covered table legs out because they thought were indecent
Graphics and AV tools for solo consultants
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Barry Smith
Steve Trevethan
Tim Rogers
Simon R
Sue Doughty
16 Comments
as usual, all the bases covered. Would expect nothing less from you Mark.
Horrified. I had no idea it was proposed to drop compulsory registration. As you rightly say, this is a completely separate issue, with quite different arguments (and with quite predictable political effects, benefitting guess-who), and should not be bundled up with individual registration.
In the long run, theres a good Liberal case for making Registration volountary but you are right that such a change needs to go through an open consultation first.
I strongly agree with continuing the full canvass. I have worked on several canvasses in various Inner London Boroughs & found them a great opportunity to talk to people about the absolute basics of why & how Democracy works.
There is no Liberal case for making registration voluntary. There is a reacrtionary rightwing libertarian case but that is not Liberal. It is a stupid and potentially disastrous proposal which can only have come from a wish to keep off non-Tory voters.
Tony Greaves
Tony: I look forward to the amendments you move in the Lords when the legislation goes through!
There absolutely is a liberal case for voluntary voter registration. No one should be compelled to participate in the political process to any extent whatsoever. The electoral roll should be used for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to ensure those who wish to engage receive the necessary paperwork to be able to vote in elections. Nothing more; nothing less. By all means encourage people to participate, but mandate? No. That runs counter to my liberal philosophy.
And as for jury duty, I know this is a minority view, but the idea that we throw the execution of justice to the whims of members of the public who inevitably are swayed unduly by irrelevant non-evidential factors absolutely terrifies me. By all means, have the appropriate constitutional checks and balances on the judicial arm of government, but that does not require a charade in the form of mandatory participation. It doesn’t matter if they’re citizens who are involved in the political process or those who are not; they’re not appropriate for serving justice.
What is the penalty for not registering to vote? Has anyone ever been prosecuted?
Shouldn’t there be a discount on council tax for those who do register, thus penalising those who don’t.
Tony Greaves is right, this is a disastrous proposal. Of course individual liberty is important but so is a healthy and engaged democracy. Liberals should be very cautious about supporting a proposal that is likely to mainly benefit the already powerful Conservative Party.
I join the Pack/Greaves ticket here. Tony is absolutely right to draw a distinction between extreme libetarianism and Liberalism – a distinction which needs more airing than it tends to get .
Voluntary registration leads to a swathe of people who fail to see the importance of involvement in democracy being excluded from all decision-making – to say nothing of jury service. Is that right? Some countries with liberal traditions make voting compulsory and I for one have some sympathy with that (you can always spoil your vote) but certainly voluntary self-exclusion from the register is a complete no-no to me.
The demos compelled is scarcely a demos at all. The arguments about who they benefit are at best secondary considerations; otherwise we’d be arguing for thoroughly illiberal responses like compulsory voting, which serves to divore even more thoroughly participation from engagement in the democratic process. The former counts for nothing without the latter.
But the Demos is not compelled at all. Every elector has a right to determine whether they will vote or not right up till 10 pm on polling day. But only if they are registered. What do they lose thereby?
I think that every single person should have a legal duty to ensure that the names of every person residing in the place that they reside is passed on to the authorities. What is lost thereby?
Perhaps we should not be forced to register for taxes either?
From an American perspective, where voter registration is voluntary, I can tell you that the result is a strong incentive for parties with particular ethnic, regional, or class bases to game the system by working to suppress registration in particular regions or among particular groups, and boost it in others. The end result is that fewer people participate in democracy, the tone of campaigns becomes sharply negative (because that helps drive down the vote), and the parties with the deepest pockets benefit. Don’t think it can’t happen in the U.K.
@Tony Greaves
Registration itself is political participation. You can’t really escape that. The problem people mention about voluntary voting and the USA isn’t that voluntary voting gives disproportionate power to special interest groups. It is that the political system gives rise to special interest groups. Absolute non-participation sends a far stronger signal that the political class is out of touch.
Our efforts should be to make people WANT to be involved; not to create a facade of involvement.
Political participation is NOT a duty. Is it good? Absolutely! Is it desirable? Absolutely. But it is NOT a duty. The right to participate is scarcely a right if it is compelled.
The tax point is also a nonsense. Tax is tacitly linked to public goods, be it piped water, hospitals, schools or anything else. If someone doesn’t want to pay tax, they’re perfectly free to live in the woods, hunt for food and essentially live the life of a hermit? Should we encourage it? No. But should we track down their details if they opt to live that way on pain of punishment through the courts? Absolutely not.
The political and electoral system are sufficiently discrete entities from other aspects of the state-individual relationship that they should be treated as such when we execute their functions. Those who want to participate in it should be allowed to, and those who want nothing to do with it, or don’t care, shouldn’t have to. Is it a shame that they don’t care? Yes. But it’s not for us to make them pretend to.
Tacking the voluntary registration and the cancellation of the 2014 canvass by electoral registration officers onto a change to individual registration seems typical of a proposal that comes from the office of Francis Maude. What concerns me is that it should not have been blocked at this early stage by Nick’s office.
I agree with the principles of the article, but have 2 points 1) As has already been raised registering to vote is not currently compulsory it is only a crime to fail to return a voter registration form. This is very difficult to prosecute anyway. 2) A key point in the white paper is a 2014 canvass which is integral to the canvass so why do you suggest there might not be one.
I was appalled by the attack on the jury system. It has been a right of every person accused of a crime to be tried by a jury of his/her peers for a major part of our history. It must not be sidelined or abolished. Graeme Cowie should remember that it was the extreme reluctance of juries to find people guilty of murder that eventually led to the abolition of the death penalty. Hardly pandering to public opinion!
To suggest that juries do not do their job properly is an insult to those who give up their time for no financial reward to do their duty as citizens. I declare an interest as I am about to do jury service for the first time in my life.
As such electoral registration must remain compulsory.