As some background to the current debates, I thought it useful to revive and update an old post of my on the subject as there has been relatively little coverage of the reasons why it has been supported by all parties (including Labour, who even talked up their achievement in introducing the first legislation for individual electoral registration before 2010, in their last general election manifesto).
The current electoral registration system is based on one registration form being delivered to each household, with the head of the household completing the form on behalf of everyone there and sending it back (“household registration”).
One reason therefore for switching to individual registration is a point of principle: someone’s ability (if they aren’t the head of a household) to vote shouldn’t be dependent on whether or not someone else has filled in a form for them.
This switch will also reduce the problems with rented property, where in urban areas particularly it is far from rare for electoral registration forms to be filled in with the name of the landlord (only), resulting in those living in a property not being registered and someone who really lives elsewhere being put on the register at that address. It’s regular experience in such areas for political canvassers to call on a house which is clearly occupied by several adults but to see that there is only one name on the electoral register – and to be told it is that of the landlord.
Individual registration will also allow the recording of “personal identifiers” such as signatures. This will in turn make it easier to take (further) action against fraud, either in postal votes or in impersonating someone else at a postal station. These anti-fraud benefits have been regularly mentioned by the Electoral Commission and local government electoral registration staff as a major reason for supporting individual electoral registration.
Postal vote fraud
People already have to give personal identifiers when applying for a postal vote (which are then checked against those given when a postal vote is cast). By adding in a need to give them when you join the electoral register too, it makes one type of postal vote fraud much harder – where you take the names of people on the electoral register who you know are not going to vote (e.g. because they have moved away) and then forge both postal vote applications and subsequent postal votes in their name. Individual registration, however, means you would need to have also faked information when someone joins the register – not impossible, but rather like putting a window lock in at home doesn’t stop the determined burglar but stops some, by extending the number of forgeries required and needing more planning in advance, it makes it harder and therefore should stop some postal vote fraud. It would also mean any forgery requires more organisation and more fake paperwork, raising the chances of forensic evidence being left behind, people talking and so on.
Impersonation at polling stations
Individual registration also would make it possible to tackle the risks of impersonation at polling stations. At the moment, there is relatively little protection against “impersonation” – turning up at a polling station, claiming to be someone else and getting to vote in their name – and political campaigners in some parts of the country fear that it is becoming the new favoured route for fraud. There was a brief, aborted attempt under Labour to try out asking for personal identifiers at some elections, but was abandoned after it was realised that the legislation passed to allow this was faulty.
Possible downsides of individual regsistration
There is a risk that the switch to individual registration will result in fewer people registering – because rather than relying on someone else completing a form, everyone has to fill in their own form. This is what happened initially in Northern Ireland when it made the switch, although registration numbers did then bounce back to a large degree. Quite how far back you think it bounced depends on how many fake electoral register entries you think there were in Northern Ireland before the change, a topic on which there are widely varying views.
There is likely to be a particular issue with universities, where currently the university authorities often automatically register all students who are living in university accommodation. To help deal with this and other issues, the government is currently piloting data-matching exercises which could highlight both likely missing names from the register and also suspicious, possibly fradulent, entries.
For the switch to be a success, it will require a significant publicity campaign, and may well also see political parties start to get more heavily involved in pushing registration than in the past. However, with both we can have a more secure electoral system which, by increasing confidence in our electoral system, also helps increase public involvement in elections.
The piece does not mention making electoral registration voluntary, as that is not a requirement of moving to individual electoral registration. On that topic see my response to the government’s consultation on individual electoral registration.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Is Trump set to get his revenge on Labour?
Meeting the new locality coordinator
Peterborough Cathedral launches £300,000 appeal to allow it to stay open daily
The Government needs its growth *explanation*
The surprising similarity between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage
Daniel Stylianou
Alex Macfie
Mark Pack
David Blake
David Evans
9 Comments
Whilst I agree with many of the points for adopting this system, I have other concerns over what it will do to our democracy.
Last month it was reported that a Select Committee heard that as many as 10 million people will not register themselves and that, as you would expect, the propensity to register yourself will be higher in more affluent areas – 90% in more affluent Tory areas, but only 70% in poorer, inner city Labour areas).
Considering that the Boundary Commission will have to equalise the size of constituencies again after 2015, if there is a big drop off in voter registration there is a real danger that this policy will heavily impact on Labour seats, forcing them to grow, and shrinking Tory seats, meaning less Labour and more Tory seats.
Seeing as Individual Voter Registration would not be brought in until 2014, the next Boundary Commission would be deciding on new boundaries after only the second annual registration drive in 2015. And whilst Labour have talked this policy up in the past, I doubt it was considered in connection to the current reduction of MPs and equalisation of elector numbers.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of having fewer Labour MPs, but I’m a bigger fan of having a fair democratic system. This could well end up being the most impressive Tory gerrymandering measure yet.
Glyn: The transition provisions should stop a big drop off happening on the electoral register which will be used for the next boundary review – and rightly so because otherwise, as you touch on, a transition issue could have a big long-term knock on effect for Parliamentary boundaries. However in amongst the good parts of the transition provisions is the talk of dropping the full annual canvass in 2014, which would be a bad move.
Except it’s not a Tory gerrymandering measure. It’s a commonsense reform that even Labour supported until about two months ago.
Surely the answer is to make a bigger push for people to register and get registered. I agree that making it voluntary seems a silly suggestion. But surely it’s better to try to improve registration rather than just sticking with a rubbish system that’s easier to defraud just because it leads to nominally higher registration rates (assuming nothing else changes)?
Stephen W:
the reasons Mark gives above in his article I agree are commonsense and I support them. I also agree with pushing a lot harder to get people on the register, and as a Constituency Organiser understand my own importance in helping to make that happen.
It’s just the combination of these measures with the new boundary equalisation rules, and the speed at which this could happen, which causes a gerrymander, intentional or not. We just have to hope, as Mark says in his reply above, that it is done in a transitional way that ensures the drop off is not significant.
If we want to improve the accuracy of the electoral roll we should change the law to stop its contents being sold. When I used the text message to confirm it was correct at the last query, I found out that I still had to mail the form back or my details would once again be sold, despite always having opted out of this before.
For this year’s canvass I was pleased to opt out of publica tion by renewing on line.
You might only need to gerrymander once to be in a position to pass some big laws, but even that might be difficult if the vote had suddenly gone down by millions.
I’m not sure the removal of compulsion will make any difference. How many people register for that reason? How many people are prosecuted for not registering?
The thought of having to sign at a polling station will frighten a lot of people off. Levels of trust are not high.
The thought of governments using scary databases to cross-check your democratic rights will frighten a lot of people off.
Have I depressed myself enough yet?
The only way is popular, community registration drives.
Why not allow would-be voters to register directly at the polls upon presentation of identification?
Some very good points.
One undiscussed effect of individual registration is the new administrative burden on local authorities. It is an enormous change. Councils will have to target individuals rather than households. They will have to process many more forms. My research has suggested that some elections managers expect that they would need their team to double in size (see: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpolcon/writev/1463/ea04.htm).
Local government budgets are not ring-fenced for elections and we should expect them to try to make savings by cutting back on other aspects of work on elections e.g. public awareness and less elabroare canvassing. In short, there will be a ‘spillover’ effect.
The government has proposed funding the changes in the short-term. But the long-term financing of elections is just as important.