APPENDIX 6
Memorandum by the Society of Local Authority
Chief Executives and Senior Managers Inquiry into Electoral Law
and Administration
THE SOCIETY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY CHIEF EXECUTIVES AND
SENIOR MANAGERS (SOLACE)
SOLACE is the professional body for local authority
Chief Executives and Senior Managers. Membership currently comprises
409 Chief Executives and 275 Senior Managers and it represents
the key figures in the managerial local government world.
Its Mission Statement is:
"To promote the cause of local governments
to provide support and professional development for senior managers
in local government"
The organisation founded in 1973 is committed to
the continuous improvement of professional practice and standards
through local government. It is a keen supporter of the Government's
vision of modern and responsive local authorities. SOLACE is working
towards this by networking both formally and informally across
government departments to build professional dialogues and better
working relationships on key policy issues.
This submission
This submission of evidence is a compilation from
the SOLACE Electoral Matters Panel (hence, the stylistic changes
and recurrent themes within the text). This is a group of Returning
Officers speaking from the strategic viewpoint of local authority
Chief Executives, many of whom have very extensive experience
(over 20 years) of election work.
Essentially, this evidence is based upon this practical
experience but combined with a vision (and committed desire) to
modernise "the election experience" in this country.
Accordingly, the material reflects both background and current
good practice (some actual local authority examples are quoted)
but with suggestions as to change in the future—some of
these are radical departures from existing procedures and, without
doubt, would require new primary legislation. Although appreciating
all the problems (and cost to the public purse) that accompany
such a suggestion the Panel is firm in its unequivocal view that
this is the only way forward into the 21st century and would be
happy to assist in the preparation of a suitable "Administration
of Elections Bill, 1999"; such an enactment is the opportunity
to grasp, for instance, the new technology now available and completely
reform our current electoral system with its roots in Victorian
Britain.
Annex I to this document details the terms of reference
of the Panel and Annex II the current composition of this Group.
The evidence is set out in the order of the Note
(using, so far as possible, the same headings and sub-headings)
dated 6 February 1998 describing the scope of the enquiry.
Increasing Level of Participation
Increased participation
Present electoral arrangements are of very long standing
and have not kept up to date with modern lifestyles. Like much
legislation, arrangements are made from a negative stance ie preventing
abuse, errors etc. rather than from a positive stance ie how to
encourage the democratic process.
If participation is to be increased, then there is
need for reform. This must be carried out by an inclusive partnership
of the various bodies who have a stake in the arrangements—the
various departments of Central Government must work together with
the practitioners on the ground, ie local government Chief Executives
and electoral administrators. None of these groups can separately
solve the issue.
Why do citizens not participate at the moment?
This is a corporate issue which needs to be dealt
with simultaneously on a variety of fronts.
Barriers to participation are :
(a) Practical
can't find the time on a Thursday due to work/family
commitments—lack of flexibility
can't get to a polling station easily—especially
problems for elderly/disabled people
can't read the ballot paper—due to low
literacy or English not being a first language
polling station in out-of-the-way place
(b) Procedural
For example:
name not on Register of Electors. A big issue
for young people who tend to be very mobile eg students, flat
sharers, job mobility and for the socially excluded whose often
chaotic lifestyle and complex family patterns lead to much mobility
and changes of address (albeit often within quite a small local
area)
not sure exactly what to do once they get to
a polling station—so don't bother to go
(c) Philosophical
For example:
why bother?—"my vote doesn't count".
This is mainly true of local government elections, and in councils
where there is virtually no opposition to the long established
local working group
mistrust of politicians at whatever level. This
lack of confidence is exacerbated by continuing bad publicity
about "sleaze" and by examples of bad practice/behaviours
demonstrated by political figures—from"slanging matches"
at local council meetings to the perceived over-influence of spin
doctors at national level. Surveys of young people have consistently
shown this to be a major barrier to interest in the political/democratic
process
Can participation be increased?
There are many areas for improvements/innovation
but there must be an attempt to implement many of these simultaneously
eg there is no point in painstaking work at making ballot forms
user friendly if issues such as the rolling register and voting
systems are not tackled at the same time.
Incentives to participation:
(a) Practical
For example:
flexibility in where and when to vote, including
choice of polling station (Later, reference is made to the fact
that alone this would not significantly improve turnout but, as
suggested above, it should be considered as part of a package
of incentives.)
use of simple to use technology eg touch screen.
Such technology has revolutionised the teaching of children and
adults with special needs (from visual impairment to low ability
levels) and for non-native speakers of English. Innovation elsewhere
in the world would be helpful here in terms of elections
if fixed polling stations are to be used, try
to find the most appropriate local venue in terms of convenience
and accessibility, rather than merely relying on one "solution"—only
schools or only village halls
(b) Procedural
publicity about what is required for registration
and what happens at the polling station. This could be better
driven by PR/Advertising focus rather than "civic education"
which many feel is a total turn off, especially to young people.
Such publicity should be ongoing, with in-depth campaigns near
election times, both locally and nationally. Posters in libraries
are not enough — local press is a good vehicle, as are local
television and radio stations, especially those aimed at young
people
development of a rolling register ie a system
which is aimed to maximise and simplify registration while being
subject to any necessary safeguards
(Many of these themes reappear later in this evidence.)
(c) Philosophical
local authorities must be seen to be relevant
and important to local citizens. This requires a political commitment
to open, transparent and inclusive local government. This requires
to be a whole council issue, with a culture for officers and members
of transparency and participation. Councils have approached this
in different ways but, as an example, in Stirling Council the
following happened:
(a) A clear political commitment to local
democracy, as one of the strategic aims of the council.
(b) A review of community councils (similar
to parish councils) done in a participative way with community
councils; postal ballots were instituted on the STV system and
there was a lot of local community work and publicity. Turn out
at elections has been 300 per cent up on before, with some villages
having a 60 per cent poll. Community Councils now feel they have
a voice.
(c) Establishment of local Area Forums,
where local people can have direct access to local officers and
members. Turn out has ranged from 30—100. Public meetings
and local press publicity about the budget process and decisions
ie a range of forums for open public discussion.
(d) Creation of a Civic Assembly to discuss
"big issues" for the area. Attended by a cross-section
of pressure groups etc.
(e) Creation of a Youth Congress, recognising
that young people need a different approach.
(f) A clear commitment to quality services,
backed by a resident's survey to see progress being made.
No one of these is any kind of a "solution"
in itself, but together they create a climate that local government
is something that does matter, and which can be influenced by
local people, not just a three yearly election.
Average turnout at local elections has been 55 per
cent and at the general election the turnout was the second highest
in Britain.
There is no kind of quick-fix answer to this kind
of issue. The DETR document "Modernising Local Government"
offers many suggestions, but cannot be read in isolation. There
must be joint working with the Home Office Select Committee.
Many argue for different voting arrangements eg proportional
representation. If people feel that their vote will make a difference,
then they are much more 0liable to turn out. A number of political
commentators maintain that apathy is greatest in areas of a one
party monolithic majority.
Young people—while "civics" may be
an integral part of the school curriculum, it cannot be expected
that a slot in the school curriculum will suffice. There must
be ongoing "informal education", perhaps along the lines
of various health education promotions, using appropriate young
peoples mediums—youth press, appropriate radio stations
to continue to get the message across.
Voter registration
Fundamental problems relating to voter registration
stem from the fact that it was a system designed for a static
population with settled addresses. Adaptations to the system have
secured improvements in some areas e.g. improved absent voting
arrangements, but fail adequately to recognise the increased mobility
of large sections of the population and in some instances, the
absence of a settled residence.
Rolling Register
A most important improvement that could be made would
be the introduction of a rolling register. SOLACE supports the
principle of such a registration and believes every action should
be taken to replace existing arrangements. Issues to be addressed:
date at which register "stops" prior
to election to permit certainties re proposers, etc; poll card
issue; notification of cancellation to previous area to prevent
dual registration voting.
Homeless persons00
Whilst residence requirement for registration is
maintained persons without a residence having a degree of permanency
will continue to be disenfranchised. Change in law needed to qualify
the residence requirement either:
(a) by replacement by alternative criteria; or
(b) by modifying the requirement to permit temporary
residence to qualify (e.g. night shelters, hostels, etc) and subject
to safeguards to avoid too great an impact on particular wards.
We are aware of only one case where a homeless person
who was denied registration was permitted by the court to be registered.
The judgement suggests that the judge did not have regard to the
requirements of the registration but concentrated on the principle
of universal suffrage; furthermore, the decision was not in a
court where a precedent will have been created.
Some Councils currently employ devices to permit
homeless persons to register but all are believed to be at risk
of challenge. Primary legislation should be the priority to address
this defect in the principle of universal suffrage—electoral
registration officers should not be relied upon to "bend"
the law.
Under-registration
The OPCS estimate the average accuracy of the register
to be 95 per cent. Obstacles to securing an accurate register
are:
resources—whilst the use of bonuses for
canvassers (geared to results) and imaginative campaigns can secure
additional registrations the wide discretion as to how EROs tackle
the compilation of the register, whilst welcome in many ways,
can encourage Councils to under-resource the exercise.
the "fixed date" register constrains
the ERO in relation to the timetable which can be adopted—a
too early start in delivering registration forms is likely to
lead to missed registrations. A rolling register would resolve
this problem.
prosecution for non-registration is heavy handed
and resource-intensive and unlikely to be viewed seriously by
the courts—there is therefore no practical sanction for
non-registration. It is not greatly resorted to by EROs.
greater clarity on data protection matters eg
use of Council Tax lists, university accommodation lists could
assist EROs in accessing reliable sources of information. There
are currently no clear guidelines and practices vary amongst authorities.
incentives not to register continue to exist.
Whilst the obvious problems caused by the Community Charge are
believed to be disappearing, the single person in a household
reduction for council tax purposes may prompt non-registration,
particularly for children attaining 18.
an explicit ability for EROs to register voters
anonymously would be welcome to help those who have good reason
to wish to avoid their names appearing in a public record. Some
councils currently use devices to achieve this result but may
be at risk of challenge in doing so. There is some evidence that
the commercial availability of registers at low cost can deter
electors from registering if they are keen to avoid "junk
mail" etc. However, conversely it is recognised that the
use of the register by credit reference agencies can act as an
incentive to register for those who may need credit.
Registration publicity campaign
There is little to add to the research undertaken
by Colin Rollings and Michael Thrasher in their study "Enhancing
Local Electoral Turnout". There is some evidence that targeting
under-registered groups can have an effect as can sample interest-raising
ideas, eg prize draws and the like.
A combination of occasional targeted national campaigning
with local authorities trying initiatives simultaneously in their
own areas is probably worthwhile.
Accuracy—registration errors
A welcome improvement would be for the ERO to be
given power to correct his/her own administrative errors at any
time.
Voting Days and Procedures
Voting on days other than Thursdays
Voting in Great Britain has traditionally taken place
on Thursdays. However, voting on other days does take place in
other countries, and of particular interest, voting at weekends
takes place in a number of mainland European countries.
Although the nature of Sundays has undoubtedly changed
in this country with a much greater variety of activities being
commonplace and acceptable, there would certainly be some reaction
to voting on Sundays from religious-based bodies. In addition
the trend for change should not be regarded as universal, and
in some communities in Scotland and perhaps, Wales too, there
would be much more general concern about Sunday voting. Some of
the same problems would arise on Saturdays for followers of other
religions.
In organisational terms weekend voting would be perfectly
practicable in Great Britain and this might well increase turnout.
Weekend voting would probably require a review of the premises
used for polling stations; for example if voting took place on
Sunday, then the tendency would be that church halls would be
less available but school premises would be more available; in
some rural areas the loss of church halls on Sundays may not be
compensated for by schools being available following closures
and sale of premises. Staffing polling stations at weekends would
perhaps be easier than on Thursday, but possibly some experienced
key local authority personnel might be less available, which would
give rise to a pressing training requirement. Weekend voting might
also have the effect of lessening the inevitable disruption of
the normal work of the local authority. Sunday working usually
commands premium rates of pay, and this could increase the staffing
cost of the election significantly. Of course, if the objective
of increased turnout meets with any degree of success, then this
in itself must generate some further (though not probably excessive)
cost resulting from the increased requirement for staffing, for
example at polling stations and counts.
In some countries, voting takes place over both days
of the weekend, sometimes with different opening hours for the
two days. This maximises opportunities for individuals to vote,
and overcomes objections from religious groups, but obviously
it adds massively to the cost, raising value for money questions.
From a practitioner's point of view, weekend voting
is perfectly possible, but the Government should seek assurance
about public reaction before considering it further. Sound and
broadly-based opinion polling would be advisable.
Voting hours
The voting hours for Parliamentary and European Parliament
Elections are 7.00 am to 10.00 pm, and for local elections the
hours are 8.00 am to 9.00 pm. Clearly there are variations in
size of turnout as between these different sorts of election,
and hours of voting might be a factor in this, although probably
a minor one. The uncertainty caused by the different hours might
be a more important factor than the hours themselves, which suggests
an argument for standardisation. If this was to be pursued, then
experience in some areas is that the early morning hour is a lot
more used by voters than the late evening hour, (darkness, for
May elections is a factor in rural areas especially) and therefore
7.00 am to 9.00 pm should be considered as an alternative to remaining
open until 10.00 pm.
Absent voting (postal and proxy)
Currently, the deadlines for applications for postal
and proxy votes are the same, ie 5.00 pm on the 11th working day
before the election (effectively the Wednesday two weeks before
the election). There was a change just before the May 1998 General
Election (at a date late enough to cause inconvenience and confusion,
despite having been under consideration for years), the previous
deadline having been noon on the 13th working day before the election.
Although this was an improvement, it was a timid one which does
not take sufficient account of the fact that most, if not all,
Returning Officers now organise elections with the assistance
of computerised election management systems, and we can offer
voters a better service than this.
Postal voting
There needs to be time to generate the various labels,
envelopes, lists etc, collate and issue and post documents out,
and allow for return. The deadline could be 5.00 pm on the ninth
working day before the election (the Friday in the week, two weeks
before the poll) and some of these tasks could be accomplished
over the weekend. If there was weekend voting, this would need
to be considered further. There would remain an emergency provision,
as now, strictly for those with a medical condition of which they
could not have been aware earlier (this needs support from a suitably
qualified person) of a late deadline of 5.00 pm on the 6th working
day before the election (the Wednesday).
As to qualification, at present applications for
permanent postal votes are for employment or medical reasons,
which must be certified by the employer or suitably qualified
person—getting this right often causes problems, especially
for the elderly. In sharp contrast, an application for an absent
vote for a single election (a one-off) can be granted on the applicant's
own signature, often for a reason such as being on holiday. The
difference is hard to justify, and no real reason can be seen
why absent votes on demand should not be available for all upon
a simple application signed by the voter and, indeed, why they
should not be permanent until cancelled by the voter, probably
upon a periodic review of the list. If there was a significant
take-up of such a provision it would, of course, increase administrative
costs, but it would also have made voting easier for some.
The Consultation Paper issued by the Department of
the Environment, Transport and the Regions, entitled "Modernising
Local Government—Local Democracy and Community Leadership"
(ISBN 0-110-753000 0) considers elections run entirely by
post and contemplates piloting such an event. Perhaps a more convenient
proposal would be an election with voting either by post or by
telephone employing technology comparable to that used by the
increasingly popular telephone banking services; 92 per cent of
households are said to have a telephone, and this method would
also allow people to vote from wherever they happened to be. Polling
stations would, of course, then not be required at all, offering
savings which might well finance the cost of the technology. Use
of other electronic platforms will, no doubt become appropriate
in the future, but as yet these are used by a small, though rapidly
growing, minority. Using the telephone is a manageable entry-point
to such progress!
Proxy voting
Like postal voting, proxies could be granted on demand
on application by the voter without requirement for support by
any other person, if the objective is, as it should be, to make
it easy for people to vote rather than placing bureaucratic obstacles
in their path. The current safeguard of a restriction of exercising
not more than two proxy votes for persons not closely related
to the elector should, however, remain—to avoid the spectre
of party agents walking in with fistfuls of proxy votes to cast!
As to closing dates, the deadline for applications for proxies
should be untied from that for postal voting because it could
be much later, again improving the service to voters. For proxies,
all that is needed is that the polling station staff must have
a definitive list of the proxies granted, so with this in mind
the deadline could be as late as two or three days before the
election (it is commonplace to close down packed ballot boxes
and issue to staff on the Tuesday especially for distant polling
stations eg in rural or island environments). If polling stations
were "on-line", proxies could even be granted on polling
day.
Early voting
Early voting should be considered as an option. However
some Returning Officers consider that it would only marginally
affect turnout. Nevertheless, it would allow those who are unexpectedly
away on polling day (and hence could not apply for a postal/proxy
vote in time) to vote. It might also induce others who are "busy"
on polling day or forgot to apply for a postal vote to fit in
time to vote earlier in the week.
It is assumed "early voting" would be made
available at a single central location or a limited number of
locations ie one or two per Parliamentary constituency. On this
model it would be the voter's responsibility and cost to get to
the early voting station, but costs would be kept fairly low—perhaps
a few 100 pounds per day of early voting. A practical problem
under the present arrangements would be the control of registers—the
only economical method without electronic on-line voting would
be for a complete set of registers to be used for "early
voting" and then, say, for "early voting" to finish
on a Tuesday evening, with the register then being disaggregated
and distributed to Presiding Officers on the Wednesday in time
for stations to open up on a Thursday with early voters marked
off. This would be necessary to ensure double voting did not occur.
Exit poll
If only a few per cent avail themselves of early
voting, it would be safest to, perhaps, ban any exit polling of
early voters—they would probably, in any event, not be a
very representative and hence reliable sample.
Choice of polling stations
Offering a choice of polling station immediately
raises a major technical and logical problem: if the scope for
multiple voting abuse is to be eliminated it can only really be
accommodated by an "on-line" electronic system, via
an arrangement of pre-issued polling cards constituting an authority
or permit to vote, that would have to be exchanged for a ballot
paper. The latter arrangement would increase costs, raise security
risks, and possibly generate a requirement for production of an
identity card or other identification material from a voter.
If electronic voting is introduced in any event it
will require a major investment of capital. The costs of a centralised,
on-line system which could accommodate choice of polling location
might be greater than a series of PC-based systems using a fixed
polling station for each polling district. However, the costs
of remote on-line data transfer are likely to reduce over coming
years, although in rural areas there may be limitations to this.
Some Returning Officers question the need to offer
a choice of polling stations. Under the current system polling
districts, even in rural areas, are relatively small and there
is not a great problem for most voters in arranging a route via
their local polling station. If this is a difficulty, due to handicap
or disability, a postal vote can be obtained.
It is likely that those who do not vote at present
do so because of an unwillingness to give up the time necessary,
or because of a disinterest or dislike for the political system.
It is unlikely that vast numbers of these individuals could be
encouraged to vote merely by offering a choice of polling stations.
At best a displacement effect (eg towards shopping centres and
transport nodes) might be expected, together with a modest enhancement
in turnout.
Mobile polling points
Some difficulties with multiple polling points present
themselves. For rural areas mobile stations could offer greater
proximity, but possibly with a reduced time availability within
the day, ie a mobile station in a rural polling district might
move between four locations, but only spend a quarter of the day
at each. If mobiles were to be added to fixed stations because
for this, costs might double, and the issue of "permits to
vote" might again be necessary to prevent multiple voting.
Again, the enhancement in turnout, given current availability
of postal and proxy votes, could only be expected to be modest.
Compulsory voting
Compulsory voting seems more of a political than
a technical issue. The British ethos has, up to now, been against
compulsion, but in fact registration is already compulsory
and, of course, other countries such as Australia have had compulsory
voting for some considerable time without particular problems.
It would be necessary to consider the sanctions,
policing methods and enforcement agency for non-compliance. A
significant number of dissenters might be expected and, clearly,
to ensure future compliance it would be necessary to fine such
individuals. A streamlined protocol for presentation of evidence
(from the Returning Officer?) and a summary conviction and recovery
procedure would be necessary.
Incentives for voting
It is not clear what could reasonably be included
here. The Green Paper on local democracy talks of incentives to
register, but in reality only suggests publicity about
the benefits and penalties. Any inducement to vote seems dangerous—costs
would be high and it would apply to all voters and there would
be a danger of undermining the democratic process if any such
inducement were subsequently revised upward by a Government in
power.
People with Disabilities
(This section of evidence is based on actual work
within Northampton Borough Council, representing an example of
current Best Practice).
What is a disability?
"Disability" is commonly interpreted as
individuals who are wheelchair bound.
However, "disability" may mean that a person
is incapable, disqualified, unfit, unable or incompetent.
These issues need to be recognised and addressed
to avoid any occurrence of discrimination.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was introduced
to counter the continuing exclusion of disabled people from aspects
of everyday life that the "non-disabled" take for granted.
We need to be aware of and accommodate individuals
who are:
Blind/Partially Sighted
Physically Disabled
Deaf
Illiterate
Disadvantaged (ie no command of the English
language, un-educated or unaware of the voting process)
Elderly
Bed-ridden
Local studies carried out
A survey of all Polling Stations commenced in 1994.
This was done by preparing a questionnaire for each Presiding
Officer to complete on the day of an election.
The questionnaire highlighted possible problem areas
for the disabled by asking straightforward questions. It was the
logical way to carry out a survey as it did not require any additional
manpower, was inexpensive and could be completed in a short period
of time.
Action taken to-date
Upon evaluation of the surveys, the following action
has been taken to improve access to Polling Stations for the physically
disabled:
all Polling Stations have been visited with
the Access Officer present
wherever possible, existing Polling Stations
found to have unsatisfactory disabled access have been re-sited
in buildings with permanent satisfactory disabled person access
where re-siting is impossible, temporary ramps
have been allocated to Polling Stations with stepped or uneven
access
104 of the 105 Polling Stations now have access
for the disabled
polling booths accessible to the disabled are
allocated at every Polling Station
a telephone "hot-line" is made available
prior to and on election days, to ensure access problems can be
notified to election staff and acted upon immediately.
Further action to consider
Election staff training
all Polling Station staff should be made aware
of the difficulties suffered by the disabled and need to be given
clear guidance to assist individuals to overcome them
detailed written guidance should be complied
and distributed to election staff well before the date of any
election and be followed up by a question and answer session at
pre-election briefings.
staff training must enable Polling Station
staff to deal with queries or problems sympathetically and to
retain a high degree of confidentiality. It is important that
any embarrassment is avoided.
Aids for the blind/partially sighted
large print ballot papers should be made available
at all Polling Stations
provision of additional dedicated lighting
to Polling booths—perhaps in the form of clip-on lights.
(The use of battery operated equipment to be considered on the
grounds of cost, portability and safety)
a Braille template to be made available at
all Polling Stations. (The template is more cost effective than
specially printed ballot papers)
Polling Station staff to be instructed in a
simple technique of folding the ballot papers to enable the voter
to identify the position of each candidate's name and voting "box".
Verbal information is given by the polling staff concerning the
positioning of each candidate on the ballot paper
Assistance for the illiterate
individual candidates on the ballot papers
to be highlighted in different colours—preferably their
party colours, where applicable. This will enable easy recognition
and enable the Polling Staff to advise the voter which colour
represents which candidate and party. It is important that all
ballot papers be prepared in this way so that no person has to
declare their literacy in order to claim a suitable ballot paper.
Assistance for non-English speaking voters
it would be impossible to display all posters
in numerous languages throughout the constituency. Therefore,
careful consultation with local community groups is essential
to establish the areas most likely to gain from this exercise
once the areas have been identified, pre-election
information should be distributed in dual languages—English
and the relevant foreign language
election notices in the non-English language
should be displayed alongside English language notices in relevant
areas
HMSO already produce election material in English
and Welsh and therefore it seems logical that they should produce
other language notices to be available centrally rather than individual
local authorities being responsible for the task
Assistance for the elderly
the elderly should be enabled to vote independently
wherever possible
pre-election Polling Stations are suggested
as a method to achieve this
polling on the actual election day would stretch
staff resources beyond reasonable limits but with pre-election
voting the same staff could be utilised. Hours of voting could
be reviewed.
Polling Stations could be made available at
all registered residential homes. These would be the larger
establishments, and therefore make it more feasible
voting could take place one week in advance
of the election day, as this is when postal votes are issued at
present
Publicity
Whichever of these options is adopted, it is important
that an adequate and effective national publicity campaign
be undertaken to make the relevant persons aware of their rights
and opportunities to vote. Local publicity would supplement this.
Names and Descriptions of Candidates on Ballot Papers
Names
The law at the present time requires that, at a Parliamentary
Election, the candidate must be nominated in terms of his or her
full names. The candidate may also state a description provided
it is not more than six words.
There are, however, no provisions to define or control
what constitutes the true name of a candidate. This has caused
considerable confusion in recent years with individuals standing
at elections under names similar to that of well-known candidates,
and using names that are different from those they are usually
known by. The problem is that the general law of the land in relation
to names gives no property in a name, and for some purposes allows
an individual to call himself or herself by any name, provided
that, in using a particular name, the intention is not to gain
from the fraudulent use of the particular name.
Generally, as a matter of pure law, it is understood
that a person cannot change their forenames as registered at birth
or at baptism. Additional forenames can be acquired by habitual
use.
The surname or family name can, however, be changed
by deed poll or by habitual use.
These general legal principles would seen to suggest
that a person cannot change his or her name on short notice, merely
for the purpose of using a particular name at a specific election,
unless in the case of a deed poll for the surname.
The problem is that no proof of identity or of name
is required when a person submits a nomination paper. Thus it
is possible, as happened in one recent case, that a person can
attempt to be included in the Electoral Register under a false
or confusing name, and, if this is not detected and successfully
challenged through the draft electoral roll objection process,
they will be in a position to stand under that name at a following
election.
The potential for mischievous use of a false name
to confuse the electorate could be easily avoided by adding a
declaration to the consent to nomination to the effect that the
candidate's name is the full and correct name as given at baptism
or registration, or, if it has been changed by deed poll, giving
details of the date of the deed poll and attaching a copy to the
consent form.
The requirement for such a declaration, would make
it an offence to give false information in setting out the name
of the candidate on the consent form, and since the name on the
consent form must comply with the nomination form, there should
be no escape from this simple control of the correctness of the
name used.
The current provision which allows a candidate's
name to be further defined as "also known as xxx" should
be retained, as it can be useful for clarity when people are better
known by a familiar or local name.
Descriptions
The issue of a candidate's description has attracted
a high profile in recent elections. The use of descriptions which
are very close to those of national political parties has caused
a degree of confusion, and has led to urgent references to the
Courts in the very short period of time between the close of nominations
and the publication of the list of validly nominated candidates.
This issue has also led to at least one recent election
petition.
None of the recent references to the Courts has particularly
helped to clarify the situation, and there is a clear need to
review the law.
The original purposes behind the statutory provisions
which allow a description to be put on the nomination and on the
ballot paper are understood to have been:
to allow a candidate to indicate which political
party or cause he or she represents; and
to allow candidates of the same or similar
names to differentiate their names by such means as a description
of their trade or profession.
Clearly, the recent cases which have caused such
concern do not fit with these or similar justifiable criteria.
The root problem is that the Courts have taken the
general view that there is no copyright in a description, and
therefore there is no simple method of stopping anyone from using
a description which could confuse the elector into thinking that
a particular candidate represents a political party or cause,
which in actuality he or she does not. The result can be confusion
of the voter.
The electoral process in this country is intended
to ensure that the wishes of the voters in relation to representation
are reflected in the result. In the past it was assumed as an
underlying principle that electors voted for the person, and not
for the cause or party, but that is no longer universally the
case. It has been accepted for many years that electors vote in
some cases for the individual and in some cases more for a party
or cause. To allow a system that can confuse the situation in
such a way that an elector may inadvertently vote for someone
whose aims are not those that the elector supports, merely because
the alternative candidate has used a misleading description, does
not assist the process to reflect the wishes of the electorate.
In the case of elections which have very close results,
voter confusion as to which candidate truly represented the causes
that voters thought they were voting for can question the validity
of the result. Such concerns can in consequence question the integrity
of the electoral process.
If the confusion which was shown in the more prominent
recent cases is to be avoided, the rules as to descriptions need
to be changed.
If, as part of moving towards the use of proportional
representation in some elections, a "list" system were
to be used, there would be sense in making provision for the registration
of political parties, as applies in some other countries. At the
time of writing this evidence there are contemporary proposals
in this country for such a regime to be employed at the European
Elections in June 1999. A simple system could be devised which
gives pre-existing political parties the primary right to party
names at the time of the first registration, and the registrar
could be obliged to advertise any new applications for registration,
consider objections on the grounds of similarity of name which
could confuse the electorate, and decline to register any name
which would be likely in the registrar's opinion to lead to confusion.
The law could then be changed to provide that the
description on a nomination paper could be limited to that of
a registered political party, or to the trade or profession and
one or two other categories which would allow sensible differentiation
between candidates of similar names. The registered name of a
political party could be given the status of a name or mark in
which there is a proprietary right, which would allow a simple
basis of challenge in the event of it being used by someone not
authorised to do so.
Numbers of nominations
Clearly, there is little point in allowing a candidate
to stand at an election if no-one is prepared to support the candidacy,
and therefore there should continue to be provision for the nomination
paper to the supported by the signatures of registered electors
of the constituency or ward.
Obtaining the signatures, checking their details,
and the other parts of the process do take time, and therefore
the number of signatures required should not be too large.
Also, in an open democracy, individuals should be
able to stand and raise causes through the electoral process,
and therefore the number should be at a level which does not discourage
this.
The numbers currently required for European, national
and local elections do not appear to cause particular problems
and no strong reason is seen for change.
Deposits
The requirement for a deposit to be lodged in relation
to candidature for a British Parliamentary election, and for the
European Parliament, is presumably to discourage frivolous nominations.
The principle appears sound. It is a matter for judgement as to
what is the right level for the deposit, presumably aimed at striking
a balance between discouraging those nominations which are not
serious, and not discouraging genuine minority candidates.
One issue on the deposit which could benefit from
clarification relates to the status of a deposit which is forfeited
to the Crown when the election is voided following an election
petition. There is no provision in statute for the return of the
deposit in such circumstances, and therefore no claim can be made
against the Crown. There is a question of whether or not the person
who lost the deposit has any right of claim against the Returning
Officer. Current thinking is that, provided there is no material
breach of a duty of care (if one exists in this situation), no
claim would be entertained by the Courts. In addition, there is
a view that if a candidate has received no more than one twentieth
of the votes at the original election, that candidate has a clear
knowledge of the opinion of the electorate on their candidacy,
and if the candidate chooses to stand again at a subsequent by-election
following an election petition, he or she does so in the knowledge
of the risk of again losing the deposit.
There is also a view that, where there is no breach
of any duty of care, the decision of a Court to recommend the
avoidance of an election after a Petition, applies only in relation
to the issues of the Petition between the parties to the Petition,
and does not necessarily avoid the complete process.
Clarification of the law would, however, remove this
area of uncertainty.
THE OFFICIAL MARK
The purpose of the use of an official mark stamped
on all validly issued ballot papers is to avoid the interpolation
of ballot papers into the election from other than the proper
source. In the past this was assumed to be an adequate safeguard,
on the basis that no-one knew the official mark in advance, and
it would be difficult for anyone to copy and print ballot papers
separately and then stamp them with the mark to confuse the process.
The reality is that two marks are used, one on postal
vote papers issued well in advance of the election, and a different
mark is used on those ballot papers issued on the election day
through polling stations. The postal mark details would be relatively
easy to obtain in advance and to frank on to duplicate papers,
and the mark used on the day is known from the time that the first
voter attends at a polling station. Modern scanning and printing
make the copying of most printed material very simple, and paper
qualities and weights are simple to verify and duplicate.
The safeguards in the system are therefore more theoretical
than actual.
The rules at the present time are that:
any paper which does not bear the official
mark cannot be counted; and
where the net impact of the votes on un-franked
papers would, if counted, give a tie or a different result, the
election can be avoided on Petition.
Thus, the administrative error of one or two staff
in polling stations can disenfranchise electors, and, where this
would have changed the result at the margins, a fresh election
can be called. If, however, the need for the official mark in
its present form were to be discounted, this complexity in marginal
elections would be removed.
If there is still concern about the possibility of
extraneous ballot papers being prepared and infiltrated into the
system, this could be covered in other ways.
At the first stage of any election count, the contents
of the ballot boxes are verified and checked against the ballot
paper accounts.
The Presiding Officer at each polling station completes
a ballot paper account at the close of poll setting out the number
of votes validly issued at the polling station. This ballot paper
account is sealed and returned to the Count along with the ballot
box. The number of ballot papers in the box is then counted and
verified against the ballot paper account for that box. Provided
that the number of papers counted from a particular box is close
to and does not exceed the total number of validly issued papers
as shown on the ballot paper account, there should be no cause
for concern.
One possible alternative to the franking of each
paper at the time it is issued to the voter would be to use a
watermark—again with one for the postal votes and one for
those issued personally to voters. The watermarking would not
be checked unless there are more votes available for counting
than were issued to voters, and the excess number is greater than
the margin of majority in the election, or in the cause of multi-member
situations could otherwise have affected the result.
An alternative would be the bar coding or other technological
marking of the official ballot papers, and, in case of doubt based
on there being more papers counted than were validly issued in
terms of the ballot paper accounts, a bar code reader could be
used to check the validity of papers quickly and easily.
PUBLICATION OF RESULTS BY WARD
This issue is presumably being raised, since the
information may be useful for voting analysis by candidates and
political parties.
Administratively, it would be possible, but under
our present voting system would add to the complexity of the Count
process, and the time taken.
IS THERE A ROLE FOR AN ELECTORAL COMMISSION?
The question which should perhaps be asked is "are
there factors in the direction and management of elections and
the electoral process in the United Kingdom, which suggest that
there is a need for an overall supervisory or monitoring body,
or for a different way of managing the voting processes?"
This is a somewhat different issue than reform of
procedure which is dealt with in this paper.
It must be admitted that a case can be made out,
at least in principle, for the establishment of such a commission.
However, fundamental questions such as the exact role and nature
of such a body—together with its relationship to local authorities
and others such as the Boundary Commissions need to be examined
carefully. How would it be funded? How would it relate to the
usual local authority elections (and by elections)? What would
be its main tasks when not organising elections (which are not
so frequent in this country)? There is much scope for further
work here.
PERSONATION
The offence of "Personation" involves trying
to vote under the identity of another person who is a registered
voter. It is a rare occurrence in British elections, and recent
incidents in England have almost entirely related to people who
moved into an area after the effective date for electoral registration
(16 October) and tried to vote in the name of the previous occupant
of their property when an election took place in the following
year.
It is, however, a serious offence in its essence,
since it involves the voting by someone who is not entitled to
do so, and can take away the franchise for the election in question
of someone who has the right to the vote.
The offence in the most recent cases was detected
either by the person committing the offence being recognised,
or by the subsequent attendance of the properly registered voter,
who was then denied the right to exercise a valid vote because
the "marked copy" of the Register used by the Presiding
Officer in the Polling Station showed that they had already voted.
In such cases, the properly registered voter is given
a "tendered vote" which is not counted during the main
election count, but can be counted in by the Court in certain
circumstances.
The circumstances which normally give rise to Personation,
ie a new resident trying to vote under the identity of the former
resident whose name appears in the Register would not apply, however,
if the law on registration changes to bring in a rolling register
and this should make the incidence of Personation a much rarer
event.
Where a possible case of Personation is detected,
the Returning Officer has a duty to report it to the Police or
the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the process for reporting
and follow up appears to be satisfactory.
The statutory provisions which allow Election Agents
to appoint Polling Agents for the purpose of identifying Personation
are cumbersome and seldom used, and there may be a case for repealing
the provisions as to Polling Agents or trying to simplify them.
Generally, however, the law as it stands appears
to be adequate to deal with the offence and does not appear to
require major amendment.
April 1998
| 
