Memorandum by Test Valley Borough Council
(VOT 16)
A. We already have individual Electoral
Registration under the provisions of the Representation of the
People Act 2000 which is in force throughout the year except between
1 February-30 November. The "Audit" (Annual Canvass)
of the Register during September/November each year to each household
enables a very useful check to take place.
If individuals had the sole responsibility for
their registration this could have the undermentioned effects:
(i) Disadvantaged electors being disenfranchised.
(ii) Highly organised groups having a disproportionate
effect on both registration and elections.
(iii) A likely drop in the number of electors
registered generally UNLESS there was some incentive, either carrot
or big stick, to ensure that such information regarding registration
was supplied when necessary. This might well include some "central"
resourcing of elector movements ie: identity cards.
B. Compulsory registration at the Annual
Canvass as we have at present seems to me to be a very weak stick.
It is almost impossible to make people register when you do not
know the identity of the people you are dealing with. If you do
not receive a completed form back from a property, either during
the annual audit/canvass or at any other time, the security of
information which has built up in recent years ensures that very
little cross information is available. I feel that, in particular,
to move away from the existing system of household registration
during September/November each year might well disenfranchise
more young electors rather than any system of solely individual
registration.
C. Although this is obviously a matter of
concern I feel in this part of the country it would be inappropriate
to make any comment.
D. This is a matter that can be argued at
length and those preferring a paper base system can be accused
of being dinosaurs whereas those advocating a solely electronic
solution can be accused of being reckless. The main problem, as
I see it, with any form of electronic registration (or indeed
voting) is the lack of a viable audit trail. There is also a problem
of any back up should a system fail. For this reason I think at
the present time I would support the dinosaur group!
E. The problems for the disabled do not,
of course, refer solely to registering as electors or applying
for postal or proxy votes. The great increase for absent votes
in recent years, and with no reason needed to be given, it is
now difficult to estimate the number of disabled who are in fact
disadvantaged.
F. The present ridiculous system of inspection
of the Register of Electors is, of course, one which was forced
upon Local Government by Central Government. However I believe
that the register should be used solely for the purposes for which
the information is collected ie for the proper conduct of elections
and if this was the case then the need for an Edited Register
would be removed.
G. This idea is not one which I have seen
proposed before. Where Elections are conducted on a geographical
boundary ie Ward, Parish, Division, Constituency, European Region
it would seem logical (although I do realise that logic does not
always enter the equation) for registration to be address based.
Indeed at the present time I am unable to think of a good reason
for any other basis. However, IF registration became subordinate
to some form of ID registration then perhaps some dual criteria
may be necessary.
H. I must admit that I am unable to see
any attraction in or need for a national Register of Electors
if the register is to be used for the purposes of elections.
As noted above elections are conducted on geographical areas and
it would seem to me that, unless there is any other requirement
for a national list of names, the Register of Electors should
remain separate from other lists. I do see that the duplication
of names of people can lead to important matters being omitted
from peoples records and this may well be a determining factor
in any possible change.
I. The security of the register would be
greatly assisted if the information was only used for the purpose
for which it is collected ie elections.
However, the question of indentifiying electors
at election time is one which in Great Britain has not been seen
as being necessary in the past although, of course, this information
is required before an elector can vote in Northern Ireland. The
production of an agreed means of identification may be worthy
of consideration if there is evidence of increased fraud and personation.
| 
