Memorandum by The Electoral Reform Society
(ERS) (VOT 36)
SUMMARY
1. ERS believes that there are strong arguments
for voter registration continuing to be compulsory.
2. We believe that individual registration
offers significant advantages over household registration although
a revised form of household registration could provide many benefits.
3. Registration should involve the collection
of at least one personal identifier (eg signature, NI number etc).
A signature if collected could then be required for any electoral
transaction.
4. The Electoral Registration Officer/Returning
Officer should be required to check at least a random sample of
each type of transaction.
5. We believe serious consideration should
be given to the arguments for introducing a requirement for voters
to sign for ballot papers they receive in polling stations.
6. Commonly held beliefs (whether justified
or not) as to the uses to which the electoral register is put
are a contributory factor to under-registration we believe. We
therefore recommend that non-electoral uses of the register should
be reconsidered.
7. The register should continue to be available
for all electoral purposes and for inspection by the public as
at present.
8. Registration officers should be given
clear and objective criteria for the use of anonymous or unaddressed
registration.
9. A national electoral register available
to electoral administrators in an on-line format would be advantageous
in enabling changes to be made more speedily and more accurately
and in enabling electors to vote at locations convenient to them.
If available to electoral administrators in an on-line format
then consideration should be given to allowing political parties
access to this format as well.
10. Electoral registration should continue
to be promoted with the onus on electoral registration officers
to promote registration in their areas.
11. However, there is a need for a clearer
statement of the legal requirement to register and a clearer policy
by electoral registration officers and the authorities to prosecute
those who deliberately fail to register.
HISTORY
12. The Electoral Reform Society was founded
in 1884 to promote changes to our electoral system to ensure fairer
and more representative democracy. Whilst our principal aim remains
changing the voting system to one which allows more personal choice
and a more proportional outcome, we are also concerned with the
strengthening of democracy through matters such as voter education,
the mechanics of elections, voting methods, candidate selection
and the voting age.
COMPULSORY REGISTRATION
13. A properly enforced system of compulsory
registration provides a number of advantages which include:
— Preventing a dominant head of household
denying registration to those who they believe would vote contrary
to their wishes.
— Higher turnouts (even if not in percentage
terms). A system of voluntary registration presents a barrier
to participation for those who reach polling day without having
taken the decision to register. In the United States, although
74.6% of those registered to vote did so in the 2004 elections,
this constituted only 56.2% of those among the voting age population.
Voluntary registration puts an additional barrier between the
citizen and the ability to cast a vote, requiring a commitment
of effort not only on election day but on a regular basis beforehand.
— Equality of opportunity. The current
system of compulsory registration with a few, clearly defined,
exceptions means that it is the law rather than anyone else which
decides whether a person is "fit" to vote.
14. A system of voluntary registration could
be said to have an advantage in boosting the level of activity
of the political parties and, consequently, the level of communication
between parties and electors. In the United States, parties form
the backbone of registration drives and see a pay-off in the level
of their voting support for their efforts. However, this might
also be said to put excessive burdens on voluntary organisations.
15. Therefore, the Electoral Reform Society
supports the retention of the current system of compulsory registration.
FRAUD PREVENTION
16. The Electoral Reform Society believes
that a significant threat to democracy and participation levels
is electoral fraud or the perception thereof. Whilst successful
prosecutions are still at a relatively low level many of the allegations
of fraud which are brought to our attention do not appear to have
been fully investigated.
17. We further believe that there is a perception
among voters that the level of fraud is at a higher level still.
Fraud prevention should not simply be vigorous and effective but
it must be perceived by the public as being so.
18. The primary responsibility for fraud
prevention should rest with the individual electoral registration
officer and returning officer. That many cases are dropped by
the police or prosecuting authorities might suggest a need for
improving these bodies understanding of the issues. It should
always be in the public interest to prosecute those against whom
a prima facie case of electoral fraud can be shown.
19. In order to significantly increase fraud
prevention activities, there should be a designated responsibility
for electoral registration officers and returning officers to
investigate random samples of applications to go on the register,
applications for postal or proxy votes and voting in polling stations.
20. Such an increase in the duties of registration
and returning officers will require an increase in their budgets
and staffing levels. This would be money well spent and would
lead to a visible increase in the level of fraud prevention.
INDIVIDUAL VS
HOUSEHOLD REGISTRATION
21. The Electoral Reform Society believes
that individual registration of electors would be a significant
step forward on the current system of household registration.
22. Such a move would place the responsibility
for registration on each individual rather than a "head of
household". This personal responsibility would provide for
more accountability for failure to register.
23. Individual registration forms provided
in libraries or council offices and other public buildings as
well as dropped through doors would also help to prevent heads
of households acting as a barrier to registration.
24. An alternative would be to retain a
single registration form for each household but to require each
individual to sign the form. Such a move would mean personal identifiers
would be held on file for each elector but that the advantages
detailed in 23 and 24 above would not be gained.
25. We recognise that moving towards individual,
rather than household, registration could lead to a drop in the
number of those registered. We believe that such a move would
need to be accompanied with a large scale publicity campaign to
ameliorate such a drop.
PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS
26. The Electoral Reform Society believes
that the greatest single advance in fraud prevention would be
the collection of "personal identifiers" from registered
electors.
27. Such identifiers could take a number
of forms including date of birth, national insurance number, PIN
number etc. However, we believe that a signature appears to be
the most logical identifier as it is personal to each elector,
appears to be difficult to forge and impossible (under normal
circumstances) to forget.
28. Once collected, personal identifiers
would provide the first step in checking whether an electoral
transaction was actually carried out by the elector in question.
In cases where electoral staff were unable to validate the identifier,
further checks could be made, but the number of such cases would
be tiny compared to checks where there was no identifier on file.
29. We do not suggest that personal identifiers
are the complete answer to fraud, and they will do nothing to
prevent many types of fraud in cases of remote voting. However,
they would be a significant step forward.
SIGNING FOR
BALLOT PAPERS
30. The Electoral Reform Society believes
that serious consideration should be given to the arguments for
introducing a requirement for voters to sign for ballot papers
they receive in polling stations.
31. At present, there is no requirement
for voters presenting themselves at a polling station to identify
themselves other than in exceptional circumstances. It would be
reasonable to ask electors to sign the electoral register next
to their name when they receive their ballot paper. In cases of
suspicion, these signatures could be checked against those collected
during the formation of the register (if signatures are collected
at this stage) or voters contacted after the election and a signature
collected at that stage. Ballot papers could be excluded if the
signature collected at the polling station was found to be fraudulent.
A requirement to sign for ballot papers exists in most countries
of the world.
32. The introduction of a national identity
card system, if approved by Parliament, would allow for more comprehensive
identity checks to be made at the polling station. In deciding
whether to proceed with such a change, consideration would have
to be given to the additional burdens this would place on polling
station staff. We recommend that a system of signing for ballot
papers and subsequent checking be introduced in any case.
USE OF
THE ELECTORAL
REGISTER
33. The Electoral Reform Society believes
that the electoral register should be used only for electoral
purposes. We believe that the perception of the other uses to
which the register will be put is a significant factor in the
level of under-registration in this country. Although now abolished,
the introduction of the poll tax and the use of the electoral
register to investigate cases of non-payment led to significant
under-registration. A clear statement that the register is only
for electoral uses would help to end this problem.
34 Whilst the introduction of a two tier
system of electoral registers has helped, there is still an anomaly
whereby credit reference agencies are permitted to use the full
version of the register. We believe that this should be reviewed.
35. We support the continued use by political
parties and others concerned with an election of the full version
of the register.
36. We support the existing right of the
public to view the full version of the register but would argue
that it should be made a requirement for people doing so to sign
a statement that they are doing so for legitimate (ie registration
and election related) purposes. We recognise, however, that simply
asking a person viewing or using the register to sign a statement
of legitimate use will not end all abuse.
ANONYMOUS AND
UNADDRESSED REGISTRATION
37. We note that there is currently a facility
for people to appear on the register as a name and electoral number
only (ie without an address). This is used only in special circumstances
such as spousal abuse.
38. We support the continuing existence
of this provision but believe that its use should be strictly
limited to cases where the elector is at significant risk of physical
harm if their address is publicised. Registration officers should
be given clear and objective criteria for the use of this provision.
NATIONAL ON
-LINE REGISTER
39. The Electoral Reform Society sees an
advantage in the creation of a national on-line electoral register.
Such a document would make the process of registering and de-registering
people much easier in cases where a person moves house across
local authority boundaries.
40. If available to electoral administrators
in an on-line format then consideration should be given to allowing
political parties access to this format as well.
41. An on-line register available in real
time would also allow electors to cast their vote in a polling
station other than their designated station.
42. As a first step, we support a pilot
to create a real time on-line register covering an entire Parliamentary
Constituency or Local Authority area and allowing electors to
vote at any polling station within that area at one election.
PROMOTION OF
REGISTRATION
43. The Electoral Reform Society believes
that it should continue to be the responsibility of electoral
registration officers to promote registration in their area.
44. Registration drives should focus on
both the positive benefits of registration as well as the potential
penalties for failure to do so.
45. However, consideration should be given
to the production of a model procedure for registration officers
in the execution of their duties. This might provide for the number
of canvasses both by mail/delivery drop and in person as well
as the number of years for which entries may be carried over as
well as thresholds which would require further action. It would
be the responsibility of the funding authorities to provide sufficient
resources to allow registration officers to carry out their duties
and for registration officers to show that they have carried them
out properly.
46. There should also be best practice guidelines
produced to show innovative schemes for publicity and registration.
47. The duty for promoting registration
on a national basis and for overseeing the work of electoral registration
officers locally should rest with the Electoral Commission.
PUNISHMENT FOR
FAILING TO
REGISTER
48. The Electoral Reform Society believes
that effective prosecution and punishment of those who fail to
register would act as a boost to registration efforts. However,
we believe that such moves should run alongside efforts to promote
the benefits of registration.
49. The potential punishment for failure
to register should be made clearer and should form a more prominent
part of registration initiatives in a similar way to that in which
the punishment for failure to have a TV licence is publicised.
50. There should be a significantly lower
level of tolerance for those who fail to correctly complete (or
fail to complete at all) a registration form. This should include
a presumption in favour of prosecution.
CONCLUSION
51. The Electoral Reform Society views electoral
registration as being a key part of the democratic process. We
believe that there is the opportunity to make improvements to
the current system which will aid the prevention of fraud, boost
registration and enable electors to vote with more convenience.
We commend the Committees on this inquiry and are willing to provide
any more evidence that they may feel useful to their work.
| 
