House of Commons - Voter engagement in the UK: follow up - Political and Constitutional Reform

Voter engagement in the UK: follow up - Political and Constitutional Reform Contents

6 Improving voter turnout

75. Our interim report considered several radical changes to electoral arrangements, with a view to increasing participation at elections.[153] These changes were:

· Letting people register to vote up to and on Election Day;

· Holding elections at the weekend, or designating Election Day a public holiday;

· Online voting;

· Having the option of conducting all postal elections;

· Compulsory voting;

· Having the option of "none of the above" on the ballot paper; and

· Extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds.

Because these would be substantial changes to the way elections are run in the UK, we asked the public to express a view on them so we could decide which proposals had the most support. We have received thousands of responses in the form of written evidence, correspondence, survey responses and views on social media. The responses we received have taken views both on the proposals we consulted on, and also on some new areas.

76. The proposals that received strongest support from our consultation were giving voters the option of voting for "none of the above" and letting electors cast their vote online, both of which were supported by over 50% of the 16,000 people who responded to surveys on these questions.[154]

Registering closer to or on Election Day

77. For the general election on 7 May 2015, anyone wishing to cast a vote must register by 20 April 2015—14 working days before the date of the election. Our interim report found that allowing people to register to vote closer to, or on, Election Day would have a positive impact on both registration rates and levels of turnout. For that reason, we recommended that the Government bring forward proposals for reducing the number of days between the cut-off date for registration and the election day, with a view to implementing changes as soon as possible. We also recommended that the Government set out the steps towards enabling people to register to vote and then cast their vote on Election Day.[155]

78. This proposal received a mixed response from those responding to our consultation, with just over 40% of responses in favour, and the same proportion opposed.[156] In addition, when asked as part of the Hansard Society's Audit of Political Engagement which changes they would support to encourage more people to participate at future elections, 24% supported a right to register to vote up to and on Election Day. The British Youth Council stated that this proposal could be particularly helpful to young people who might not prioritise registering to vote until close to the election day.[157] However, a number of respondents highlighted the resource implications of this proposal and argued that there would be an increased risk of fraud if voters were allowed to register and vote on the same day.[158] Several respondents who did not support letting voters register on the day of an election did state that it might be possible to let voters register closer to the day of the election than is currently the case.[159]

79. The Leader of the Opposition told us that the Labour party was "committed to piloting election day registration, so that those who get to polling day and aren't eligible to vote have the opportunity to do so", and noted that this change had raised turnout in US states where it had been trialled.[160] The Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional and Political Reform also agreed with us that provision should be made for later registration, and same day registration, as it believed that "a large number of eligible voters are engaged by elections in the closing day of the campaign".[161] The Government has told us that it has "no plans to introduce such a change as there is no evidence that large numbers of people are turned away from polling stations because they are not registered."[162] The Government stated that the current period between the deadline for registration and Election Day "provides a crucial safeguard to preserve the integrity of our democracy", and also stated that enabling Election Day registration would "present considerable technical challenges and carry significant cost".

Source: Survey results, based on 16,061 responses[163]

80. The Electoral Commission agreed with us that "a citizen-focused electoral registration process should enable people to make a new application to be registered to vote or update their details on the register as close to polling day as possible", but stated that such proposals "must not […] risk compromising the accuracy of electoral registers or the security of the registration process."[164] The Commission has told us that it will "continue to work with the UK Government and EROs to further explore the feasibility and implications of such proposals". Similarly, the Association of Electoral Administrators believed that there were "significant disadvantages" to allowing voters to register right up to and on Election Day, but stated that now "on-line registration is […] available under IER would make it easier for the person wishing to register at a later stage in the timetable without having to go so far as allowing Election Day registration."[165]

81. We have previously received persuasive evidence to indicate that enabling people to register to vote closer to the date of an election, or on an Election Day itself, would lead to increased registration rates and turnout at elections, and our consultation has shown there is some public support for the proposal, although the response to our consultation was mixed. We reaffirm our recommendation that the Government set out proposals for reducing the number of days between the cut-off date for registration and the Election Day, with a view to implementing them as soon as possible. We also recommend that the Government set out the steps to achieving by 2020 the objective of allowing eligible electors to register and then vote at the Town Hall or equivalent up to and on the day of an election. We acknowledge the need to consider how to accurately verify registrations made on the day, and to provide any additional resources required by local authorities to implement such a system. Assuming these practical challenges can be overcome, there is no good reason for retaining administrative procedures that create barriers to participating at elections.

Elections at the weekend or on a public holiday

82. Our interim report considered the possible impact of holding elections at the weekend or making Election Day a public holiday—noting evidence that elections held at the weekend often had higher turnout than those held on a weekday—and recommended that the Government explore proposals for weekend voting, extending voting and designating Election Days as public holidays. There was significantly more support for holding elections at the weekend than there was for making Election Day a public holiday—just under 50% of respondents told us that elections should be held at the weekend (with just over 20% opposed, and just over 25% undecided), while just under 30% supported Election Day being a public holiday, or having voting take place over more than one day.[166] Those in favour of weekend voting commented that this would increase turnout as it would be a more convenient time for people to vote and also prevent disruption to schools. The Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional and Political Reform told us that they had long supported weekend voting, as they believe "holding polling day on a Thursday disproportionately benefits the wealthy and the retired", and holding elections on a weekend would give parties "a greater chance to run effective 'Get Out The Vote' operations and electors of all demographics a longer window in which to participate."[167] Some of those opposed to the change stated that voting at the weekend was likely to be just as inconvenient as voting on a weekday, and whatever day elections were held on was likely to be difficult for some people. A number of people also commented that there would be a need to consider how holding elections at the weekend might affect members of different religions. With respect to making Election Day a public holiday, those in favour stated that it would add to the occasion and mean there were fewer reasons not to vote, while those opposed cited the costs involved, both to the economy and of running elections on a public holiday, believed that it was unnecessary and observed that it would reward people with a day off even if they did not vote.

Source: Survey results, based on 13,458 responses[168]

Source: Survey results, based on 13,480 responses[169]

83. The Electoral Commission has told us that it does not oppose weekend voting on principle, but that there is little evidence that voting on a Thursday is one of the reasons why people do not vote and change should only be made if there is clear evidence that it would be of significant benefit to the voter.[170] The Commission also noted there would be issues around resources, availability of venues, security, and the timing of elections if elections were held at a weekend. The Association of Electoral Administrators raised similar concerns, and also stated that similar issues would apply if Election Day were made a public holiday.[171] As an alternative, the Commission has suggested that advance voting at the office of the Returning Officer and at any other appropriate venue between one and seven days before the close of the poll could improve convenience and access to the voting process. The Government's response to our interim report stated that the current opening hours for polling stations provided most electors with the opportunity to vote, and that postal voting was available to those who could not get to a polling station.[172] The Government further stated that there was "no robust evidence that moving election day to the weekend would have a significant impact on levels of participation", that faith groups would have concerns about moving elections to the weekend, and it might also increase costs. In terms of designating Election Day a public holiday, the Government told us that there was no strong evidence this would have any significant impact on participation rates and that such a change might also have "consequences beyond the election itself, for example, for business and the national economy."

84. Our public consultation has demonstrated significant public demand for holding elections on the weekend, and there is evidence that shows this could have a positive impact on levels of turnout. We recommend that the Government explore proposals for weekend voting—with possible alternatives being extended voting and the designation of Election Days as public holidays. We acknowledge the resource implications of these proposals, particularly for rural communities.

Online voting

85. Our interim report noted that online voting was the proposal that had received strongest support from those giving evidence to us, and recommended that the Government assess the feasibility of online voting and hold pilots in the next Parliament with a view to all voters having the choice of casting their vote online at the 2020 general election.[173] Almost 60% of the 16,000 people who responded to our consultation supported measures to let electors cast their vote online, with many respondents noting that it could have a positive impact on turnout by making voting more convenient.[174] Online voting was also the most popular proposal with members of the public asked, as part of the Hansard Society's annual Audit of Political Engagement, which changes they would support—with 45% of respondents saying they would support online voting. A number of responses noted that the change would be particularly beneficial to British citizens living overseas,[175] and could also be effective at increasing participation by young people and people with disabilities.[176] Our recommendation on online voting also received support from the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy which told us that they were "confident there is a substantial appetite for online voting in the UK, particularly among young people" and that they believed concerns about the security of online voting could be overcome.[177]

Source: Survey results, based on 16,095 responses[178]

86. That said, a large number of people did not think online voting should be made possible.[179] Many of those who responded to our consultation, both in favour or against, stated that security would need to be considered very carefully,[180] with a significant number of those opposed stating that the risk of fraud made the proposal undesirable. Concerns were also raised around secrecy of the ballot and the possibility of coercion. The Electoral Commission also highlighted to us the "significant practical and technological barriers to the development of online voting in the UK", and stated that the overall impact on turnout might not be significant.[181]

87. The Government's response to our interim report noted that various forms of e-voting were trialled in England between 2000 and 2007, and that this resulted in very small changes to overall turnout.[182] The Government further stated that there were concerns that e-voting was not seen by many to be sufficiently rigorous and could potentially be vulnerable to attack or fraud, and that the cost of introducing such a system would be substantial. Its response went on to say: "Public support for such measures is still far from universal and traditional means of voting (such as polling stations and postal voting) remain popular with the electorate." The Government also stated that "E-voting may be something to consider in the future, but is not currently a priority for the Government."

88. Online voting received significant support from those who responded to our consultation, with almost 60% of the more than 16,000 survey responses we received favouring the proposal. That said, many highlighted the need for an online voting system to be completely secure. The acceptance of postal voting and the move to online voter registration makes online voting the next logical step in making the election process more accessible from start to finish. In developing a system of online voting, serious consideration needs to be given to concerns about electoral fraud and secrecy of the ballot. We believe that online voting could lead to a substantial increase in the level of participation at UK elections, particularly for groups such as young people and British citizens living overseas, who are currently under-represented in electoral participation. We recommend that the Government come forward with an assessment of the challenges and the likely impact on turnout of online voting by the end of 2015. The Government should then run pilots in the next Parliament with a view to all electors having the choice of voting online at the 2020 general election, assuming the pilots are successful and it has been possible to develop a system for online voting which is secure and has the public's confidence in its integrity.

Postal voting and all-postal elections

89. Our interim report stated that the extension of the postal vote had been a success and that those choosing to vote by post should be supported to do so.[183] We raised concerns about the fact that almost half a million postal voters not confirmed automatically would lose their entitlement to a postal vote if they do not register under IER. The Electoral Commission agreed with us that "EROs target those absent voters that have not transferred automatically, as part of the transition to IER, under the new system", and highlighted the fact that "it is important EROs are required to write to all electors who have lost their absent vote entitlement on publication of the revised registers within one month of that publication, explaining what they need to do if they wish to continue to vote by post or by proxy and providing information on how to register individually."[184] The Government endorsed our "positive view of the effect of postal voting on voter turnout" and noted our "concern about the loss of entitlement to a postal vote of some people under the transitional arrangements for IER."[185] Its response to our interim report stated that such voters had been notified and encouraged to register individually so their details can be verified and an absent vote provided.

90. Our interim report also recommended that there be further trials of all-postal voting in elections.[186] There were mixed views about the possibility of letting local authorities decide whether certain elections should be held on an all-postal basis—where voters must vote by postal ballot. The majority of respondents felt that future elections should not be held on an all-postal basis,[187] with a number of responses raising concerns about the risk of fraud associated with postal votes, and others stating that it would not be beneficial to reduce choice.[188] Comments made by those in favour of all-postal elections included that it would mean schools would not have to close and also that turnout could improve.[189] The Electoral Commission did not support "any moves towards all-postal voting" as this would "remove choice from voters".[190] However, the Association of Electoral Administrators told us that local authorities "should be given the opportunity to conduct elections on an all-postal ballot basis as the percentage of postal votes returned at an election has always been higher than the percentage of those voting in person at a polling station" and an election conducted on an all-postal basis "may therefore increase voter turnout".[191] The Government told us that it was not convinced that there is a strong case for further trials of all-postal voting in elections, stating that it was not certain that there was widespread public support for this proposal and also that postal voters are required to provide personal identifiers (date of birth and signature) which go beyond the requirements for registering under IER, making all-postal voting a significant logistical exercise.[192]

Source: Survey results, based on 16,043 responses[193]

91. The extension of the postal vote has been a success. Those who choose to vote by post should be facilitated to do so. The Committee recognises the importance of postal voting in increasing democratic participation and calls on political parties, Electoral Registration Officers, the Electoral Commission and the Government to make postal voting more accessible. We note with concern that under the transitional arrangements for IER, almost half a million people who were previously registered to vote by postal ballot and were not confirmed automatically will lose their entitlement to a postal vote if they do not register under the new system.

92. We received mixed views on the possibility of holding further trials of all-postal voting, with the majority of respondents opposing the proposal. That said, we believe that in the future local authorities could pursue such trials in circumstances where they commanded community support.

Public awareness and the provision of information

93. Our interim report noted several calls for better provision of information, in a variety of different areas, including:

· Information about candidates at elections, to inform voters;

· Better and more accessible data on election results; and

· Improved public awareness about elections and electoral registration.[194]

Respondents to our consultation have confirmed what we heard before, with several respondents highlighting the lack of information about candidates and parties.[195] Some of the suggestions made by respondents to our consultation on improving the provision of information to voters were:

· Voter advice applications;[196]

· There should be a short description of each candidate on the ballot paper;[197]

· Promotion by Parliament of registration and participation;[198]

· Providing information packs to voters with details of parties and candidates.[199]

Bite the Ballot told us that they were creating "the UK-first useful voter matching tool (web app.) allowing electors to compare policies, and, in so doing, compare 'their' matches with local, regional and national voting intentions".[200]

94. With respect to our recommendation that improvements to the provision of information could include having a central source of information for election results,[201] the Electoral Commission has told us that it does not "centrally hold information on election results as there is no requirement for local authorities to provide them to us" but that it would "be keen to provide any support we can to other organisations that are undertaking work in this area."[202] Public awareness and the provision of information are areas the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy has considered in detail, looking in particular at how the House of Commons could be more interactive, and better at informing the public about what it does. The Commission has suggested changes such as creating an online forum for public participation in the debating function of the House of Commons, and better provision of the information and footage produced by Parliament.[203]

95. The Government's response to our interim report stated that there were a wide range of sources of information about elections and registering to vote, including gov.uk.[204] The response stated that having a central source of information for election results could duplicate information that is already publicly available and that it may only be possible to provide such information over a longer period of time without adding value to the information already produced. It stated that the Government would "need to be certain that there is a robust case and justification for putting in place such arrangements."

96. We reaffirm the conclusions and recommendations, from paragraphs 165 to 167, of our interim report concerning public awareness of and the provision of information. We trust the additional evidence we have received on these points, as set out above, can inform future debate on these issues, and we welcome the fact that Bite the Ballot are producing a voter advice app to help inform voters. We particularly welcome the work of the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy, which has looked in detail at how Parliament can become more accessible and better inform the public about its work. Such changes can only be beneficial to voter engagement.

Votes for 16 and 17 year olds

97. Our interim report considered the case for extending the vote to 16 and 17 year olds, with a view to increasing levels of voter engagement, and recommended that a motion on extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds be brought forward in 2015 to allow the House of Commons a free vote on the principle, with a view to the introduction of legislation if appropriate. It was therefore extremely encouraging when the Prime Minister stated on 7 January 2015 that:

205

98. Since we last reported on this issue, the Youth Select Committee, part of the British Youth Council, produced a report in November 2014 on lowering the voting age to 16. The report argued that the franchise should be extended to 16 and 17 year olds, as that Committee believed that "most 16 year olds are mature enough to vote" and they had received no evidence demonstrating they were not.[206] The Youth Select Committee's report also called for a "comprehensive programme of youth engagement to be designed and executed" to maximise the benefit of extending the franchise, and also recommended additional support for citizenship education in schools. The National Union of Students told us that they "believe that extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds would significantly help in efforts to engage young people in the election process" and that "young people need to be encouraged to take part in democracy, not kept out from it".[207]

99. The debate about extending the franchise can also be informed by the significant experience of the Scottish independence referendum. For the first time in the UK people aged 16 and 17 were able to take part in a major vote. 109,593 16 and 17 year olds registered to vote ahead of the referendum, and 75% of 16-17 year olds claimed to have voted at the referendum, a proportion significantly higher than that for 18-24 year olds (54% of whom said they voted).[208] The Electoral Commission's report on the referendum stated that an important lesson from the referendum for those wishing to extend the franchise was that:

to do this well it is important time is given both for administrators to do targeted activity to register young people and for campaigners to engage with them.

100. We have received extremely mixed responses to the idea of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, with somewhat more respondents opposing the change than supporting it (just over 40% in favour, and just over 50% opposed).[209] A number of respondents even argued that the voting age should be increased.[210] Many of those who favoured, and also of those who opposed, extending the franchise focused on the many things that 16 and 17 year olds are or are not able to do (such as get married, join the armed forces, drive, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol), and argued on that basis that the franchise should, or should not, be extended. Many of those arguing in favour of extending the franchise stated that the change would improve how young people engaged with politics, and would enable them to have a say on their future at an earlier age. Several respondents highlighted the particular importance of political and citizenship education in schools if the franchise were to be extended, to ensure that newly enfranchised voters were able to make informed decisions. A strong theme in the comments from those opposed to extending the franchise was that people under the age of 18 lacked the knowledge, maturity and life experience necessary to participate at elections. That said, some respondents noted that similar reservations applied to many voters over the age of 18. The Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional and Political Reform told us that the Liberal Democrats had long supported an extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, as this would set up "an ideal bridge from citizenship education to electoral registration to participation."[211]

Source: Survey results, based on 16,142 responses:[212]

101. Although the Electoral Commission has recognised that decisions about the franchise are a matter for "the relevant Government and Parliament to decide", it has told us that it would provide advice about the practical implications of implementing any change to the franchise, and stated that it would be particularly important that legislative changes were made in good time to allow EROs to identify and encourage eligible 16 and 17 year olds to register to vote.[213] The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Voter Registration highlighted to us that if the franchise were to be extended to 16 and 17 year olds, the "age from which they are permitted to apply to register will also have to fall" and there would therefore be an "even greater need to combine voter registration with citizenship (or civics) education from the beginning of pupils' secondary school careers should such plans progress."[214] The Government's response to our interim report stated that there was no consensus within the Coalition Government on extending the franchise and the Government therefore had no plans to introduce a change in this Parliament.[215] It noted that this "is no doubt an issue that will be debated extensively before and after the General Election."

102. The response to our consultation on whether the franchise should be extended to 16 and 17 year olds has been mixed, with strong views on both sides of the debate. We previously received some significant evidence that extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds could have a positive impact not just on voter engagement for young people, but also on voter engagement overall in the medium to long term. Committee members hold a variety of views about the desirability of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, but we recommend that Parliament leads a national discussion on this matter and that a motion on the issue is brought forward in the 2015 Parliament to allow the House of Commons a free vote on the principle, with a view to the introduction of legislation if appropriate. It would be valuable for the Electoral Commission to explore the practical implications of any change to the franchise, so as to inform the decision of Parliament and any subsequent legislative changes made by the Government.

Citizenship education

103. Several responses to our consultation highlighted the importance of political and citizenship education.[216] Respondents stated that effective education about elections and politics would be especially important in the event of the franchise being extended to 16 and 17 year olds, but was a key element in any package of reforms designed to improve voter engagement. The Intergenerational Foundation told us that initiatives directed at improving the voting system "will be for naught if young people are not given more information to help them understand why they should vote."[217] The Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy recently recommended that a "fresh, bold, look at the national curriculum" with regard to increased efforts on voter education.[218] Bite the Ballot suggested that, as part of citizenship education, best practice on engaging students with electoral registration—such as using Bite the Ballot's own resources—should be properly promoted.

104. We reaffirm the conclusion and recommendation, made in paragraph 172 of our interim report, concerning citizenship education, and trust that the additional evidence we have received on this subject will inform future discussions about this issue.

Compulsory voting

105. Our interim report found that making voting compulsory would ensure that the vast majority of eligible voters participated at elections, and some members of the Committee, though not all, believed that it should be included in a package of measures to meet the threat of disengagement.[219] The public response on the question of whether voting should be compulsory was relatively evenly split (just over 45% of respondents favoured compulsory voting, and just over 45% of respondents opposed it), with strong views on both side of the debate.[220] Comments made by those in favour of compulsory voting included that this would not just increase participation but be more democratic and prompt people to be more engaged, although several qualified their support by saying that, if voting were compulsory, provision would have to be made for those who were unable to participate, and that it would be important to give people the option to abstain.[221] Of those opposed to compulsory voting, many stated that this was an unjustifiable imposition, and that while people could be compelled to vote, this would not improve voter engagement in a meaningful way, since people should be convinced that voting was worthwhile, rather than having participation forced upon them.[222] Several responses also highlighted the practical difficulties and costs that would be involved in enforcing compulsory voting.[223] A number of submissions suggested that a better option might be to create a financial incentive to vote, rather than penalising those who do not.[224] The Electoral Commission took no view on compulsory voting, but told us that it would "be happy to provide support to the UK Government in considering the practical implications of a compulsory voting", including "considering what additional options could be included on the ballot paper for different elections".[225]

106. The Government told us that it believed that "voting is a civic responsibility and that the importance of political participation should be reinforced without the need for a sanction for non-compliance."[226] It therefore has no plans to introduce a system of compulsory voting for elections in the UK. Similarly, the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional and Political Reform also told us that "Liberal Democrats oppose proposals to coerce voters to the polls with threats of penalties or prosecutions", stating that they believed "it is for the political system to engage voters by providing a genuine choice of differing visions to the electorate."

Source: Survey results, based on 16,040 responses[227]

107. International experience demonstrates conclusively that making voting compulsory ensures that the vast majority of eligible voters participate at elections. Some members of the Committee believe there is a strong case for including compulsory voting in a package of measures to meet the threat of disengagement. However, other members believe that voting should not, as a matter of principle, be made compulsory, and that people should be free not to participate at elections if they so choose. We note the Government's view that voting is a civic responsibility and that the importance of political participation should be reinforced without the need for a sanction for non-compliance. The response to our consultation was mixed, with similar numbers in favour and against. In light of the mixed views we received with regards to compulsory voting, we recommend that the Government consult early in the next Parliament on the possibility of making voting compulsory for certain types of election, and report to the House by May 2016 to set out its view. This would encourage debate about voting, as a right and civic duty, which we believe could only be beneficial to voter engagement.

None of the above

108. In our interim report we concluded that if voting were to be made compulsory an option to formally "abstain" or vote for "none of the above" should be included on the ballot paper.[228] Over 70% of respondents to our consultation supported having the option of voting for "none of the above" on the ballot paper, irrespective of whether or not voting were compulsory.[229] Those in favour argued that, although voters could at present spoil their ballot paper or simply not vote, there was not an option to participate at an election and register dissatisfaction with the candidates listed. Of those opposed to the proposal, some stated that it would not be helpful in encouraging people to engage with elections, while others believed that it would result in wasted votes.[230] Respondents on both sides highlighted the need to consider the practical implications for elections if "none of the above" were to win, with a number of different suggestions being made, including re-running the election and potentially disqualifying those candidates that had stood in the initial election.[231]

Source: Survey results, based on 15,840 responses[232]

109. In a recent report the Electoral Commission stated that it did not believe that there should be an option to vote for "none of the above" on the ballot paper as it considered that "the purpose of an election is to elect one of the nominated candidates to elected office", and having an option to vote for "none of the above" would "discourage voters from engaging with the candidates on offer".[233] Similarly, the Government's response to our interim report noted that the inclusion of a 'positive abstention' box on the ballot paper would allow electors to register their dissatisfaction with a candidate, party or politics more broadly, but that it believed that "when participating in a ballot, the position should be that the elector makes a positive choice of a representative rather than a negative one."[234] The Government therefore did not agree that the introduction of such a provision would be a positive step, and stated: "the Government believes it should be for candidates and the political parties to actively engage the electorate so they can make a positive choice of representation."

110. Having the option to vote for "none of the above" on the ballot paper is the proposal which has had the largest support among those who have given their views to the surveys we have drawn upon. This change would enable people to participate at elections even if they did not wish to vote for any of the candidates presented. If large numbers of people did choose to cast their vote in this way it would serve as a wakeup call for candidates and parties that they needed to do more to gain the support of the electorate. We recommend that the Government consult on including, on ballot papers for national elections, an option for voters who wish to participate but not vote for any of the candidates presented, and report to the House on this proposal by May 2016.

Electoral reform

111. Our interim report stated that Westminster had a settled view on the First Past the Post voting system, but noted that the more that centralisation gave way to devolution, the more that electors at the level of the nations, regions or localities would wish to exercise choice over their electoral systems. We concluded that the greater the extent to which democratic institutions outside Whitehall, be they Parliaments, assemblies or institutions in localities, were recognised as the place where the debate about their own electoral systems took place and were decided, the greater the positive impact on engagement and participation.[235]

112. A large number of those who responded to our consultation highlighted the adverse impact the First Past the Post voting system had on people's inclination to participate at elections, as well as the view that the results of elections held under FPTP were not representative of the votes cast by the public at a national level. Several submissions expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of consideration given to electoral reform in our interim report,[236] and called for electoral reform—with a number of different systems being advocated.[237] Those arguing for electoral reform included the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional and Political Reform and the Green Party for England and Wales.[238]

113. A significant number of those who responded to our consultation have highlighted the adverse impact on voter engagement of the electoral system used for certain elections, and have called for a variety of different electoral arrangements. Some Members of this Committee believe that there is a case for reforming the electoral system used for parliamentary and other elections, but others believe we should retain the current First Past the Post system. We believe that there is a need to respond to the concerns about current electoral arrangements and have a public debate about the way forward. We recommend that, early in the next Parliament, the Government commission research on alternatives to the First Past the Post voting system for general elections—and experience of these both in the UK and abroad—with a view to consulting the public on whether there is a need to change the electoral system used for certain elections. Parliament may also wish to take this debate forward, either by establishing a Commission to consider the matter in detail, or possibly by working with a research partner—much as we have with King's College London on our work into the prospects for codifying the UK constitution. We would welcome any such proposals.

Conclusion

114. We have considered above a wide range of possible reforms to increase the extent to which the public engages with and participates at elections. Our interim report recommended that the Government bring forward a package of reforms to electoral arrangements to increase accessibility and turnout, and establish a series of pilots early in the next Parliament to test the various proposals that we have considered.[239] In response to this, the Electoral Commission told us:

240

The Government's own response was:

Making elections convenient for voters is an important consideration in helping people engage with the democratic process. It needs to be achieved in a way that safeguards the security and accuracy of the electoral system, and avoids the creation of any new obstacles to voting.

[…]

241

115. Given its importance to the UK's democracy we feel that there is a need to revisit the issue of electoral administration on the sole basis of the convenience of electors. There is clear demand from the public for changes to current electoral arrangements, as demonstrated by the volume of responses we received to our consultation. If taken together, changes to electoral arrangements would demonstrate that "the powers that be" are serious about voter engagement. That is not to say that the solution to improving voter engagement lies solely in making the process more convenient, or providing more information to voters, but we believe there is benefit to making improvements in this area, as well as addressing broader political issues. We recommend that the Government, working with the Electoral Commission and EROs, bring forward a package of reforms to electoral arrangements to increase accessibility and turnout, and establish a series of pilots early in the next Parliament to test the various proposals that we have made with a view to making permanent changes to electoral arrangements by 2020.

153 Voter engagement in the UK, paras 142-86 Back

154 Survey results [Annex 4] Back

155 Voter engagement in the UK, para 138 Back

156 In favour: Written evidence from Anthony Boggiano [PVE 01], Matthew Jeans [PVE 12], I Can Have a Say [], Kenny Imafidon [PVE 79], British Youth Council [PVE 91], John Metcalf [PVE 93], Demos [PVE 101], Oliver Maddison [PVE 104], the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional and Political Reform [PVE 106], Sam Jenkins [PVE 118]. Opposed: Helen Aldred [PVE 124]. All: Survey results [Annex 4] Back

157 Written evidence from the British Youth Council [PVE 91] Back

158 Written evidence from John Hemming [PVE 10], Association of Electoral Administrators [PVE 72] Back

159 Written evidence from Colin Neal [PVE 22], Brent Council [PVE 49], Norman Day [PVE 71], PCRC survey results Back

160 Written evidence from Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Opposition [PVE 123] Back

161 Written evidence from Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional and Political Reform [PVE 106] Back

162 Voter engagement in the UK: Government Response to the Committee's Fourth Report of Session 2014-15, page 10 Back

163 Survey results [Annex 4] Back

164 Written evidence from the Electoral Commission [PVE 81] Back