Democracy is imperfect. But it is too important to be left to chance. It is therefore alarming to watch the Government do just that. Ministers have encouraged experiments in voting, by post, in supermarkets or by text, and discovered that, unfortunately, the method that increases participation the most — a more liberal postal ballot regime — is also the most vulnerable to abuse. So the Government is currently taking the Electoral Administration Bill through Parliament in an attempt to cut fraudulent voting as well as trying to increase turnout.
The Bill is well meant. But efficacy trumps intention. The past few years have revealed — not least through investigations launched by The Times — significant criminality. While elements of fraud were long suspected, the scale was truly shocking: hundreds of postal ballot papers sent to a single address; intimidation of postal workers as well as voters; a quarter of Britain’s police forces pursuing 24 electoral fraud and malpractice investigations; five Birmingham Labour councillors barred from office over postal vote fraud.
The problem is obvious. It is far too easy for individuals to masquerade as someone else when either receiving or casting a postal ballot. Such fraud can be perpetrated for two reasons. The electoral roll is riddled with errors. It contains the names of the dead and some who never existed, as well as many at incorrect addresses. Secondly, when a vote is cast, either in person or via the post, only minimal checks are made as to its validity. If the Afghan or Iraqi elections had been held along similar lines they would doubtless have been ridiculed.
The necessary corrections could not be clearer. The electoral roll needs reform before the next election. Individuals wanting to vote by post must be required to register themselves, rather than doing so as part of a household, as under the current system. Registration should require a signature and date of birth that can be checked at the point of voting. This would stop fraudsters registering the names of imaginary aunts, cousins and lodgers.
Ministers disagree. They contend that requiring individuals to register would be a disincentive to vote by post. Unless the parents of 18-year-old Johnny registered his name he would never get around to it himself, seems to be the argument. Just when ministers are trying to boost turnout among the so-called Generation No-X, it is argued that such a reform would be regressive. Also, though not expressed in such terms, the increase in electoral manpower required to police a system of individual registration seems to be regarded as too much trouble.
Advertisement
The Government’s position has cowed reform campaigners. After the Bill lands in the House of Lords next week, opposition parties will table an amendment, drawn up by the Electoral Commission, by which individual registering is required for postal voting only. This is the bare minimum required. The drive for higher turnout is meaningless if it places the credibility of the electoral system at risk. Without change we would be better off dipping our fingers in indelible ink.