The Government focuses too much on election turnout, when there are far more worrying issues to contend with, say George Jones and John Stewart
‘We are still trying to run 21st century elections with 19th century structures – and the system is under severe strain.’ So claimed Sam Younger, former chairman of the Electoral Commission.
The public must have confidence in the electoral system.
The Government’s obsession with raising turnout has led it to neglect ways of enhancing the roles of local councils and councillors. Ministers are still pressing election administrators to find ways of raising the vote.
They should keep away from such a duty and instead concentrate on ensuring the smooth running and integrity of elections.
We believe the Government has failed to deal with significant defects in electoral arrangements, which we highlight here...
Conduct of elections
Both the Government and the Electoral Commission say corruption and abuse in the UK are rare.
The only evidence we have is the few cases the police and prosecution authorities say come to their attention, but we do not know if they are merely the tip of the iceberg.
The number of prosecutions is not in itself an indicator of the extent of abuse, any more than the number of prosecutions is an indication of the extent of burglary or other crimes.
The commission should be responsible for research and reporting on corruption in elections, and mount an inquiry into the real extent and causes of such illegalities.
Following the publication of the Committee of Standards in Public Life report on the Electoral Commission in 2007, the commission promised to undertake such research but as yet, none has been published.
The Government has made two key mistakes. The first was its resistance to the introduction of individual in place of household registration. The system should involve individual registration and include photo ID.
Now, at last, the Government proposes to introduce individual registration, but it will not be made mandatory until 2015.
The delay is said to be to ensure as many people as possible remain on the electoral register, but this should not take more than six years.
The real issue is that the Government does not see the integrity of the electoral process as a priority. We hope local authorities will not wait until 2015, but will introduce these changes in 2010.
The Government’s second mistake was to introduce new procedures, such as postal voting on demand, without regard to the dangers to the integrity of the electoral process and the secrecy of the ballot.
Although turnout might increase, there are dangers of fraud and abuse, and of the secrecy of the ballot being violated. Postal voting on demand should be suspended until the procedure is made more secure.
Voting should also be limited to designated public buildings, where the security of the ballot can be better ensured.
Voting for different institutions should not be on the same day. Same-day elections may make life easier for election administrators – they may increase turnout – but they damage civic culture, and the distinctiveness of local government elections will be diminished.
Voting should also be at weekends, when people will find it more convenient to vote.
Election courts
There is need for a review of election courts. It is amazing they have not been reviewed so far, after the experiences of Birmingham and Slough revealed banana republic-type practices of false registration and mass impersonation.
It is many years since election courts were established in the 19th century, and many aspects require review. For example:
l the proceedings are based on an election petition from complainants. There is only a short time for a complainant to send in a petition containing – and large sums have to be paid to do so – £400 initially, and for a local election, £2500, with potential for hefty costs in pursuing the petition. The short timescale and cost must deter some from making and taking forward cases, and require a review
l if, at the end of the trial, the commissioner’s report names as guilty persons proved to be corrupt, who had been neither candidates nor named in the petition, they must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard in their defence. In the Birmingham cases, 20 names were put forward, but the process was abandoned as impractical to allow a fair hearing in the time available
l the procedures have been little changed since election courts took over responsibility from the House of Commons, and the principles have not been stated. It must be time to state and review them
l the director of public prosecutions or his representative must attend the court if required by the commissioner.
In practice, it has not been easy to secure this attendance, and the police have not been geared up to deal with abuses of the electoral process.
If relations between the police, an election court and electoral administrators are not fit for purpose, there is a need for review
l a parliamentary election court is held before two judges, but a local election court is held before only one commissioner
l an election court takes the form of a trial between the petitioner and the respondent. The wider public interest in the integrity of the electoral process is not represented before the court, but the commissioner can report on issues of public interest. He could be assisted by the Electoral Commission being represented before the court to raise issues of public interest to be considered.
A review is long overdue. It should be commissioned by the Ministry of Justice from the Electoral Commission, and should cover the entire process for investigating and controlling electoral malpractice.
Political parties
Political parties have not been sufficiently vigilant in protecting the integrity of the electoral process. Together with election administrators, they should consider what needs to be done.
A critical issue is whether parties at local level should receive state financial support.
There is a case for supporting the political work of elected representatives as Short money does for MPs. The way around resistance is to channel taxpayers’ money not to party bureaucracies, but directly to elected representatives, leaving parties to rely on the financial backing of their supporters.
Something must be done to curb the denigration of political parties by the array of ethical regulators and in particular, those concerned with public appointments who promote a culture of hostility against parties.
They assume involvement in parties is disreputable, and virtually a disqualification from holding public appointments.
The creation of the national standards board encouraged the ballooning of minor incidents into inquiries which impose large costs on the accused, and impede parties from settling disputes at the local level. No wonder parties find it difficult to find candidates.
Communications
The public must have accurate information to make their electoral choices. And some key questions need answering – how can voters be informed more effectively about elections at local level? Should candidates be given a free delivery for their election addresses? How might ‘hard-to-reach’ groups be engaged in local elections? How can political parties be made more professional, in putting across their arguments in local elections, or have they forgotten the need to argue their case at local level?
The media
Can anything be done about the national media, who ignore local elections, except as a form of national opinion poll or to seize opportunities to disparage councils and councillors, or are they simply to be endured, like the weather?
But their exposures and love of sensationalising bad news, while damaging the public image of local government, could help expose electoral fraud, which, with a few exceptions, the press have done little to investigate.
Can the local press be revived and can the informed local government reporter be rediscovered?
Conclusion
Local authorities, the LGA and the CLG should be discussing these questions, which are vital to the proper functioning of the local electoral system. n
George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the LSE, and John Stewart is emeritus professor at INLOGOV.
The public must have confidence in the electoral system.
The Government’s obsession with raising turnout has led it to neglect ways of enhancing the roles of local councils and councillors. Ministers are still pressing election administrators to find ways of raising the vote.
They should keep away from such a duty and instead concentrate on ensuring the smooth running and integrity of elections.
We believe the Government has failed to deal with significant defects in electoral arrangements, which we highlight here...
Conduct of elections
Both the Government and the Electoral Commission say corruption and abuse in the UK are rare.
The only evidence we have is the few cases the police and prosecution authorities say come to their attention, but we do not know if they are merely the tip of the iceberg.
The number of prosecutions is not in itself an indicator of the extent of abuse, any more than the number of prosecutions is an indication of the extent of burglary or other crimes.
The commission should be responsible for research and reporting on corruption in elections, and mount an inquiry into the real extent and causes of such illegalities.
Following the publication of the Committee of Standards in Public Life report on the Electoral Commission in 2007, the commission promised to undertake such research but as yet, none has been published.
The Government has made two key mistakes. The first was its resistance to the introduction of individual in place of household registration. The system should involve individual registration and include photo ID.
Now, at last, the Government proposes to introduce individual registration, but it will not be made mandatory until 2015.
The delay is said to be to ensure as many people as possible remain on the electoral register, but this should not take more than six years.
The real issue is that the Government does not see the integrity of the electoral process as a priority. We hope local authorities will not wait until 2015, but will introduce these changes in 2010.
The Government’s second mistake was to introduce new procedures, such as postal voting on demand, without regard to the dangers to the integrity of the electoral process and the secrecy of the ballot.
Although turnout might increase, there are dangers of fraud and abuse, and of the secrecy of the ballot being violated. Postal voting on demand should be suspended until the procedure is made more secure.
Voting should also be limited to designated public buildings, where the security of the ballot can be better ensured.
Voting for different institutions should not be on the same day. Same-day elections may make life easier for election administrators – they may increase turnout – but they damage civic culture, and the distinctiveness of local government elections will be diminished.
Voting should also be at weekends, when people will find it more convenient to vote.
Election courts
There is need for a review of election courts. It is amazing they have not been reviewed so far, after the experiences of Birmingham and Slough revealed banana republic-type practices of false registration and mass impersonation.
It is many years since election courts were established in the 19th century, and many aspects require review. For example:
l the proceedings are based on an election petition from complainants. There is only a short time for a complainant to send in a petition containing – and large sums have to be paid to do so – £400 initially, and for a local election, £2500, with potential for hefty costs in pursuing the petition. The short timescale and cost must deter some from making and taking forward cases, and require a review
l if, at the end of the trial, the commissioner’s report names as guilty persons proved to be corrupt, who had been neither candidates nor named in the petition, they must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard in their defence. In the Birmingham cases, 20 names were put forward, but the process was abandoned as impractical to allow a fair hearing in the time available
l the procedures have been little changed since election courts took over responsibility from the House of Commons, and the principles have not been stated. It must be time to state and review them
l the director of public prosecutions or his representative must attend the court if required by the commissioner.
In practice, it has not been easy to secure this attendance, and the police have not been geared up to deal with abuses of the electoral process.
If relations between the police, an election court and electoral administrators are not fit for purpose, there is a need for review
l a parliamentary election court is held before two judges, but a local election court is held before only one commissioner
l an election court takes the form of a trial between the petitioner and the respondent. The wider public interest in the integrity of the electoral process is not represented before the court, but the commissioner can report on issues of public interest. He could be assisted by the Electoral Commission being represented before the court to raise issues of public interest to be considered.
A review is long overdue. It should be commissioned by the Ministry of Justice from the Electoral Commission, and should cover the entire process for investigating and controlling electoral malpractice.
Political parties
Political parties have not been sufficiently vigilant in protecting the integrity of the electoral process. Together with election administrators, they should consider what needs to be done.
A critical issue is whether parties at local level should receive state financial support.
There is a case for supporting the political work of elected representatives as Short money does for MPs. The way around resistance is to channel taxpayers’ money not to party bureaucracies, but directly to elected representatives, leaving parties to rely on the financial backing of their supporters.
Something must be done to curb the denigration of political parties by the array of ethical regulators and in particular, those concerned with public appointments who promote a culture of hostility against parties.
They assume involvement in parties is disreputable, and virtually a disqualification from holding public appointments.
The creation of the national standards board encouraged the ballooning of minor incidents into inquiries which impose large costs on the accused, and impede parties from settling disputes at the local level. No wonder parties find it difficult to find candidates.
Communications
The public must have accurate information to make their electoral choices. And some key questions need answering – how can voters be informed more effectively about elections at local level? Should candidates be given a free delivery for their election addresses? How might ‘hard-to-reach’ groups be engaged in local elections? How can political parties be made more professional, in putting across their arguments in local elections, or have they forgotten the need to argue their case at local level?
The media
Can anything be done about the national media, who ignore local elections, except as a form of national opinion poll or to seize opportunities to disparage councils and councillors, or are they simply to be endured, like the weather?
But their exposures and love of sensationalising bad news, while damaging the public image of local government, could help expose electoral fraud, which, with a few exceptions, the press have done little to investigate.
Can the local press be revived and can the informed local government reporter be rediscovered?
Conclusion
Local authorities, the LGA and the CLG should be discussing these questions, which are vital to the proper functioning of the local electoral system. n
George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the LSE, and John Stewart is emeritus professor at INLOGOV.
