The UK Government’s new Representation of the People Bill is set to transform the way the UK votes. Toby S. James draws attention to a move towards automatic voter registration and puts forward recommendations for how those proposals could be improved and strengthen democracy.

Major Bills to change how elections are important moments in the evolution of a country’s democracy. They don’t come around that often, and when they do, they have lasting legacies.  

In Britain, the Great Reform Acts extended the franchise to enable more people to vote. Anti-corruption and bribery rules prevented election candidates offering food and liquor for votes.  The Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 made history by giving women electoral equality with men. In 1969, was the voting age reduced to 18.

The new Representation of the People Bill by the government aims to reform elections to bring a “fair, secure and inclusive democracy.” The Bill includes a historic change to allow around 1.7 million 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in parliamentary elections – as well as local elections and referendums in England and Northern Ireland. This has, understandably, gained the most media attention, bringing a new generation of young voters into the electorate early. 

However, there are other important reforms in the bill which strengthen elections. Elections are a vital mechanism for empowering people. They give people a voice, the opportunity to renew the mandate for their MP and government – or to boot them from office. There are also a variety of ways in which elections can disempower people: they can’t vote if they are not registered, millions are often not legally enfranchised – and voter identification requirements can mean that people are turned away at polling stations. The Bill makes major headway in many areas – but there is scope for improvement.

Automatic voter registration will improve completeness and accuracy

The Bill makes provision for the UK to move towards a system of automatic voter registration. This will allow Electoral Registration Officers to add citizens are added to the electoral roll without having to make a prior application. This will save citizens time and prevent them from being turned away from the polls on election day – which our research shows can occur. 

Our study of electoral register quality in 159 countries demonstrates that automatic voter registration systems improve both the completeness and accuracy of the electoral register.

It is occasionally argued that AVR might increase completeness but compromise the accuracy.  According to James Cleverly in the Second Reading of the Bill, “automatic voter registration will lead to less accurate electoral registers and open the door to fraud”. Of course, if inaccurate data is used to update the electoral rolls, then their accuracy will suffer as a result. However, our study of electoral register quality in 159 countries demonstrates that automatic voter registration systems improve both the completeness and accuracy of the electoral register.

The logic is straight forward. People think about everyday tasks such as paying their bills, getting their passport or enrolling at school/university more frequently than they do about voter registration.  They might move house and update their address with the local authority to pay council tax.  However, they might not update the electoral rolls if an election is not looming – or if slips their mind. Empowering EROs to use the same data to update the register will mean that they will no longer be inaccurately registered at their past address.  Likewise, when citizens provide secure details for a passport application their name and address will often be more up to date than their voter registration application from several years ago. Up to 7.8 million people per year could be (re-)registered when applying for a passport, for example. Enabling EROs to use the best quality data will therefore strengthen the completeness and integrity of the system.

A timetable for AVR is needed

Despite the importance of these reforms, there are opportunities to strengthen the Bill. The Bill is currently missing a timetable for the introduction of automatic voter registration. There are no dates in place for any pilots. Secondary legislation is not yet available. There are therefore no guarantees that the government will undertake any steps implement the reforms. Our research has shown how Australia and Canada were successful in introducing assisted and automatic voter registration – both countries were able to establish the foundations for their assisted/direct enrolment and update systems within 18 months. However, the clock is ticking on the government to make meaningful changes before the next general election.

Implementing AVR will not be a one-off event. There may need to a continuing adjustment of the sources used to directly enrol electors. This means that important “technical” decisions will be made in the background of British democracy about who to auto-enrol, when and how. These decisions will probably fall to civil servants and guidance from the Electoral Commission. But it will be important that there is both Parliamentary oversight and civil society input into how this is done. The minister of state should therefore be required to report to Parliament on AVR implementation – and the quality of the electoral register. There should be an ‘electoral council’ with terms of reference, minutes and formal membership to enable parties, civil society and academics to provide input.

Meanwhile, the Bill fails to address the security threat posed by the open electoral register. The open register is a copy of the electoral register which is publicly available for anyone to purchase. The personal information of electors is put on sale. Electors can opt out of having their name published on the register – and the Bill proposes a change to make inclusion opt-in. But it could abolish a version of the register which serves no for democracy. There is also an opportunity to monitor and tighten up the usages of the full electoral register. 

Votes for all?

The cry of “No taxation without representation” was common as countries were democratising in the eighteenth century. It was heard again in the Commons during the second reading of the Bill.  While enfranchising 16 year olds, the Bill could leave many adults unable to vote at UK elections. The parliamentary franchise is limited on the basis of nationality – with little coherence. UK and Irish citizens can vote – as can some qualifying Commonwealth citizens living in the UK. We have estimated that there are 4.4 million 18 year olds who are resident, work and pay taxes in the UK who cannot vote on the basis of nationality. Meanwhile, some EU citizens in local elections in England and Northern Ireland – but  we  here are also 1.2 million resident unenfranchised adults in England and Northern Ireland for local elections.

The current electoral franchise is a mess – with some citizens able to vote in some elections, but not others.

Wales and Scotland have recently moved to introduce residence -based voting for elections over which they have jurisdiction. The previous UK government went in the opposite direction – by removing voting rights for some EU citizens in local elections.

The net result is that the current electoral franchise is a mess – with some citizens able to vote in some elections, but not others. This is difficult for citizens to understand, administrators to deliver and for UK democracy to justify. 

A first step would be to extend the franchise to all residents for local elections in England and Northern Ireland. This would bring the UK in line with international best practices on elections. The Council of Europe, for example, recommended that the right to vote in local elections be granted after a certain period of residence. Member States of the Council of Europe, of which the UK is a member, signed the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level which commits members to the granting of political rights to long-standing foreign residents.

What else would strengthen electoral integrity?

The government may restrict the timetable for discussion to push through the Bill.  But there is still an opportunity for parliamentarians to also introduce vouching at polling stations for electors without ID.  Voter identification rules have previously been shown to be discriminatory and a barrier to voting.  Vouching would enable an elector whose name was on the register and did have ID, to attest for the identity of someone who did not.  It would enable people without ID to vote.  But it would also ensure security by providing a clear paper trail to follow up any concerns of electoral fraud.

Electoral Commission independence should be full restored. Electors could be empowered if they had more information about the elections. Electoral officials could be required to publish this data in standard formats. 

Although the Bill would not redress all the deficiencies with UK elections (notably the electoral system itself which is increasingly seen as not fit for purpose),by including these, it would still become a historic change.

This blog first appeared on the LSE British Politics Blog