By-election - January 7th

[hedgehog]

We should be seeing increased turnout figures, as those who didnt register would be less likely to vote anyway.

[maxque]

Jan 8, 2016 11:08:50 GMT @stuart said:

Jan 8, 2016 0:45:35 GMT maxque said:

At last, someone seeing through the cheap Tory's attempts to cheat elections by grossly underepresentating cities and students.

Oh because their incapable of filling in a form. What it does protect is something the labour party turned a blind eye for far too long and that is voter fraud in our cities.

Representation should be proportional to population, not to "electors filling a form".

Yes, there is voting fraud. Reforming postal voting would be much better to fight against voter fraud than that, which doesn't address most issues.

They chose an ineffective way to fight voter fraud because that was not and never was their real goal.

EDIT: Before I get accused of trying to do the reverse, by population, I mean citizens (with perhaps a voting age requirement, I have no opinion on that).

[maxque]

I totally agree about the issue with heads of households controlling votes, I do not think than IER is the solution (the husband can just force his wife to fill the form).

I'm saying it's affecting Labour because it's quite obvious from data we got so far than inner-city decline is bigger than elsewhere.

I just don't see why electoral registration and redistribution of constituencies/wards/divisions is linked. UK is one of few countries using that data to do it. Population, voting-age population or population eligible to register for voting are the data most usually used, with data usually coming from the Census (which is not a possibility here, due to how often those processes happen). How 5 year predictions for wards now work? How to estimate how many of the people moving in new houses will fill the forms?

I have no real solution, I'm just concerned about Conservatives transforming the method of counting electorate for drawing boundaries into a political football. It's one step closer to US-style gerrymanderers.

[lennon]

It seems to me that Individual Registration is a good thing as far as reducing fraud / encouraging people to take personal responsibility for voting etc.

HOWEVER - there is a genuine question as to if Representation should be proportional to Registered Electorate, 'Theoretical' Electorate, or Population.

Personally, I think that Representation should be proportional to Population (just cos I can't vote doesn't mean that I shouldn't be represented) but appreciate that it means that Boundary Reviews would inevitably have to be tied in to the Census as it's the only way of getting 'Population' at a ward or more granular level.

[Deleted]

A Parish Council by-election (Labour defence) result from Bolsover District in Derbyshire yesterday which has probably been overlooked.

Shirebrook Parish Council (Shirebrook South East): Labour 167, UKIP 96.

There are so many of these in the area because there are many Parish Councils, many of which are warded.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 8, 2016 11:56:15 GMT maxque said:

I totally agree about the issue with heads of households controlling votes, I do not think than IER is the solution (the husband can just force his wife to fill the form).

I'm saying it's affecting Labour because it's quite obvious from data we got so far than inner-city decline is bigger than elsewhere.

I just don't see why electoral registration and redistribution of constituencies/wards/divisions is linked. UK is one of few countries using that data to do it. Population, voting-age population or population eligible to register for voting are the data most usually used, with data usually coming from the Census (which is not a possibility here, due to how often those processes happen). How 5 year predictions for wards now work? How to estimate how many of the people moving in new houses will fill the forms?

I have no real solution, I'm just concerned about Conservatives transforming the method of counting electorate for drawing boundaries into a political football. It's one step closer to US-style gerrymanderers.

Well please don't fret too much about it or bust a gut trying to find a 'solution'. I can assure you I'm not kept awake by the arrangements for voter registration in Quebec

[maxque]

Jan 8, 2016 12:16:41 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Jan 8, 2016 11:56:15 GMT maxque said:

I totally agree about the issue with heads of households controlling votes, I do not think than IER is the solution (the husband can just force his wife to fill the form).

I'm saying it's affecting Labour because it's quite obvious from data we got so far than inner-city decline is bigger than elsewhere.

I just don't see why electoral registration and redistribution of constituencies/wards/divisions is linked. UK is one of few countries using that data to do it. Population, voting-age population or population eligible to register for voting are the data most usually used, with data usually coming from the Census (which is not a possibility here, due to how often those processes happen). How 5 year predictions for wards now work? How to estimate how many of the people moving in new houses will fill the forms?

I have no real solution, I'm just concerned about Conservatives transforming the method of counting electorate for drawing boundaries into a political football. It's one step closer to US-style gerrymanderers.

Well please don't fret too much about it or bust a gut trying to find a 'solution'. I can assure you I'm not kept awake by the arrangements for voter registration in Quebec

Falling easily into the personal attack, Mr. Whitehead?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

I think Stuart is being a bit disingenuous by proxy. It's all very well saying that all intending voters have to do is fill in a form, but those pushing IER and the boundary review based on strict electorate statistics know perfectly well that not everyone will bother to fill in the form. They also know that those who don't bother are overwhelmingly in social groups less likely to vote Conservative, and also living in areas where the Conservatives are not competitive.

I'm still of the opinion that automatic voter registration should be instituted.

[Arthur Figgis]

I'm still of the opinion that people should have the choice whether or not to take part in the democratic process.

IER goes in the right direction, but it is still compulsory.

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2016 12:03:57 GMT lennon said:

It seems to me that Individual Registration is a good thing as far as reducing fraud / encouraging people to take personal responsibility for voting etc.

HOWEVER - there is a genuine question as to if Representation should be proportional to Registered Electorate, 'Theoretical' Electorate, or Population.

Personally, I think that Representation should be proportional to Population (just cos I can't vote doesn't mean that I shouldn't be represented) but appreciate that it means that Boundary Reviews would inevitably have to be tied in to the Census as it's the only way of getting 'Population' at a ward or more granular level.

The electoral register is the only appropriate, because purpose-designed and frequently-updated, source of information there is. Under the new system, people are approached multiple times, and the information is cross-checked with National Insurance records (and possibly other sources, I don't recall).

Inner cities have always had notoriously inaccurate electoral registers, simply because the populations tend to be more mobile. People frequently got on to the register, moved on within a year or two, and then remained registered almost indefinitely. This was often either because there was nobody at the address when new forms arrived, or the house was in multiple occupation and nobody took responsibility for amending it. Sometimes new people would get on, if they were interested enough, but former residents would not come off.

In my late teens and early 20s I several times worked as a canvasser for the electoral register in the Forest Gate area. Generally speaking, registration of people in small houses in single occupation, and council estates, was not too inaccurate. However, most large Victorian houses, of which there were many, and premises above shops, were divided into bedsits with a very transient population. Getting access at all was often very difficult, and those people I succeeded in interviewing often had no idea of the names of other people in the building. Mr Adams, then Head of Electoral Registration for Newham, had a horror of bad publicity (and, to be fair, of the idea of disenfranchising anyone), and was reluctant to take anybody off the register unless a signed form could be produced to confirm they were no longer there. Several houses had in excess of 20 people registered, and the all-time record - a large villa in the Woodgrange estate which appeared to be derelict - was 46. At that time, systematic electoral fraud was virtually unknown, but of course the register inflated the nominal electorate in the worst areas, while depressing figures for turnout.

[The Bishop]

Jan 8, 2016 12:43:47 GMT Arthur Figgis said:

I'm still of the opinion that people should have the choice whether or not to take part in the democratic process.

IER goes in the right direction, but it is still compulsory.

And until compulsory registration *and* voting is ever brought in, they will have that choice.

[Arthur Figgis]

Jan 8, 2016 12:45:23 GMT The Bishop said:

Jan 8, 2016 12:43:47 GMT Arthur Figgis said:

I'm still of the opinion that people should have the choice whether or not to take part in the democratic process.

IER goes in the right direction, but it is still compulsory.

And until compulsory registration *and* voting is ever brought in, they will have that choice.

No they don't. Electoral registration is part of the democratic process- surely by definition.

[The Bishop]

I view automatic registration as simply enabling them to take part, should they decide they wish to.

FWIW I am opposed to compulsory voting and always have been.

[Arthur Figgis]

Jan 8, 2016 12:51:11 GMT The Bishop said:

I view automatic registration as simply enabling them to take part, should they decide they wish to.

FWIW I am opposed to compulsory voting and always have been.

Sending them a form to register achieves that, without forcing them to register their existence with the state, or distorting the numbers of those who do wish to take part. I have lived in Lambeth, Lewisham and Cherwell since IER came in, and all three managed that. Which is no mean feat, given the incompetence of Lewisham and Lambeth in all my other dealings with them.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 8, 2016 12:40:19 GMT maxque said:

Jan 8, 2016 12:16:41 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Well please don't fret too much about it or bust a gut trying to find a 'solution'. I can assure you I'm not kept awake by the arrangements for voter registration in Quebec

Falling easily into the personal attack, Mr. Whitehead?

Hardly an attack, personal or otherwise. Just an observation and a suggestion that a bit of perspective is called for. We all here take an interest in elections in various foreign countries and have views about their systems. I think for example that the 5% national threshold in Germany can be unfair in the way it plays out in individual regions (for example the Greens winning seats in various eastern Lands with many fewer votes than AfD). At the end of the day though I'm not a German citizen and it's none of my business. I'm not going to go frothing on some German elections forum about how unfair it all is

[Khunanup]

Parliamentary seats should be based on population, bottom line. You as MP represent everyone who lives in your constituency and anyone there can call on your help or lobby you. You also see MPs engaging with that community no matter what their age, nationality or status.

I have no real issue with IER but to nakedly ignore the electoral commission guidelines and bring the reformed register forward one year, which just so happens to affect the numbers used for the new boundary review, is appalling.

[Merseymike]

I would have thought that voting was the last thing on some people's minds given recent events

[John Chanin]

Jan 8, 2016 12:44:13 GMT @goodoldcause said:

The electoral register is the only appropriate, because purpose-designed and frequently-updated, source of information there is. Under the new system, people are approached multiple times, and the information is cross-checked with National Insurance records (and possibly other sources, I don't recall).

Inner cities have always had notoriously inaccurate electoral registers, simply because the populations tend to be more mobile. People frequently got on to the register, moved on within a year or two, and then remained registered almost indefinitely. This was often either because there was nobody at the address when new forms arrived, or the house was in multiple occupation and nobody took responsibility for amending it. Sometimes new people would get on, if they were interested enough, but former residents would not come off.

In my late teens and early 20s I several times worked as a canvasser for the electoral register in the Forest Gate area. Generally speaking, registration of people in small houses in single occupation, and council estates, was not too inaccurate. However, most large Victorian houses, of which there were many, and premises above shops, were divided into bedsits with a very transient population. Getting access at all was often very difficult, and those people I succeeded in interviewing often had no idea of the names of other people in the building. Mr Adams, then Head of Electoral Registration for Newham, had a horror of bad publicity (and, to be fair, of the idea of disenfranchising anyone), and was reluctant to take anybody off the register unless a signed form could be produced to confirm they were no longer there. Several houses had in excess of 20 people registered, and the all-time record - a large villa in the Woodgrange estate which appeared to be derelict - was 46. At that time, systematic electoral fraud was virtually unknown, but of course the register inflated the nominal electorate in the worst areas, while depressing figures for turnout.

This is of course correct, but as someone who used to canvass in large Victorian rented houses in inner London, what you would find as often as not is that there would be 20 people on the register, only 1 of whom actually lived there, but there would still be 20 people living in the scummy bedsits into which it had been divided (although many of them would be foreign citizens and ineligible to vote).

The changes to electoral registration are a bit swings and roundabouts.  My view is that they do not address the main causes of fraud, which are nothing to do with adding phantom names to the register (as always this is not arguing that it doesn't happen, particularly in Tower Hamlets, just that it is not a major problem).  The changes will reduce the amount of dual registration of people that have moved, but will also exclude many young mobile people.  This isn't a new problem - as a young man who moved 7 times in 3 years, I found myself disenfranchised at the 1974 elections having been on the register in 3 different towns the previous year.  I have also registered real people at my address who couldn't register where they were living - as they were British citizens and entitled to vote.  Presenting ID in order to vote is much more to the point, as is control of postal votes to prevent them being stolen by heads of family in patronage cultures.

In terms of defining constituencies of equal size however, which is a different issue entirely, we should be using the census.  The census asks whether people are citizens (and of which country), and therefore a good estimate of the number entitled to vote can be produced.  I don't think foreign citizens not entitled to vote should count, and nor should people who emigrated to Spain 15 years ago.  This also avoids double counting of students and second home owners.  The boundaries can then be updated every 10 years in the wake of the census, which is pretty much how often they have traditionally been updated.   Equal represenatation is a fundamental principle that should not be used for partisan advantage by anyone.

[hedgehog]

There seems a simple but not popular solution to the problem of voter registration, national id cards, we are all on hundreds of databases but very few of them are linked, as individuals we grudgingly accept that our personal information is being used by corporate and govermental organisations and grudgingly accept that with a lot of spade work the government can gather information from a multitude of databased to build up a picture of ourselves.

We accept that fraud could probably be tackled by centralisation of information, but we are terrified by the power that that centralisation of power could give a government or commercial organisation.

If we want the most acurate voter registration information possibly, id cards would provide that, but is it worth the cost.

[Arthur Figgis]

Fraud would be facilitated by centralisation of information.