Probity begins at home

Given the general view of late that politics and probity are mutually exclusive, it is probably no great surprise to learn that the Electoral Commission is demanding more stringent measures to combat electoral fraud in coming months.

The Times reports that 48 cases of alleged electoral fraud were investigated by police after the European and council elections last year. In addition, five charges have also been brought against a candidate who stood at the May 2008 election for applying for a proxy vote in another name. The trial will be held in April.

A similar incident happened in Swansea when a tory candidate was arrested for allegedly forging signatures on nomination papers. We don’t seem to be able to find out if that incident ever resulted in prosecution. Anyone know?

Whilst electoral fraud in the UK is nothing new, its perceived growth is attributed by some studies to the advent of voter-friendly measures such a postal voting and on-line registration. There is also the ‘regulatory effect’ of the commission itself as it fulfils one of its roles by flagging up irregularities and breaches of electoral law. Yet very little has happened in practical terms to improve safeguards since Richard Mawrey QC concluded in 2005 that “The system is wide open to fraud and any would-be political fraudster knows that it's wide open to fraud”.

As the article mentions, election officers are presently required to cross match at least 20 per cent of postal vote identifiers (signatures and dates of birth) when they process ballot papers. Officials fear that there could be high levels of fraud slipping through in the remaining 80 per cent. The commission is pressing the Ministry of Justice to introduce mandatory 100 per cent cross-checking for the general election. Although the government is making the right noises, actual change it stifled by delays and arguments as to who ends up paying the cost for additional checks.

For politicians, the challenge is to demonstrate that they are equally willing to conduct a validation of the process that puts them in office as they are to see similar measures imposed in Afghanistan. For the public, as was the case with expenses, it comes down to whether politicians can be trusted to operate as effective game-keepers in their own backyard when so many of them are potential poachers.
.
(PLR)