Written by Thomas Worth

In the months leading up to elections, voters are often inundated with all sorts of literature from political parties and candidates. From leaflets to surveys, or even sudoku puzzles, political parties use campaign literature to vie for our votes. It is important for the health of our democratic process that parties and candidates are able to communicate with voters, and many people will value the opportunity to hear from those who are seeking their votes. However, other people may be less keen to hear from parties or, more likely, particular parties.

When you consider that during the 2024 General Election campaign alone, Royal Mail delivered 184 million freepost leaflets from candidates. And that this figure doesn’t take into account those delivered by the candidates and parties themselves, you begin to see why some people would rather not have their letter boxes clogged up.

The Electoral Register

So how do political parties and candidates find out where to send their campaign literature? The answer is the Electoral Register, which contains the names and addresses of people who are registered to vote. There are two versions of the Electoral Register, those being the Full Register and the Open Register.

The Full Register includes the names and addresses of everyone who has registered to vote. Aside from registering to vote anonymously for those who are vulnerable, there is no way to opt out of this if you are registered to vote. This version of the register is not publicly available.

Meanwhile, the Open Register is a version of the Register that is available for a fee to any person, business or organisation. Being on this register may be how you end up with plenty of junk mail through your door! When registering to vote, you can opt out of the Open Register, although the default option when registering is to be on this version of the register.

When it comes to elections, though, it is the Full Register that dictates whether parties will contact you through direct deliveries. This is because political parties, candidates and registered campaigners are entitled to receive the latest copy of the Full Register when it comes to election time. Importantly, they are also entitled to receive a ‘marked’ register which highlights what previous elections people have voted in, although of course not who they have voted for, allowing them to better target voters.

Write to the parties, but don’t hold your breath

For those who want to stop leaflets from coming through their door, an option is to write to the political parties to tell them to stop sending post personally addressed to them. The issue here is that it is rarely the national party that is sending the literature, it will be the local branch of the party, so you would need to contact them as well. Even then, this may not prevent the delivery of unaddressed leaflets that are delivered to all households in the area, either by local volunteers or paid delivery firms. Parties are also not obliged to stop sending you literature through Freepost mailing they may be entitled to at election times.

Another logical step would be to block junk mail with Royal Mail. However, the Freepost leaflets delivered by Royal Mail on behalf of candidates are not classified as junk mail. Therefore, taking this step, which would be great if you wanted to stop window cleaning leaflets, won’t necessarily prevent campaign literature from coming through your letterbox, especially as unaddressed leaflets from political parties are often not delivered by Royal Mail.

Junk mail and the Representation of the People Bill

With the imminent passage of the Representation of the People Bill, the way we get onto the Electoral Register is likely to change. This bill aims to improve our democracy by introducing votes at 16, changing political finance rules and expanding the forms of recognised voter ID. Part of the bill involves exploring Automatic Voter Registration which is likely to lead to changes in the process of registering to vote. In relation to campaign literature the most important change is the shift around the Open Register.

Instead of the current system, where we have to opt out of the Open Register, changes in the Representation of the People Bill mean that when registering people will automatically not appear in the Open register and would have to opt-in if they wanted to. The removal of this presumption means that voters will have increased control over their own personal data all while still being able to play their part in the democratic process.

While this won’t mean that you will receive less campaign literature from parties or candidates, it may mean that you are potentially likely to receive less junk mail, although we won’t hold our breath yet!

Support the Electoral Reform Society

If you join the Society as a member, your contributions will support our work in parliament like this, as well as in the press and online – making the case, and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system.

Join the Electoral Reform Society today

We just saw a significant victory when it comes to ensuring the independence of our elections watchdog.

It came during the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill on Monday, which is the government’s legislation to reform elections with measures such as votes at 16, automating voter registration and tightening rules around political donations.  During the debate, Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, announced that the government will remove the government’s ability to set the strategic direction of the Electoral Commission.

Announcing the move in Parliament, he said: “We recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the commission’s operational independence and ensuring it can carry out its statutory duties effectively, so we will repeal in full the power for government to impose a strategy and policy statement on the Electoral Commission.”

Weakening independence risks undermining public trust

This is an important win for democracy campaigners, as it undoes the damaging move by the last government to bring the Electoral Commission under the direction of ministers. The Electoral Commission is effectively the referee that ensures our elections are run properly and that political parties adhere to electoral law. Any move to weaken its independence risks undermining public trust in how our democracy is run and also risks opening the door to potential political interference in the future.

This week’s announcement promises to reverse the last government’s policy, introduced in the Elections Act 2022, which required the Electoral Commission to ‘have regard to’ a strategy and policy statement set by ministers, which reflects the government’s policy priorities and set out the ‘roles and responsibilities’ of the commission in achieving those priorities. The commission also had to report annually against that statement to the Speaker’s Committee. We argued these stipulations amounted to a significant imposition on the commission’s regulatory autonomy.

This week, a new report from Spotlight on Corruption highlighted the impact of Electoral Commission independence to the UK’s democratic standing. The report lays bare just how far the UK has slipped since ministers were given powers over the Commission in the 2022 Elections Act.

What changed in 2022

The 2022 Elections Act, introduced by the previous government, requires the regulator to ‘have regard to’ a strategy a policy statement set by ministers which reflects the government’s policy priorities and set out the ‘roles and responsibilities’ of the Commission in achieving those priorities. In plain terms: the body that polices fair play in elections must now consider the priorities of the politicians it oversees.

We raised our concerns during the passage of the bill highlighting how vital Commission independence is to electoral integrity and raising concerns about this change being introduced with no wider consultation or scrutiny. The Electoral Commission themselves were highly critical of the change saying the introduction of the policy statement, “is inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a healthy democratic system”.

We also raised concerns that the parliamentary committee charged with oversight of the EC had, at that time, a government majority. We recommended inviting ordinary members of the public to join the Speaker’s Committee, much like the Standards Committee has done, and ensuring that there could not be a governing party majority.

Why independence matters

Oversight of the Electoral Commission should be non-partisan and it is particularly important that the Electoral Commission, charged with ensuring fair play in politics, should be rigorously independent and able to command confidence in its impartiality. If the referee can be leaned on by one team, trust in the game evaporates.

Electoral management body independence is set out under international law and in a range of international guidelines and, unsurprisingly, the change brought in under the 2022 Act was criticised by two different international electoral observer missions during the 2024 General Elections. This new report highlights how since the Act, the UK has dropped down international ratings, finding that the UK fell from 30^th to 52^nd for electoral body autonomy.

A missed opportunity

The current government’s strategy statement on forthcoming electoral changes does not commit to restoring the Commission’s independence by removing the strategy and policy statement. This is a missed opportunity.

We cannot allow independence to be chipped away. The Commission must be accountable to Parliament as a whole — not the government of the day.

Join the Electoral Reform Society today

This general election will be the biggest we’ve seen yet for online campaigning. It’s an area where the ERS, along with many others, have long called for updates in electoral law. While there is still a long way to go, one positive step towards this end was introduced in the Elections Act of 2022 which set out new transparency requirements for UK campaigners.

‘Digital imprints’ are designed to make it clear to the public which person or organisation is responsible for promoting an advert. The legislation came fully into force in the November of 2023.

You might recognise ‘imprints’ from print material or digital ads if you live in Scotland, but the new law expands the reach of the requirements both geographically to the whole of the UK as well as to a larger number of campaigners. Irrespective of if an ad is paid for, campaigners registered with the Electoral Commission must now include an imprint with their online posts if they clearly aim to generate support for or against a specific candidate or party; and they are shared in the buildup to an election, referendum or recall petition. These criteria also apply to any unregistered campaigners who pay to publicly post political content online.

What impact do imprints have?  

When it comes to anticipating their impact, it’s useful to pinpoint which threats digital imprints address. Imprints do not, for example, illuminate much about the accuracy of a claim. This makes them unlikely to be effective in helping voters identify political disinformation. For the same reason, a digital imprint does not guarantee that a campaigner is trustworthy, beyond that they are at least compliant with electoral law.

So long as the public are aware of requirements, the absence of an imprint could provide a means of spotting potentially suspicious campaigners. Yet, in every case, further fact checking would be needed to determine this with any certainty. If a campaigner is unregistered and not paying to post, or if their post is purely about a policy issue and does not directly favour any one candidate or party, an imprint would not be necessary.

Where digital imprints do become more useful is in helping voters identify if what they are seeing is, in fact, an ad. ‘Native advertising’, a phenomenon where content is designed to blend in with its surroundings to appear less ad-like, is often used to increase the persuasive power of a message¹Dai, Y. and Luqiu, L., 2020. Camouflaged propaganda: A survey experiment on political native advertising. Research & Politics, 7(3), p.2053168020935250. Camouflaged propaganda: A survey experiment on political native advertising (sagepub.com). In consumer advertising, making influencers disclose sponsorship can help potential buyers identify when an influencer is expressing spontaneous enthusiasm for a product or has been paid to promote it. Knowing the difference matters, because chances are this will change how we evaluate the message. Research supports²Weber, C., Dunaway, J. and Johnson, T., 2012. It’s all in the name: Source cue ambiguity and the persuasive appeal of campaign ads. Political Behavior, 34, pp.561-584. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-011-9172-y that messages promoted by a seemingly unbiased source of information tend to be more persuasive than sources who clearly have a vested interest.

Like brands promoting a product, native political advertising may take the form of a social media post that appears as spontaneous approval for a candidate, or a piece of journalism appearing in a news outlet, while leaving underlying political associations either unclear or completely undisclosed. These methods aren’t limited to online spaces. For example, fact checking organisation Full Fact have recently called for political parties to stop circulating ads that appear as local print newspapers. Through doing so, they can piggyback off the credibility people associate with independent news sources.

Native advertising techniques aren’t necessarily a bad thing for politics. It could, for example, be a useful means of informing the public in new and engaging ways. However, voters deserve the full picture to properly assess the information they see. So far, research supports that political ad disclosures can effectively boost understanding that what is being viewed is an ad³Dobber, T., Kruikemeier, S., Helberger, N. and Goodman, E., 2023. Shielding citizens? Understanding the impact of political advertisement transparency information. New Media & Society. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14614448231157640 . Digital imprint requirements are therefore likely to makes it harder for campaigners to disguise their motives.

Digital imprints will not tackle all the threats faced by voters in online spaces and represent just one piece of the puzzle in a much needed broader course of action. Although less effective in revealing what could be political disinformation, imprints do provide an easily accessible means to spot content that has been designed with the intention of influencing public opinion. While the extension of transparency requirements is a welcome addition to political campaigning, there is plenty more for the next government to look at.

The rules on campaigning need to catch up with the digital age

Add your name: It’s time for an online campaign overhaul.

I recently co-signed a letter with a host of leading third-sector organisations, as well as consumer champion Martin Lewis and Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales, calling on political parties to agree a set of guidelines and guardrails for how they use AI in election campaigns.

AI has developed at a rapid pace in recent years (see the AI generated image on this article) and we are already seeing its impact on election campaigns around the globe, with it enabling the creation of artificial video and audio clips that are hard to distinguish from reality.

This year’s general election will likely be the first where we see the emerging impact AI will have on our politics. That is why the ERS is backing the call, led by Demos, to put protections in place before voters head to the polls.

Democracy can only function if it is grounded in honest, good-faith debate and voters can trust what they see and hear from our politicians.

Open Letter

In a year where globally more voters will head to the polls than ever before, democracy is facing a new and largely untested threat – that of AI-generated content. While there are significant opportunities to harness AI technologies for the benefit of humanity, including for democracy, they also pose major risks to our electoral processes, particularly in voter access to accurate information. The ease with which deepfakes can now be produced could further undermine trust in our democratic processes. Political parties are by no means powerless on this issue and can play a role in protecting election integrity in the run up to the UK election. Therefore, we are calling on all UK political parties to make an agreement committing to four steps which can help protect the UK election:

1. Not using generative Al tools to produce materially misleading audio or visual content that might convince voters into believing something is true when it is not
2. Clearly labelling where generative Al is used to produce audio or visual content in a non-trivial way*
3. Not amplifying materially misleading Al-generated content and being aware that ‘calling-out’ bad actors can sometimes have this impact
4. Ensuring that party staff, members, volunteers and supporters are given clear guidelines for the use of generative Al in election campaigning

We believe UK political parties can show global leadership on this issue, helping to establish good norms around the use of emerging technologies and ultimately protecting democracy in this critical year. If they do not, they risk further diminishing public trust in our political process.

Signed

• Polly Curtis, Chief Executive, Demos
• Sam Gregory, Executive Director, WITNESS
• Jeffrey Howard, Associate Professor and Director, UCL Digital Speech Lab
• Darren Hughes, Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society
• Martin Lewis, Founder and Chair of Money Saving Expert and the Money and Mental Policy Institute (MMHPI)
• Chris Morris, Chief Executive, Full Fact
• Gina Neff, Executive Director, Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy at Cambridge University
• Rashik Parmer MBE FBCS, Group CEO, BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT
• Jimmy Wales, Founder, Wikipedia

* Trivial altering of content is content that is altered or generated in such a way that is inconsequential to the viewer’s perception of it. This is exempt from disclosure under this commitment. This may include edits that do not materially change the implied context or content of an event.

We can’t leave political transparency to the whim of big tech firms: it’s time for a campaign overhaul.

The rules on campaigning need to catch up with the digital age – add your name

ITV recently confirmed to the Guardian that it is considering allowing political ads on its ITVX streaming service.

At first glance, this may not seem like a huge development. Social media is already awash with political attack ads and will be again at the next election; is it really that different if they start popping up in the middle of binge-watching Broadchurch or Love Island?

A big shift in political advertising?

Yet, if ITV do start showing political ads on its streaming service it will signal a marked shift in the way we have run political campaigning in this country for almost 70 years. Since 1955, political parties have been banned from buying ads on TV and radio.

The idea behind this prohibition was partly to ensure that our political debate was not unduly influenced by how much political parties can spend. Parties were instead allocated free five-minute party-political broadcasts so they could speak to the voting public on a level playing field.

The legislation in this area is massively outdated

But the legislation that governs political advertising on TV and radio was last updated in 2003 and doesn’t cover the subsequent rise of streaming services, which has created a loophole political parties are reportedly now looking to exploit.

Another factor at play is that at this coming general election political parties will be able spend an unprecedented amount of money. Changes quietly pushed through by the government last year almost doubled the cap on the amount parties can spend to £35 million. In short, money is set to play a much bigger role in the coming general election than any other in recent history.

Heading into unchartered waters

The worrying element of this report is the risk that we head down a route where our political debate starts being shaped by parties exploiting loopholes in outdated legislation rather than by regulation that reflects the modern world.

Join the ERS today

Become a member today from just £2 a month

Last month we hosted an APPG for Electoral Reform event at Portcullis House, The future of the electoral system – in conversation with John Pullinger CB, Chair of the Electoral Commission. We were delighted to have John Pullinger there to share his perspective and expertise as the Chair of the Electoral Commission with MPs, peers and their staff. The Electoral Commission is an independent body which oversees our elections and political finance regulations in the UK and work to promote public confidence in our democratic processes and ensure its integrity.

The meeting focused on looking forward to the elections taking place this year and considered the challenges and opportunities for the electoral system.

John Pullinger began the meeting highlighting how the landscape of our elections in 2024 is very different to the last general election landscape in 2019 and it is vital that we sustain confidence in the electoral system in this new era. When noting the differences in the landscape of the UK post-2019 he highlighted the new challenges faced since the last general election including Brexit, COVID-19, cost-of-living crisis, various international crises and the Electoral Act. He also noted the divergence of the electoral agenda across the different nations of the UK raising a constitutional point over the difference of prioritises. Finally, he looked forward to the new risks to the electoral system and democratic process which were on the periphery in 2019 which are now becoming more central and will continue to do so in the coming years, meaning we need to safeguard our democracy now.

John outlined 5 ways in which politicians and civil society can bolster the strength and defence of our democratic system.

Put the Voter 1^st

Putting the voter first is an effort to bolster confidence in the electoral system. In order to put the voter first, it is imperative that we do the utmost to engage all people in the democratic process. This means making sure that every person who has the right in to vote in the UK can do so, including:

1. increasing efforts to inform people about Voter ID requirements,
2. making sure those not in possession of valid ID are able to access and register for a Voter Authority Certificate,
3. engaging with the newly enfranchised in the oversea electorate,
4. working on overcoming obstacles in the implementation of Voter ID such as increasing funding for Councils so they can provide proper spaces for those with disabilities or other requirements to vote securely,
5. increasing the number of voters on the electoral register to ensure that the most people possible are able to engage in the electoral process.

Support campaigning

Recently there has been an upsurge in abuse, intimidation, threats and violence toward both political and non-party campaigners. Our democracy relies on the continued work of these individuals to uphold its legitimacy as a system which represents its people. If people are put off standing for office / engaging in the campaigns / getting involved in politics due to worries over their safety, both physical and mental, our democratic system is not fit for purpose.

An extension to this is shoring up support for increasing transparency around political party finances; donations from companies and donations from unincorporated associations are cause for concern.

Engage with electoral administrators

Electoral administrators are facing increasing pressures including the logistical and cost implications of implementing the new Voter ID requirements.  It is not enough to have resilient administrators; we need give them the tools to be able to ensure our electoral system thrives and make sure that this experience is consistent across the country.

Simplify and consolidate Electoral Law

Currently Electoral Law is dispersed across various pieces of legislation meaning it is a piecemeal and difficult to navigate. We need to consolidate electoral law, especially with the introduction of another piece of legislation, the Elections Act 2022. Consolidating Law will allow the understanding and application to be simplified.

Recognising the world we now live in

Any reforms to the electoral system need to be couched in the world we live in now and be futureproofed for the next election cycle in 2029/2030, the reforms need to retain and entrench confidence in the electoral system. This means a move towards modernising of the electoral system including more digital approaches such as Automatic Voter Registration.

ERS Members helped make this event happen

The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Electoral Reform (APPGER) is supported by the Electoral Reform Society and Make Votes Matter. You can help meetings like this happen by becoming a member of the ERS today.

Join the ERS today

In a recent, wide-ranging, interview with the Financial Times, John Pullinger, the chair of the Electoral Commission, expressed concerns about the government’s voter ID scheme and the threat to the Commission’s independence contained in the Elections Act, along with political finance loopholes.

Echoing many of the points we have made, Pullinger highlighted that the voter ID rules disproportionately affect some groups of people, making it easier for some people to vote than others.

Over 14,000 people were turned away due to voter ID

The Electoral Commission’s figures show that at least 14,000 people were prevented from casting their vote at last year’s local elections due to a lack of required ID. “The proportion was significantly higher among disabled people, unemployed people and some other groups,” said Pullinger.

There is now a very real risk we could see a far greater number turned away at the General Election, where those who are traditionally less engaged come out to vote. The Government should at the very least expand the types of ID permitted ahead of the next election.

This is a point that Pullinger agreed with, suggesting the government widen the list of accepted forms of ID.  During the passage of the bill we highlighted all the opportunities the government had to make the Bill less damaging. Pullinger highlighted attempts to broaden the list and how the government rejected them “I think readers will need to draw their own judgment about that” he told the Financial Times.

Widening the list would be an easy way to reduce the number of people rejected. But, ultimately, we would urge them to scrap this unnecessary and disproportionate policy altogether. Otherwise, we could see thousands of people turned away from casting their vote in a General Election, which would risk causing serious damage to trust in our democratic process.

Ministers setting the Electoral Commission’s strategy

The same legislation that brought in voter ID also ended the Electoral Commission’s strategy and policy independence. Ministers now write a strategy and policy statement on what they believe the commission’s priorities should be.

A strategy written by ministers of one party, voted through parliament by MPs of that party, does not seem like a strong basis for independence.

“We think this is a bad provision and should be repealed” Pullinger said, before making the clear assertion that “A statement of guidance is incompatible with the idea of an independent body”.

Campaign finance reform ignored

It’s not just the laws that have been passed that concerned the Electoral Commission, it’s the ones that haven’t been even looked at. We have long suffered from campaign finance regulations with glaring loopholes.

The fact that political parties aren’t subject to the same anti-money laundering regulations as businesses was described in the interview as a “troubling anomaly”, while the fact that companies registered in the UK can donate more than they make in the UK was also criticised.

Whilst making it harder to vote and reducing the independence of the Electoral Commission, the government is also ignoring the ways that dodgy money can flow into the whole system. This is an approach that is entirely head over tail – we should be building barriers to suspicious money, not the ballot box.

Add your name to our call to scrap the government’s voter ID scheme

Add your name today

Despite being one of our country’s shortest ever Prime Ministers Liz Truss dominated the headlines over the festive period. The ERS press team were ready and waiting to get our arguments around the House of Lords into the coverage.

The team are always on the lookout to get our issues into the press, giving stories to journalists based on our original research, sending out comments on current affairs, and writing letters and opinion editorials for leading publications.

The Liz Truss List – making the case for Lords reform

The Government provoked controversy when it chose to sneak out Truss’ long-awaited resignation honours list in a strategically timed announcement on the 29th of December. The ERS has long been at the forefront of advocating for reform to the House of Lords so our arguments on why the Truss list was a blow to democratic principles were heavily featured across the coverage.

The BBC, in the most read article of the day, carried our quote from Willie Sullivan – our Director of Campaigns. He highlighted that the power to make appointments to the House of Lords was an insult to many, following the effect of the disastrous ‘mini-budget’ and its effect on the nation’s and families finances.

The Observer also carried our quote from Willie and focused on the fact that Peers are given a lifelong power to legislate for the British people with the privilege of very little public scrutiny. Our continued pressure on the issue is paying off, as the article also highlighted Labour’s plans to not issue a resignation Honours list if Keir Starmer became Prime Minister.

We also got our Director of Research & Policy, Dr. Jess Garland, on to Channel Four, Sky News and BBC Breakfast bulletins to discuss the appointments. In her interviews, Jess said it was unrealistic to expect forPrime Ministers not to use their extensive powers to install people in the House of Lords. She made the case that power needs to be in the hands of the people and advocated for a fully elected second chamber.

Campaign finance reform – a missed opportunity

Late last year, the regulations on finances were vastly extended as political parties now have a budget of £35 Million to spend in the run up to elections. We used these changes to get campaign finances back in the media spotlight.

We made the case that the new regulations missed the opportunity to improve the transparency of campaigning finances. The new budgets risk damaging public confidence in elections and our democracy as there are still many shady loopholes for party donations to be made anonymously. The ERS advocates for transparency in political financing as voters should be able to access information about who is paying for political advertising in an attempt to sway their vote.

We achieved some coverage in the Mirror on this issue following their investigation revealing that Rishi Sunak has outspent the Trump campaign on targeted Facebook advertising. Dr. Jess Garland was quoted in this article highlighting that the new rules are not done with voters and democracy in mind. Instead, that those few voters who live in target seats for each party will be bombarded with ads whilst those in safe seats remain ignored.

In a year so crucial to our democracy, the ERS will continue to campaign for both an elected House of Lords and greater transparency in political funding.

You can help get the case for reform in front of millions by supporting the work of the ERS media team – with membership of the ERS.

Become a member from just £2 a month

The Electoral Commission has written an unprecedented letter to the government, calling for them to reconsider provisions in the Elections Bill that would undermine the Commission’s role of oversight of our elections.

The Commission’s letter, addressed to Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove and his fellow ministers at the Department, states that,

“the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement – enabling the Government to guide the work of the Commission – is inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a healthy democratic system. If made law, these provisions will enable a government in the future to influence the Commission’s operational functions and decision-making, which risks undermining confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Commission”.

As well as the changes to the Electoral Commission, the Bill includes clauses introducing voter ID and imposing the use of the outdated First Past the Post voting system on Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). It also changes the rules around how charities can campaign for change and on the rights of foreign-born residents of the UK to vote.

We have been working with a group of campaigners as the Democracy Defence Coalition, to coordinate opposition to parts of the bill that will downgrade our democracy. The coalition declared the Commission’s letter ‘a momentous intervention that shows what is at stake’. Democracy Defence Coalition spokesperson Mark Kieran continued,

“We welcome this extraordinary intervention by the Electoral Commission. This is a moment that shows what is at stake for our democracy if this appalling anti-democratic Bill is allowed to become law. We urge peers to follow the Commission’s lead on Wednesday, stand up for our democracy and send this Bill to the scrapheap where it belongs”.

The Electoral Commission’s Full Letter