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

Voter ID has risen back up the political agenda after the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, last week confirmed the government is going to “look at” whether to scrap the requirements. Since 2023, people have had to show a form of approved identification at polling stations for most elections to cast their ballot. Ever since the idea was mooted, we have campaigned against it as an unnecessary barrier being that would prevent people casting votes they are entitled to.  

In the UK the levels of personation fraud – people pretending to be someone else at a polling station to cast a vote – are vanishingly small. 

Sadly, our concerns have been realised over the last few years as we have seen more than 40,000 people turned away from polling stations over the last two local elections and the general election. This figure is likely to be the tip of the iceberg as it doesn’t capture people who, for instance, simply stayed at home on polling day as they lacked an accepted form of ID. 

Voter ID creates absurd situations 

Over the last few elections, we’ve seen the voter ID rules create numerous absurd situations. For example, in last year’s local elections, former PM Boris Johnson – who introduced the legislation – was turned away from a polling station for not having ID. A decorated former army officer, who served Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, was also turned away as his veterans’ card wasn’t accepted as ID, something the government has since moved to amend.  

We’ve also heard personal stories from scores of voters, including police officers and nurses, who have been turned away from polling stations as their professional IDs were not accepted at polling stations. 

 We and other democracy campaigners have continued to argue that voter ID is having a disproportionate and damaging impact on our democracy by preventing thousands of people from voting, while solving no discernible problem.

Therefore, it was encouraging to hear the Deputy Prime Minister saying at a select committee hearing last week:  

 “The one thing I would say is that in all of the reports that we’ve had in the past, in terms of electoral fraud [it] is very, very, very, very minor. 

“And, therefore, we want to enfranchise people into exercising their vote and we’ll look at voter ID as part of that.”  

Democracy on a worrying trajectory 

This comes as we have just seen the second lowest turnout in a general election on record while trust in politics is at a record low. It’s clear our democracy is headed on a worrying trajectory and the government needs to take urgent action to set it on a healthier course. In a modern democracy, we should be removing barriers and expanding access to voting, not imposing new barriers that make it harder for people to participate in their democracy. 

Voting is a fundamental right and one person being prevented from casting a vote they are entitled to is one too many. At the bare minimum, the government should vastly expand the types of ID people can use at polling stations, but ultimately this damaging policy needs to be scrapped. 

Do you think that voter ID needs to be scrapped? Add your name.  

In October, legislation was introduced which would enable over 3 million more British citizens to vote. Wondering where the government have found 3 million extra voters? They’re the long-term UK diaspora, as the Guardian termed them.

These citizens have been living overseas for more than 15 years and new draft legislation, if passed, will allow them to vote from early 2024, which means they’re likely to be able to exercise their new right to vote in the next General Election.

Brief history of overseas enfranchisement

The Elections Act 2022 removed the 15-year limit on overseas voter registration (which came in in 2000). Overseas voting for those who had been living or working outside of the UK has been around in some form since 1985.

Before 1985, British people living abroad couldn’t vote in UK elections. The Representation of the People Act 1985, allowed citizens who were resident overseas to remain the electoral register for up to 5 years.

In 1988-89 a Bill was introduced to extend the franchise to those who has been resident outside the UK for 20 years. However, in 2002 Section 141 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was enacted, reducing this to 15 years. In December 2019 (the last General Election) 233,000 overseas voters were registered to vote, if the draft legislation goes ahead, the Government estimates number of overseas citizens eligible to register to vote will be close to 3.5 million.

As is the system now, these 3.5 million voters will have to register in the last seat they had a connection with.

How do other countries deal with overseas voters?

The main two ways in which countries deal with overseas voters are to have their vote counted in their last known constituency in the country or to use ‘overseas constituencies’.

Italy is an example of overseas constituencies being used. It has four overseas constituencies – one mega constituency that covers all Italians living in Europe, Russia, Turkey and Greenland; another for all of South America; one for all of Africa, Asia, Oceania and Antarctica; and a final one for Central and North America.

Many countries use special constituencies for overseas voters to mitigate several potential issues; overseas voters may have not been back to their home constituency in decades or no longer have any connection to the constituency; MPs don’t have much experience in dealing with issues specific to overseas citizens, and their issues may not be prioritised as the citizen is not in present in the local constituency, leaving overseas citizens sidelined.

Special constituencies ensure overseas voters are represented by someone who understands and is well-versed in issues which are specific to overseas citizens. In 2010 France enfranchised their overseas voters further by creating 11 overseas constituencies, each electing one member to the National Assembly.

So, what are the pros and cons?

Allowing all overseas citizens to vote will increase the franchise to include all British citizens, many argue that a democracy is not a full democracy until all citizens are enfranchised. It has been argued that overseas citizens still have a vested interested in the governance of the UK, for example some may continue to pay tax here, or have the right to access state pensions, or have dependents and family living in the UK which they care for. Therefore, it is said they should have the right to vote in a country which they have strong ties to and citizenship of.

Conversely, arguments in opposition to extending the franchise to British citizens overseas include the risk of foreign money, and therefore power and influence, making their way into elections via donations from citizens overseas. They also note that citizens who are living overseas are far removed from the country and the day-to-day experience of living there, thus their priorities will be different from voters in Britain. As a long-term resident of a foreign country, they will be integrated in the country they have chosen to live in, and their daily lives are more greatly impacted by the decisions made in that country.

What do you think?

The Electoral Reform Society doesn’t have a position on whether British citizens living abroad should be able to vote for 5, 20, 15 years or for life. Sadly, many of these voters will spend some considerable time trying to prove their connection to a seat they left decades before, only cast their ballot in a safe seat where their votes will make no difference – due to First Past the Post.

We are concerned though about the risks of foreign money using long-term foreign resident voters as a backdoor to influence our democracy. We’ve also noted the irony of ‘vouching’ being good enough to join the electoral register, but not to cast a vote.

But what do you think? Should all British citizens get the vote no matter where they live?

Long before the Elections Act was passed last year, we warned about the issues that implementing photographic voter ID requirements would cause. From ensuring access to the free form of ID was easy for the millions of voters who lack photo ID, to making sure that the new requirements wouldn’t deter voters from even attempting to head to the polling station on election day.

Now, just months before the first provision of the bill are set to be enacted in May 2023’s local elections, little has been done to ease these concerns. So the Electoral Reform Society has joined with other democracy organisations, Unlock Democracy and Hands of Our Vote, to call for an inquiry into the implementation of the voter ID by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

The cross-party committee has itself expressed concern at some of the Act’s provisions and in the past few months various experts, electoral administrators and even the government’s own Infrastructure and Projects Authority have questioned the progress towards a smooth rollout of some of the bill’s provisions. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority have coded the Act’s implementation ‘red’ noting the “Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable.”

Last month, an event of over 700 electoral professionals held by the Association of Electoral Administrators on behalf of the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said they are still not confident voter ID can be delivered as planned, to the quality voters deserve.

At the ERS we’ve long warned of the potential impact of voter ID – a policy that will make it harder for millions to cast their vote and potentially shut many out from the ballot box. But if the government insists on introducing this damaging policy it must be done right.

Up and down the country electoral administrators are already thinking ahead towards next year’s elections but doing so without the certainty of knowing what’s required of them when it comes to voter ID.

The final list of what sorts of ID will be accepted has still not been announced by the government. Rather than being decided in parliament, this vital information is being cooked up behind the scenes by ministers.

The delays to important legislation key to the successful implementation of voter ID mean that, as these elections approach, it’s becoming less certain that every eligible voter will be able to cast their ballot.

As we move closer to the first set of elections where ID will be required, we’re only now seeing the impact of this ill-thought-out policy. Just last week it was revealed that councils will be required to purchase 40,000 mirrors and privacy screens – at an estimated cost of £1.3m for polling stations as part of the scheme – allowing people in religious headgear or face coverings to have their identity checked away from public view.

As the government casts around for projects to cancel, this ill-thought-out expensive scheme would be an ideal candidate. Scrapping the government’s plans to ban those without the right sorts of ID from voting could save up to £180 million a decade.

Add your name our call to protect the right to vote

We’ve spoken a lot about the danger of the Elections Bill, which returned to the House of Lords today. From wasting £180 million a year on an intrusive ID card scheme for voting, to hobbling the work of the independent Electoral Commission, there is a lot wrong with the bill. One seemingly less controversial part that does warrant further discussion is the proposal to end the current limit on how long Britons can live abroad and still be able to vote.

But, whilst well-intentioned, this part of the bill has could result in unintended consequences – unleashing a weakening of the rules around who funds our politics.

Alongside being able to vote, the bill proposes Britons who have been overseas for more than 15 years would also be able to donate to political parties. But expanding the ability to make political donations to those who permanently live abroad could pave the way for foreign interests to influence our politics.

The Government must carefully consider the risks of allowing unfettered donations from people that may have lived abroad for decades. As war is brewing in Eastern Europe and Chinese spies uncovered in Westminster, unscrupulous states will be looking for ways to steer our politics, meaning we should pause before opening the floodgates further.

The UK’s campaign finance rules have not been substantially updated since 2000. Since then, we have seen mounting evidence that our elections are potentially exposed to interference.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life recently published a report on political finance based on extensive public consultation, stakeholder meetings, focus group research and roundtable discussions with smaller parties, academics and returning officers. The recommendations from this report could have been the foundation for much-needed clauses in this bill, had the Elections Bill not been published two days before the CSPL report. The government would have been well aware of the Committee’s work but rushed the bill to publication resulting in it, not including the important recommendations it makes.

Our election rules have not kept up with the shifting nature of political campaigning. That’s why we are working with FairVote and Stephen Kinnock MP on a new All-Party Parliamentary Group on electoral campaigning transparency to make that case for a comprehensive review of our outdated, loophole-ridden electoral laws.

While everyone on the electoral roll has a single vote, some can use their wealth to gain further influence. There is a basic British principle that those funding our parties should be domiciled here – indeed it is in law but not enacted. Businesses donating to parties must generate revenue here, so it seems fair that individuals wishing to funnel in funds from abroad should be able to prove a consistent connection to the UK.

We need clear, consistent principles for the funding of our parties in the modern age. Our Parliament and parties should not be available to the highest bidders around the world.

Voters will not accept a situation where tax exiles and shell companies are able to exert a disproportionate sway over our politics. The Government should listen to these concerns and launch a comprehensive review of Britain’s loophole-ridden campaign rules.

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

Scandal and crisis at the heart of government have dominated the news as we begin 2022. Yet in a packed news cycle of covid regulation breaking parties in Downing Street, and a pantomime-esque will-they-won’t-they over MPs triggering a no-confidence vote in Boris Johnson, we still managed to cut through the noise and highlight some dangerous threats to our democracy.

Defending our Democracy against the Elections Bill

The Government’s elections bill has continued to dominate our work, and debates and discussion around democracy in the media this month.

The bill, which passed through the House of Commons this month, saw widespread coverage as campaigners, politicians and experts spoke out against ministers’ plans for our democracy.

The Independent covered our call for MPs to resist the bill before the vote in Parliament, setting out how damaging to our democracy the plans will be. Our warnings were also covered by the Daily Record, the National and local and regional press across the country.

Our spokespeople also took to the airways to discuss the bill with Chief Executive Darren Hughes sitting down with Times Radio, Dr Jess Garland talking to Talk Radio and BBC Essex and, in Wales, Jess Blair spoke to ITV on the risks of imposing ID requirements on our elections that represent a ‘major blow to democracy’

The ERS’ work has shaped the debate around many of the policies set out in the bill, from voter ID to the imposition of the First Past the Post on elections for Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners – with politicians and experts quoting our work extensively.

From Crossbench Peer and former Head of the Home Civil Service Lord Kerslake, citing our warnings that scrapping the use of the Supplementary Vote will “only serve to disempower votes” in his column in the Local Government Chronicle, Plaid MS Rhys ab Owen in Wales Online to Claudia Webbe MP in the Morning Star the ERS analysis has continually been drawn upon by those opposing this dangerous bill.

Calling for reform to our politics

Elsewhere the Lords were back in the news as calls mounted for reform of the second chamber. Darren Hughes made the case for better regional representation in an elected upper house on BBC News and Dr Jess Garland spoke with Times Radio on the longstanding need for a radical shakeup to end the role of unelected lawmakers in our parliament.

We continued to speak out against dark money and for more transparency over who funds our politics in the Sunday Times, as new questions arose over the funding of campaign groups in Scotland.

Our work in Wales was covered in Wales Online with the launch of a new Open University film staring ERS Cymru’s Jess Blair, exploring the growth of misinformation and disinformation in Wales, and their damaging impact on democracy.

Our will work will continue to challenge the government on its plans for our election to ensure the voice of voters is heard loud and clear through the press before any reforms are signed into law.

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 of the ERS today.

Join the Elections Bill Rally in Parliament Square.

The passing of the government’s Election Bill through the House of Commons last week was a huge blow to democracy.

It now heads to the Lords, with peers now leading the legislative fight to stop some of the worst elements of the bill making it onto the statute books.

Make no mistake, if the Elections Bill passes into law, it will fundamentally destabilise our democracy and rig the system in the favour of the Government of the day.

From the bill’s plans for mandatory photo ID at polling stations which will make it harder for millions of people to vote, to the undemocratic imposition of First Past the Post for elections for Mayors Police and Crime Commissioners – this bill would undermine our democracy and take power out of the hands of voters and give it instead to ministers and politicians.

We can’t let this happen.

That’s why democracy campaigners are speaking up.

On Saturday 5 February Make Votes Matter and other democracy sector organisations are staging a rally against the Elections Bill – speaking up to defend our democracy.

Speakers include:

• Former Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell MP
• Lib Dem Education Spokesperson Munira Wilson MP
• Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office Fleur Anderson MP
• Director of Unlock Democracy Tom Brake
• Green Party London Assembly Member Zack Polanski AM
• Best for Britain CEO Naomi Smith and more…

Why not head to Parliament Square yourself and show them and this cause some support? It’s time to make your voice heard.

RSVP for the London rally in Parliament Square

Yesterday was a dark day for democracy. Despite widespread opposition from campaigners, election experts, academics and civil society the government’s Elections Bill successfully passed through the commons.

The Bill includes clauses introducing voter ID, more widespread use of the outdated First Past the Post voting system, and gives the Government more say in how the Electoral Commission – the body charged with ensuring elections are fair and free – is run. 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.

Ministers have pushed ahead with the plans despite widespread backlash on the impact the proposals will have on democratic rights. 

Voter ID could deny hundreds of thousands of people their right to vote. The changes to the Electoral Commission belie a government trying to mark its own homework and interfere with the free and fair nature of a proper election. And extending first-past-the-post will ensure elected officials are less accountable to their community and electorate. And that’s before you get on to all the other problems in the Bill.

Opposition to the plans has been widespread – the cross-party Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs (PACAC) just last month called on the government to think again, saying that the evidence provided to support the bill was simply not good enough.

Despite this, just two Conservative MPs, PACAC Chair William Wragg and backbencher David Davis rebelled on the Voter ID provisions of the bill with Wragg choosing to abstain on the final vote.

This bill represents an all-out assault on our electoral law, a power grab by the government that will put too much power in the hands of the government of the day at the expense of ordinary voters who will find it harder to cast their vote.

Conservative support for the bill comes just weeks after 99 Conservative MPs voted against measures that would make people show a Covid pass before entering a nightclub.

Those rebels did so in the name of freedom – rejecting a policy they claimed would lead to the UK becoming a ‘show your papers’ society. The Prime Minister himself, in 2004, said “If I am ever asked to produce my ID card as evidence to say I am who I am… I will take that card and physically eat it.”

Yet those same MPs last night backed this bill that will see voters asked ‘papers please’ before they exercise their most fundamental democratic right. 

We have been campaigning hard against this bill and raising the risks of voter ID since 2017, and, over the past few months working as part of the Democracy Defence Coalition we’ve helped mobilise thousands of people against the plans – bringing together campaigners, charities, academics and civil society groups in opposition to this damaging bill. The public see through the government’s plans and thousands of you have signed petitions to stop the bill. But our work doesn’t end here.

The legislation now moves to the House of Lords and we’ll be working with peers to amend the legislation and remove its most contentious clauses or vote it down.

It now falls on peers to stop this attack on our democracy and we hope that members of the House of Lords will do the right thing and stop this bill from becoming law in its current form

Sign our petition against voter ID

Opposition MPs have tabled amendments on reforming our voting system that would improve our elections for voters across the country.

On Monday the government’s elections bill returns to the House of Commons. Along with other campaigners, experts and civil society groups and the Democracy Defence Coalition, we’ve been campaigning hard against this damaging legislation.

Far from improving our democracy, this bill would weaken it. Plans for mandatory voter ID will make it hard for ordinary people to cast their vote and, for those without the required ID, could see many turned away form polling stations on election day.

The bill also gives ministers new powers to set the direction of the work of the Electoral Commission. Our independent elections watchdog must be just that, independent. Plan to give ministers power over its work represents a huge conflict of interest with those same MPs whose elections the Commission is tasked with regulating will now have power over its work.

What’s more the bill now includes new provisions – snuck in during the committee stage late last year to replace the preferential voting system used to elect Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners with Westminster’s broken First Past the Post system. Ministers claim this will improve accountability, but we know looking at the warping effects of FPTP elsewhere this would only serve to disempower votes and see millions of votes thrown on the scrap heap and risk unpopular candidates sneaking into office with worryingly low shares of the vote.

But as well as opposing these damaging plans opposition MPs have tabled amendments to the bill that would, if passed, actually improve elections across the UK, something that any new election law should do as a priority.

A Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform

Scottish MPs Brendan O’Hara and Patrick Grady have tabled an amendment to establish a Citizens Assembly on Electoral Systems – a deliberative forum to examine new, improved electoral systems for the UK.

The assembly would look at alternative systems to replace First Past the Post prioritising improving voter engagement and understanding, electoral integrity and fairness and proportionality.

We know that First Past the Post is failing voters, there’s a reason why in Scotland, Wales and even in some elections in England – that any new positions created have been elected by preferential and proportional systems like the Additional Members System or Supplementary Vote.

Proportional Representation for Westminster

Another key amendment is from Liberal Democrat Alastair Carmichael and the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas to introduce proportional representation for Westminster elections.

As we’ve long argued PR for the House of Commons is the only way to deliver a representative parliament and fairer politics – the way to ensure that all votes have their voices heard and all views are represented.

An end to winner takes all politics where governments rule with absolute power on unearned majorities needs to end.

If MPs want to pass a bill that would genuinely improve elections in the UK they should support these amendments instead of supporting the divisive and damaging proposals that ministers have put forward in the bill.

Monday is a chance for MPs from all parties to show that they support a fairer more representative politics – we urge them all to take it.