Electoral law specialists warn postal ballot open to abuse

As people cast their votes in today’s general election electoral law experts have warned the increasing use of postal votes should be reviewed to tackle fraud and abuse of the system.

Lawyers say serious corruption has been ameliorated by the Representation of the People Act 2000 but that harder to tackle is the practice of family heads forcing relatives to vote in a certain way.

The ballot today will also be the first time changes brought in after the last general election in 2010 take effect.

People queueing at polling stations before they close at 10pm will nevertheless be able to cast their votes but no one will be able to join a queue after 10pm.

However, the increasing use of postal votes may make that change unimportant.

Timothy Straker QC, an electoral law specialist at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square said: “The problem is that with the best will in the world, you can’t avoid family influence playing a part.

“You can imagine the scene: everyone sitting around the breakfast table filling in their ballot papers with the senior member dictating the votes.”

Although the number of electoral law experts in the UK is small, there is a consensus on the issue of postal votes.

Ashley Badcock, senior partner at Sharpe Pritchard, said: “We’d like to see a return to the position where there was not an automatic right to a postal ballot — to a system where voters would have to justify why they were not able to vote in person at the polling station.”

Some have argued for a ban on postal votes, giving examples in which family heads have registered fake names and cast multiple votes using associated fake signatures.

However, the situation with regards to registration is improving lawyers say, with family heads being prevented from registering a full household.

But this rule is being phased in, meaning that those previously registered by family heads can vote today.

Reformists have called for longer voting periods as an alternative to the postal ballot, which was relaxed so as to increase voter turnout.

Ms Badcock said: “Extend the period over which voters can vote for several days, perhaps over a weekend with the count on Mondays.

“Jurisdictions that do that have higher turnouts than we have.”

Other lawyers have argued against the abolition of the postal ballot.

Nicholas Evans, partner at London law firm Bircham Dyson Bell said: “I’m not especially persuaded that requiring voters to show up in person helps in the absence of any requirement to provide identification.

“And it seems odd that people are proposing to make it more difficult to vote at the same time that the internet is making it easier to do everything else.”

He added that extended voting bring its own potential problems, saying: “On its own, it will probably make personation easier, as the same person could show up once on a Saturday and again on a Sunday pretending to be different voters, in the expectation that the polling station staff will have changed in the interim.”

He suggested as a solution a password and electronic PIN system be introduced for postal votes, saying: “Why not have the same requirements for registering to vote as you have to open a bank account or get parking permit?

“It could be more effective than the two signatures now needed for postal votes”