When turnout at the 2001 general election plummeted to under 60 per cent, plans to do something about the dwindling numbers casting a vote increased significantly. There are, broadly, two ways to do this. One is to make voting more attractive, to give it more meaning; the other is to make it easier.

With the former being a somewhat trickier, and decidedly more long-term option, the government opted for the latter.

The most prominent feature of the scheme to make voting easier was the move to make voting by post much more widespread. At the 2005 general election, 12.1 per cent of the UK electorate voted by post, three times higher than in 2001.

However, along with the increase in the number of postal votes being issued came an increase in vote fraud, which has raised serious questions about the efficacy of postal voting as a means of engaging the electorate.

Arguments used in support of postal voting

• Given the number of other variables that affect turnout, it is hard to isolate exactly how much of a given increase in turnout is due to postal voting, but what evidence there is shows that postal voting does increase turnout.
  • When postal voting was piloted in some local elections, there were massive increases in turnout, but the pilots were accompanied by a much higher than usual level of advertising.
  • Another factor to be considered is the identification requirement. In St Edmundbury, the only place to retain the standard declaration of identity, turnout rose only 0.5 per cent; turnout rose most where ID requirements were scrapped altogether. See the Electoral Reform Society's Turning out or turning off? And the Electoral Commission's Delivering Democracy for more information.
• It is popular. In a poll conducted after the all-postal pilots in the 2003 local elections, 67 per cent said postal voting had made things better, whereas only 5 per cent said things were worse.
• It gives more time for people to vote, which therefore doesn't discriminate against people who might be unavoidably busy on polling day.
• It is helpful for those who cannot, for whatever reason, easily access a polling station.

Arguments used against postal voting

• It is much harder to be certain that the person casting the vote is actually the person the vote is registered to.
• There is a reliance on the postal service to make sure the votes don't get lost.
• It is impossible to guarantee that the vote was cast secretly and not under duress.
• Since postal voting was introduced, there have been many cases of fraud.
  • This fraud has included: intimidation, a pillar box set on fire by party supporters who feared it might contain votes for the opposition, members of ethnic communities threatened with deportation if they didn't vote a particular way, children paid to collect ballot packs that hadn't been pushed fully through letterboxes, large numbers of voters had their ballot papers stolen or taken away for 'safe keeping' and the creation of fictitious electors.
  • Richard Mawley QC, The judge presiding over a case of vote-rigging in Birmingham in June 2004 said that: "The system is wide open to fraud and any would-be political fraudster knows that". Citing evidence of "massive, systematic and organised fraud", Judge Mawley said the system was "hopelessly insecure" and sent a message to those that claimed that the current postal voting system was working, adding: "Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this statement surprising."
• Postal voting doesn't re-connect the politically disengaged; it offers no solutions to non-voting based on factors other than sloth.
• Offering people the chance to vote by post doesn't make the electorate any more informed or likely to engage in the political process surrounding the act of voting.

Postal voting and all-postal voting

There is an important distinction to be made between postal voting and all-postal voting. There can be good and obvious reasons for allowing people to vote by post, but making everyone vote by post is perhaps a step too far.

Postal votes were first issued in 1918 for soldiers returning from the war. They then became gradually more available for health, disability and work reasons, and then, in 1985, for people who were on holiday. Until 2000, postal votes were only an option for those that could give a valid reason. The Representation of the People Act 2000 changed that, allowing postal voting on demand.

Initial postal-voting pilots were good, leading the Electoral Commission to declare that:

"There should be a statutory presumption that all local elections be run as all-postal ballots unless there are compelling reasons why an all-postal ballot would be inappropriate or disadvantageous for a group or group of electors."

However, the experience of the more extensive pilots in June 2004 proved a sobering experience for the Electoral Commission, who have since reviewed and reversed their view. Their 2005 report, Securing the Vote concluded that:

"All-postal voting should not be pursued for use at future statutory elections or referendums in the UK, and the option of sending ballot papers automatically to every registered elector should not be pursued."

Real-world evidence of postal voting

Postal voting, in its varying degrees, is fairly wide-spread across the globe. It is common for local elections in Australia and New Zealand and in many parts of the United States; for example, all elections in the State of Oregon are conducted by post.

In Norway, they have a much more personal service, where voters can ask for an election official to come to house to collect their vote.

ERS view on postal voting

The Society believes that turnout is not falling because voting has got more difficult, and thus postal voting is not the best way to increase political engagement. Given the widespread evidence of fraud, and the inherent risks of security and secrecy that can realistically never be overcome, the Society does not believe postal voting is ready for wider use.

Elections in the 21st Century