please empty your brain below
Labour are doing more than enough all by themselves to give the Conservatives an electoral advantage, see where UKIP comes in Oldham on Thursday, I'm sure having a leader who doesn't sing the national anthem will really help get the vote out.

Anon Anon | 01.12.15 - 7:16 a.m. | #

I don't have the remotest sympathy for people who can't be bothered making sure they are on the electoral roll who then complain about not being represented.

As for students, they are a conclusive argument for raising the voting age back to 21.

TL:DR | 01.12.15 - 7:25 a.m. | #

Don't blame anyone for not singing the 'National' anthem - a divisive bit of nonsense. Beg the sky fairy to save the unelected dysfuntional HoS and her ghastly family? That's why I would never sing the national anthem or take part in any loyal toast.

We have more than enough in this county to celebrate without bringing in those wasters. . And that's before we get to the anti Scottish verse

MikeH | 01.12.15 - 7:36 a.m. | #

Labour don't help themselves. Why are they obsessed with retaining "first past the post" ? They've played in Cameron's hands by their insistence on keeping FPTP. They have little chance of winning under that system now, especially given that Labour in Scotland is virtually extinct.

IslandDweller | 01.12.15 - 7:41 a.m. | #

Hoping for an on-topic comment soon.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 01.12.15 - 8:05 a.m. | #

If someone has lost interest after being asked where they live, their nationality, their date of birth and their name, then they shouldn't be voting. Don't make excuses, DG!

hemsl | 01.12.15 - 8:11 a.m. | #

The apparent advantage to Labour in the existing system does not seem to help them win elections.

I suppose I should not be surprised at policitians wanting to redraw constituency boundaries to secure political advantage, but the ridiculous gerrymandering of US electoral districts shows where that ends. Let's hope the Boundary Commission contnues to do a more-or-less impartial job.

Andrew | 01.12.15 - 8:12 a.m. | #

Moved to a safe Conservative seat. Made sure not to register there yet, doing my bit to skew the figures back (and with a bit of luck I'm still on the register in Lewisham...)

No good reason to rush into redrawing the boundaries quite so soon after individual registration has taken effect and so far out from the next election. New developments, biased towards inner city areas, will presumably skew things further. At least the Tories had to wait until after the last election to push it through.

Ed | 01.12.15 - 8:20 a.m. | #

Back to just white men of property over 30.

Hmm | 01.12.15 - 8:31 a.m. | #

Interesting piece about a topic I was aware of, but not the full detail. One small point: I believe the earlier redrawing was stopped by the Lib Dems because a group of Tory rebels led by a certain Old Etonian (not of course Cameron) scuppered proposed House of Lords reform, which may have included some element of proportional representation, but the latter was not the key issue.

dg writes: Duly amended, thanks.

Julian | 01.12.15 - 8:47 a.m. | #

All Hail Our Tory Overlords!
May Their Reign Be Never Ending
And Glorious!

Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 01.12.15 - 9:00 a.m. | #

The other restriction the Boundary Commission placed on the redrawing of constituency boundaries at the last review was to leave ward boundaries as they were. So an existing local government ward had to go wholly into a redrawn constituency. However, in London, ward populations of voters varies enormously from 5,000-6,000 to 12,000+. So building new constituency boundaries is like building a house with different sized bricks...

dg writes: I've added that to the post, thanks.

South London Lad | 01.12.15 - 9:27 a.m. | #

Well the Conservatives only have an effective majority of about 15 (accounting for non-participation of Sinn Fein, the speaker etc.) Presumably there is a plan to appease potential Tory rebels who will lose their seats prior to the vote to approve these new boundaries, which will be close, since every other party will I think be opposed.

Although will the new boundaries apply in Northern Ireland? I can imagine they might be preserved for 'sensitivity reasons', which will provide support for Dave from the Unionist parties there.

James | 01.12.15 - 9:30 a.m. | #

I'm wondering if part of the 'missing voters' problem is that they never existed in the first place? Part of the problem with the old system is that people died or moved away but remained on the register because in some cases the 'responsible person' (especially in male-dominated cultures) kept them there to exercise their postal vote.
Agreed that there will be a potential loss of the old 'community' identity but there will still be local elections, and MPs should really be focussed on decision making on National and International issues.

Dave | 01.12.15 - 9:46 a.m. | #

"in retaliation for the abandonment of proportional representation" Don't you mean "in a fit of pique after it was rejected in a popular referendum?

JohnR | 01.12.15 - 9:46 a.m. | #

Actually Alternative Vote (what the referendum was on) isn't a proportional representation voting system. It's merely a 'preferential voting' system which is different.

We've not had a referendum on a proportional system.

Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 01.12.15 - 9:52 a.m. | #

As with @Dave - I'm certain some of those 'missing' voters don't exist.

B | 01.12.15 - 9:55 a.m. | #

A very timely post.

I currently have a part-time job working for my local Council as an "Electoral Roll Canvasser".

I posted letters (with forms), and then knocked on many doors encouraging residents to register. I am about to go out again to give the "missing voters" one last chance to "sign up".

I've had all sorts of excuses - the most common one is, "I thought I was on the register, because I registered last year". Other comments include, "I never vote, so I'm not going to register" and "I don't want anyone to know where I am"!

An interesting job, except when it rains and the worksheets we have to complete get a little soggy!

John Simmons | 01.12.15 - 10:15 a.m. | #

DG - thank you for covering a very important but rarely discussed topic. No one seems to like the changes in ER except the incumbent party: the head of electoral services in my (Conservative-controlled) borough is dismissive of them. There's probably a rebalancing required, which is understandable, but the decision to not allow e.g. landlords to register their tenants (whilst expecting them to do so for Council Tax purposes) is pretty clearly to omit those worse off and less likely to register. It's scandalous, but not spoken of.

Lux | 01.12.15 - 10:16 a.m. | #

After the shameless not-at-all-associated-with-any-religion electoral corruption in Tower Hamlets, individual registration was a must. That the Tories have turned it to their advantage, after Labour has benefited from an advantage for so long (didn't hear this blog moaning about that previously, though you mention it here) should be no surprise.

David | 01.12.15 - 10:35 a.m. | #

600 constituences, based on redrawn areas. Does that mean that the MPs will have to be reselected ? Looks like a good opportunity for the party central offices to ease out their awkward squad.

Coffin dodger | 01.12.15 - 11:36 a.m. | #

The new rules also require constituencies to be redrawn every five years, suggesting each may survive only one parliamentary term.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 01.12.15 - 1:19 p.m. | #

Blimey. So there's no longer a match between local and parliamentary boundaries, *and* the latter boundaries may change every election. So much for building a relationship with your local electorate!

Lux | 01.12.15 - 1:23 p.m. | #

Every five years? Perpetual review? How ludicrous.

David | 01.12.15 - 1:30 p.m. | #

Redrawing constituenices every 5 years seems a recipe for chaos. It will also make "reliable" election polling nigh on impossible as there will be no stable historic trend of votes aligned to the same area.

This is also going to cost political parties a lot of money as they have to change local constituency offices or associations to keep pace with the changes.

PC | 01.12.15 - 1:41 p.m. | #

@JohnR - exactly right!

Chris | 01.12.15 - 4:17 p.m. | #

DG: said or copied "Students are a particular issue because universities used to register them en masse and now they can't, and how many freshers are going to think to sign up for a vote in their first term, especially when there are no elections on the horizon?"

Lots of people have said or copied this, but I understood that "register them en masse" only applied to University halls of residence and other provided accommodation. Most Unis have less than half of students in such so this is probable a bit of a made up point.

Mike D | 01.12.15 - 4:51 p.m. | #

DG: said or copied...

Yeah, thanks for that.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 01.12.15 - 5:40 p.m. | #

I'm afraid I can't get worked up about most of this (redrawing of boundaries every five years though.....that's not smart), as in many ways a lot of this really needs to be done to restore integrity to the electoral system. And really, if people can't be bothered to go through the processes to register....

The other thing I think that is required (which does exist, for fairly obvious reasons, in Northern Ireland, but not elsewhere in the UK) is for the presentation of some form of ID to be shown when voting. No doubt such a proposal would also bring forth nay-sayers too

Dominic H | 01.12.15 - 5:47 p.m. | #

You've put an extra 'e' in 'aboutemyvote.co.uk'. The link is correct, though.

Peter CS | 01.12.15 - 5:47 p.m. | #

The old system allowed students to be registered at university accommodation and at their parents house (even though they can legally only vote once in a general election). Presumably the new system stops this and ensures that they are only counted once (assuming they bothered to register at their "home" address).

Adrian | 01.12.15 - 6:39 p.m. | #

Not being the person who signed the household form last time around, I was sent a letter telling me to register myself, which I duly did.
Then I was sent another letter, reminding me to register, so I emailed saying "I did, did that not work?"
Got a reply saying it was probably fine.
Got another letter reminding me to register. Ignored it.
Got someone coming to our door to tell me to register - husband said I had, but his word was not good enough, so he was given yet another letter for me.
I rang up and asked if I was on the register. "Yes, you are."
Got _another_ canvasser coming to our door, who left me yet another letter. Ignored that too.

I am now pretty darn sure I am on the register - I have voted in a local by-election since! - but apparently our borough has had a very hard time keeping track themselves.

Ollyver | 01.12.15 - 6:50 p.m. | #

And to think that 100 years ago, women died to get other women the vote.

Frankly, if you can't be bothered to register to vote, you should lose your vote; if you are that uninterested, how can you be in an informed enough position to be able to vote?

Blue Witch | Homepage | 01.12.15 - 7:00 p.m. | #

Thanks for raising this important issue, Mr Diamond.

I really like your politics and most of your contributors and followers have good, measured comments.

I still want to know how you are able to get around to so many places and really envy your energy!

Spoquey | 01.12.15 - 7:35 p.m. | #

To register to vote: notice you might not be registered, realise you need to register online, locate the registration website, answer nine questions, hunt down your National Insurance number, answer the tenth question.

To vote: spot there's an election on, go to a local building, mark an X on a piece of paper.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 01.12.15 - 7:39 p.m. | #

Householder voter registration together with postal voting was an invitation to electoral fraud. With more secure individual registration it might be possible in the future to bring in online voting.That might energise the young voters.

Coffin dodger | Homepage | 01.12.15 - 8:21 p.m. | #

If you think this is bad, which personally I don't as you are given enough notice to register and thus be counted and our body is independent abeit following certain perimeters, then you should see the shocking amount of gerrymandering that goes on in the US which results in some extremely strange looking constituencies and means it is extremely difficult for many areas to switch sides. There are now public bodies that are being set up to proceed more faily in some states.

Rick | 01.12.15 - 9:15 p.m. | #

Thanks for an interesting article DG. But if people can't be bothered to register to vote, they shouldn't vote. Your constituency is a byword for electoral fraud - I'd cheer if I were you.

Hedgehog | 01.12.15 - 10:37 p.m. | #

Adrian said "The old system allowed students to be registered at university accommodation and at their parents house (even though they can legally only vote once in a general election). Presumably the new system stops this ..."

I don't think it does thus if the Duke of Argyll (who can now vote) wishes to register both in Inveraray and London he can. The point may be to vote in both GL Mayoralty and in Scots elections and referenda.

Mike D | 01.12.15 - 10:59 p.m. | #

@Coffin dodger - it might be possible to vote online in the future but it would be much more difficult to do it safely.

The computer scientist Barbara Simons has for some time pointed out the immense security problems of online voting. She gave a TED talk in Feb 2013, addressed mainly to voters in the US but of wider application. This described the successful hacking of a pilot test, attempts to break in from China and Iran, DDOS attacks in two actual Canadian elections and other vulnerabilities. The argument is that voting is even more important than financial transactions - a matter of national security.

Instead of online voting she has supported the use of voting machines that are 'recountable'.

Bob Lindsay-Smith | 01.12.15 - 11:26 p.m. | #

Thanks to DG for another thoughtful and well researched article. It seems almost churlish to query the conclusion, but I really can't see a problem.

Imagine the outrage there would have been if the change had been from the new system to the old. Students would be complaining that their right to vote could be sabotaged by a resident landlord or landlady, and women's libbers would fear MCP husbands similarly disenfranchising their wives. DG might even be challenging 'Tory Toff' landlords and championing female emancipation and the right to self register !

What really needs to be is introduced is identity verification at the polling station. It seems incredible that anyone can turn up and impersonate a local voter without any checks being made. 'Vote early, vote often' is still alive and well...

Gerry | 02.12.15 - 12:07 a.m. | #

A minor point, but one that may make a significant difference to the new boundaries: the rule about not dividing electoral wards has been dropped. The current review will aim to keep wards together, but will divide them where necessary, which should reduce the numbe rof constituencies that need to cross borough boundaries.

Lucy | 02.12.15 - 12:26 p.m. | #

...but will increase the number of constituencies whose boundaries feel somewhat artificial.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 02.12.15 - 12:40 p.m. | #

Perhaps, but in other areas it will improve matters - for example, in the proposals that were dropped last time, Haringey's two constituencies both had to be expanded to take in areas of neighbouring boroughs. By dividing one ward in the middle of the borough, the numbers will be balanced enough to have two constituencies making up the entirety of Haringey.

Lucy | 02.12.15 - 1:14 p.m. | #

If they really wanted to reduce fraudulent voting they should do away with postal votes. Once upon a time you had to give a really good reason why you couldn't vote in person on the day before they'd begrudgingly allow you a postal vote. Now the authorities positively encourage them, and friendly political activists of all parties will kindly offer 'to deal with that for you' when election day approaches. It's not too much to ask people to go a nearby building and put a pencil mark on a piece of paper.

ActonMan | 03.12.15 - 1:17 a.m. | #

David wrote: After the shameless not-at-all-associated-with-any-religion electoral corruption in Tower Hamlets, individual registration was a must.

You're right, it was not at all associated with religion. It was about 'family': people (mainly older men / "community leaders") whose families originated from a particular part of the world helping other people whose families originated from that part of the world, plus some of their families who were still in that part of the world. (I haven't said 'Bangladesh' because I would expect it to be more localised than that).

The fact they happened to be Muslim (why so scared of saying it?) is because almost all people from that part of the world are.

For that reason, and for many similar allegations of postal voting fraud by dominating "community leaders" in similar communities elsewhere (Blackburn is often mentioned), some redefining of the electoral law makes sense. It's just that *any* party that happens to be in power at the time will rig the system to benefit itself - and will lie about the reasons they're doing so. PR is the only way to break this cycle (except for violent revolution...) but turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Graham | 03.12.15 - 7:17 a.m. | #

I didn't see anything in DG's post to suggest that he thought moving to individual representation was unnecessary, or that it would be good to stick with the old system, and yet so many comments seem to respond simply by saying there was a problem with the old system.

We all know that no system will be perfect, but even if the new system was perfect, it would be possible to do the transition badly, and if that's happening it's worth pointing it out.

I live in a place with individual registration (like most of the world), and I personally don't have a lot of sympathy for people who don't register until there's an election coming up, but the fact is that an awful lot of people don't think about it until there's a pressing reason. If it's not widely known that a particular date is important, then there's quite a few people who won't have got around to it, and will still register to vote before the election. So you can't say "who cares if they don't vote - they weren't interested", since thehy still vote, and what happens is that the value of the vote of everyone in their constituency is reduced. Are you saying that everyone who leaves near people who haven't bothered to register should be under-represented? Or in the case of students, the ones who live there at the election in a few years should pay the price for the inaction of those living there now?

Jonathan D | 03.12.15 - 11:32 p.m. | #

Seems daft that the boundaries will be drawn based up the size of the electorate, rather than population estimate.

After all, aren't MPs also meant to represent those who can't vote (children and non British nationals?)

Frankie Roberto | Homepage | 04.12.15 - 2:36 p.m. | #

I'm surprised at the amount and mood of comments. I hope it's all genuine but some sound eerily similar.

In the US Republicans spoke a lot about voter fraud and fixing this by requiring ID. Neutrals and Democrats saw this as limiting the poor and often non-white vote, as they are less likely to fly/drive/etc. I feel the same applies to people who slip between the cracks of changing voter subscribing and the stats seem to agree.

I thought the boundary commission was made independent and not subject to a Commons vote?

Toby | 04.12.15 - 3:28 p.m. | #

@Toby

Can't see a problem with requiring a National Insurance number: everyone has one, whether rich or poor.

Except for wannabe voters who are fictitious non-existent people, or are working here illegally...

Gerry | 04.12.15 - 4:19 p.m. | #

Yes, that's certainly better than passport or drivers licence. But I don't see the evidence that there are fictitious people voting. I see that large number (1.6m?) and I can't comprehend more than 1% of that being fraud of any kind.

Toby | 04.12.15 - 4:57 p.m. | #

@ Toby

Well, the new system should help to stop the massive voting fraud in Tower Hamlets !

Gerry | 04.12.15 - 7:50 p.m. | #

I have nothing to compare it to, so i wouldn't call it massive. In his mayoral election 37k people voted for him. It's hard to say how many legitimate votes there were, for simple maths I'll say a third were real people. That means the fraudulent voting was 10% of that borough and ~1.5% of the people taken off the electoral roll.

Not worth it, seems based on hysteria.

Toby | 05.12.15 - 11:30 a.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy