Electoral integrity, voter fraud and voter ID in polling stations: lessons from English local elections

Abstract

Polling stations are at the fulcrum of the democratic process. They are the location where most voters exercise their democratic rights, but also one place where electoral fraud and irregularities may occur, both in consolidating and established democracies. This study provides a detailed analysis of the nature and frequency of electoral irregularities that are found in English local elections using original surveys of poll workers in 2018 and 2019 (n=5659). It also identifies the effects of recent attempts to improve electoral integrity through the introduction of voter identification requirements on a pilot basis. Elections are found to be broadly well run but problems are reported with names missing from the electoral register and polling station accessibility requirements. Some more infrequent problems were reported with inappropriate behaviour from party agents/candidate -and some gender-based intimidation amongst voters. Attempted impersonation was exceptionally rare, however, and measures to introduce voter identification requirements therefore had little effect on the security of the electoral process. In fact, they led to some voters not casting their ballot, either for reasons of convenience and availability of suitable forms of ID, or reasons of principle and protest. There are therefore important implications for the wider literature on electoral integrity and the design of democratic practices.

The World Isn’t Fair, but Shouldn’t Elections Be? Evaluating Prospective Beliefs about the Fairness of Elections and Referenda

“…This probably reflects the reality of electoral administration that is frequently not sufficiently inclusive for disabled people. In a study by James and Clark [34] of poll workers in England, 9% of poll stations reported at least one disabled person having trouble accessing the polling station, and 14% of poll stations reported at least one instance in which disabled citizens had difficulty filling out the ballot paper. Moreover, while these numbers already reflect a notable lack of inclusivity for disabled people, the results may present something of a best-case scenario given that some disabled people who have had problems engaging with the democratic process in the past may have stopped voting.…”

“…Electoral impropriety has been rare in Great Britain in recent times. Detailed surveys of poll workers often find vanishingly few instances of even suspected fraud at the ballot box [34]. Of course, there have been occasional concerns about transgressions of electoral rules-often with respect to postal voting [35]-but rarely leading to sustained attention or, indeed, to evidence of violations of proper procedures on an appreciable scale 6 .…”

AI and core electoral processes: Mapping the horizons

“…Most electoral processes globally require some form of authentication at the polling place, such as a requirement that voters bring an identification document while visiting the polling place. While most focused studies have found very little evidence of impersonation (James and Clark 2020; Ahlquist, Mayer, and Jackman 2014), accusations of voter fraud are often used by political parties to discredit the electoral process and outcomes, to good media attention (Fogarty et al. 2015).…”

Dynamics of single candidate in election of regional heads

“…Quoting the opinion of James & Clark (2020), which explains if TPS is the fulcrum of the democratic process, as a location for voters to exercise their democratic rights, it is also a place for fraud to be carried out so that the implementation of the election irregularities. TPS is a place for democratic practices to take place and to take place directly between voters and election administrators.…”