Public Administration and the Integrity of the Electoral Process in British Elections

Abstract

Although Britain has often been held up as being a model of electoral integrity, recent controversies have suggested that this perception may not be wholly justified. This article explores overall standards of electoral administration across Britain, utilizing performance reporting data for returning officers in the 2010 general election to outline a comprehensive measure for the integrity of the administration of the electoral process. Discussion begins by outlining the question of electoral integrity and, most importantly, the issue of electoral administration. The second section considers recent British controversies, while also outlining steps taken to monitor the performance of electoral administrators. The third section introduces the performance standards and the index of electoral integrity developed from these, while the fourth section presents an analysis. The article concludes with discussion of the challenges facing electoral administrators, and highlights the utility of an index of electoral integrity in helping electoral professionals address these challenges. INTRODUCTIONAssessing the effectiveness and performance of public administration has been a key concern in many countries. Nowhere is this more crucial to democracies than in the field of electoral administration. Poor performance and difficulties in electoral administration have the potential to undermine both the legitimacy of the electoral process and, potentially, of the government elected. Examination of electoral administration and integrity is therefore of vital interest in democracies, yet as Wise (2001, p. 138) notes, 'public administration has not devoted attention to electoral administration with anything like the priority it has given to other areas of public policy'.This article provides an exploratory assessment of overall standards of electoral administration across Britain in the 2010 general election. Although often held up as being a model of electoral integrity, recent controversies in Britain have suggested that this perception may not be wholly justified. Incidents casting doubt on the integrity of the process have been evident across the whole of the UK. Many of these controversies about the integrity of the electoral process can be attributed to difficulties in electoral administration. This is an understudied area of public administration in Britain. Britain has a decentralized system of electoral administration, with local council returning officers responsible for the conduct of elections in their jurisdiction. Performance standards for returning officers in the UK were set by the Electoral Administration Act 2006. Compliance with these standards now has to be reported to the UK Electoral Commission. The article utilizes the subsequent performance reporting data for returning officers in the 2010 general election to outline a comprehensive measure for the integrity of the administration of the electoral process in general elections in Britain. Discussion begins by assessing the question of electoral integrity as under...

The cost of elections: the effects of public sector austerity on electoral integrity and voter engagement

“…This emphasises that elections are like other public services, such as schools and hospitals, which have differing levels of performance and efficiency. The effects of policy tools, management structures and the use of resources amongst electoral management bodies should therefore be investigated (Alvarez, Atkeson, andHall 2012a, 2012b;Clark 2015Clark , 2016James 2014aJames , 2014bMontjoy 2008).…”

“…In the UK, information on how much money is spent is not routinely reported, however, the Electoral Commission undertook an earlier financial survey of the cost of running elections after it developed a bespoke accounting method (Electoral Commission 2012a). This enabled Clark (2014Clark ( , 2015Clark ( , 2016 to undertake the first studies that actually used real data on spending. The Electoral Commission has also reported on the costs of the AV referendum (Electoral Commission 2012b) and plans to publish information about the costs of the EU referendum.…”

“…A range of methods have been developed to measure the quality of electoral administration (for a review, see: James forthcoming) but doing so at a sub-national level poses particular challenges. Sub-national expert surveys that have been used in the US are not available for the UK and the performance benchmarks used by Clark (2014Clark ( , 2015Clark ( , 2016 are not available for the whole period in question. This article therefore looks specifically at whether attempts by the state to engage voters has been affected by funding cuts.…”

The effects of centralising electoral management board design*

“…However, when studies then investigated the effects of formal-legal independence using large n, cross-national studies the evidence was mixed (Birch 2008, Norris 2015, Lindberg and van Ham 2015. More recent research has identified the challenges that election officials face delivering elections (James, 2014), the effects of funding (Clark 2014(Clark , 2015 and the effect of policy instruments used within EMBs (Alvarez et al 2012b(Alvarez et al , 2012aGoggin et al 2012;James 2013). Yet there remains a huge lacuna on 'what works?…”

“…This involves identifying and assessing the outputs that they produce; the economic efficiency with which they produce them; and, the efficacy of those outputs for the desired outcomes (Table 1). The responsiveness of EMBs to the needs of citizens and their employees are also included into the framework, as are the levels of probity and accountability within the organisations (also see: Bland et al 2012;Clark 2015;Elklit and Reynolds 2002).…”