Voter ID: Securing the System or a Step Towards Realignment?
By Matthew Greenwood
In Boris Johnson’s first Queen’s Speech, the government announced its intention to introduce photographic ID requirements stating that its aim is to ‘tackle electoral fraud and protect our democracy.’ This measure is, then, designed to defend our elections against exploitation by requiring voters to verify who they are before being allowed to vote. In one sense, it is the ultimate demonstration that every vote counts and it is because of that fact that each voter must be verified to ensure that they can only vote once.
Given that the government’s stated aim is to ‘tackle electoral fraud,’ we might expect to find a large amount of it taking place, but the figures don’t demonstrate that. Data from the Electoral Commission, an independent body created in 2001, show that accusations of in-person electoral fraud increased by 7.69% in 2017 compared to 2015. That is to say, it increased from 26 to 28 cases and resulted in only one conviction.
Given this, it is unsurprising that there have been many critics of the proposed new system. Given that roughly 3.5 million people lack access to any form of photo ID and 11 million people do not have a passport or a driving licence, many fear that introducing ID requirements could have dire consequences for political participation, especially amongst the most deprived, who are the most likely not to possess ID.
There are several ways out of this scenario:
Firstly, the government could push ahead with the knowledge that in 2018 and 2019, between 0.03-0.7% of those who attempted to vote were turned away at the polling station for not having the right form of ID and did not return to vote.
Secondly, it could expand the list of what forms of ID are allowed to include non-photographic ID. For example, two household bills that state the individual’s name.
Thirdly, the government could issue election cards like those used in Northern Ireland.
Finally, it could scrap any plans to require voters to present any form of ID.
Having looked at the potential options that could be pursued in relation to voter ID, it’s worth discussing the ideological basis surrounding these changes and how they relate to a wider realignment taking place in British politics. Requiring photographic ID is a means of reinforcing trust in our electoral system by ensuring that only those entitled to vote, namely British citizens, do so. In addition, if only British citizens vote, the very act of participating in our national democracy is a means of creating value and reinforcing national pride.
Picture this: You turn up to your local polling station, you present your drivers licence, which has the British flag on it, or your passport, an even more important demonstration of citizenship, and you vote. You have verified yourself as a member of the British nation and have taken part in a collective engagement. It’s very difficult to deny that this imbues many with a sense of national pride.
Where does this policy and its connotations of national pride fit in with the wider political environment in the United Kingdom? Since 2016, a realignment in British politics has been taking place, adding an important third dimension to British politics: Nationalism vs Internationalism. The Brexit referendum was one of the most overt examples of this and voters rejected the EU, an international project, in favour of a leaving the European Union and retaining their national sovereignty. Another example of this is the new points-based immigration system. The system sets a high tariff for those who want to move to the UK which will naturally lead to a reduction in numbers of people moving here. It’s quite possible that in the aftermath of Covid-19 and the advent of Brexit, national concerns will rocket to the top of the agenda as much needs to be done to deal with the economic fallout of these events and I suspect that the solutions to this fallout will focus on rewarding citizens for their participation within our collective national endeavour.