The electoral register is the most accurate source for adult population data

Right now the electoral registers are probably the most accurate estimate of the UK's adult population. There are two reasons for this - one a credit to the Coalition government and the other to the insistence on data sharing by local authority chief executives. What disappoints me is that opposition parties at Westminster continue to present the idea that there is somehow a better estimation of adult population available for the drawing of constituency boundaries.

Let's look firstly at the the new electoral registers based on a process of individual registration.This new system was introduced for various reasons including the persistence of register stuffing (that is registering people to an address who aren't living there or in some cases don't even exist), inaccuracies such as dead and gone way folk (nixies as we call then in direct marketing) staying on the register, and a whole load of people who for various reasons weren't registered at all.

Had we just stuck with introducing a system of individual registration then it is beyond doubt that the numbers registered would have fallen and that fall would have disproportionately been among the young and the poor. But the new system didn't take that approach but instead allowed existing verified name and address data within government systems to be shared for the purpose of registration. As a result somewhere between 65% and 80% of registrations were concluded using existing information and this information, given much of it was for benefits recipients, disproportionately focused on the poor. Anyone receiving a benefit is automatically registered - that's every mum, all the registered unemployed, those receiving in-work benefits, retired people and those receiving sickness or ill health support.

We can add to this the use of council tax records, the DVLA database, MoD staff records and some higher education records. All-in-all a pretty comprehensive effort to ensure that most of the registration process didn't require expensive and time-consuming paperwork. To fill the gap, local authorities undertook a variety of different approaches including traditional mailshots, door drops, advertising campaigns and canvassing. The result is a system of registration that is over 90% accurate even before the addition of a further 2 million electors - an extra 4% on the total - during the first half of 2016 (controversially excluded from the drawing of new boundaries).

On the basis of this successful (but still not perfect) system it seems sensible to use the electoral registers as the basis for drawing up boundaries for parliamentary constituencies. Some seem to differ, arguing that we should use the "whole adult population" as the measure. The basis for drawing boundaries using a 'whole population' measure has to be the 2011 census and this is already five years out-of-date. We should also note that the census is not itself a precise identification of every person (although it strives to do this) and the data is adjusted to account for under-reporting in some areas and this data was challenged by some local authorities. Again, the census is better than 95% accurate which is good enough for most purposes but in this it isn't much better - at the point of collection - than electoral registration. Its advantage isn't a better identification of individuals at addresses but rather the richer data associated with the individuals actually identified.

And this is all out-of-date so we would need to make some adjustments to the numbers so as to be accurate. At the national level this is pretty straightforward - add and subtract births and deaths then adjust for net migration to get a pretty accurate estimate. For local authorities the first part (births and deaths) is easy but migration isn't as we've no requirement - such as is the case in Spain - for registering residency. We'd have to use proxy measures such as the council tax base, the Post Office change of address file and (irony) the electoral register. And this would still only get us a measure at the local authority level rather than the ward level data needed to draw up boundaries. None of this makes for a more accurate estimation of ward-level population than the electoral register.

There's a valid criticism arguing that those 2 million 2016 registrations should be included in the review but the effect of this would be pretty marginal unless the distribution of that 2 million is very skewed in terms of geography. It's effect would be to shift the quota range from 71-78,500 to 73.6-81,300 a result likely to further disadvantage smaller inner city seats - there's no evidence that excluding these voters would have anything other than a very marginal impact on the new seat distribution.

As a last thought, we can note that the last full review of English local council ward boundaries (2003) was on the basis of a future population projection rather than the census or electoral register. It is clear that, for many places, this was a pretty unsatisfactory measure - you only need to look at the population change in Leeds Council's Headingley ward to recognise that current population is a better basis for boundaries. And right now the most accurate source of current adult population numbers at ward level is the electoral register.

...

Britain's voting system isn't corrupt and the register doesn't exclude millions of voters.

Between UKIP frothing about postal voting and Corbyn's fanboys screeching about individual registration there's a load of nonsense talked about the UK's electoral registration system. The former are telling us that voting in any place featuring Asian Muslim voters is so corrupt as to be meaningless (or words to that effect):

The leader also claimed to see boxes where 99 per cent of the votes were for Labour's Jim McMahon – who branded Ukip supporters "rejects" last year.

He said: "It means effectively – in some of these seats where people don't speak English, but they're signed up to postal votes – effectively the electoral process is now dead."

Leaving aside how the Express calls Nigel Farage "The Leader", let's be clear about some things that went off in the recent Oldham by-election.

Firstly there was almost certainly some postal vote fraud (if by this we mean that some ballots weren't secret and a few might have been completed by someone other than the registered voter). Not very much for the simple reason that most voters and nearly all candidates aren't dumb enough to commit such a fraud.

Secondly the UKIP claim that 99% of the votes in any box were for one party is almost certainly complete nonsense. I've been watching election counts off and on for thirty odd years. I've watched literally thousands of ballot boxes opened up onto the table - including in places like Luton and Bradford where allegations about dodgy voting are legion. And I've never seen a box where all - or nearly all - the votes are for one candidate.

Thirdly and finally Oldham almost certainly saw (or didn't see) acts of personation - doing the Nigel Kennedy as we call it. But, like abuse of postal voting, these acts, however illegal, had no material bearing on the outcome. For what's it's worth, the result in Oldham was because Labour chose a good candidate with strong local presence (something UKIP didn't do) plus the reality that there is zero reasons why any Asian Muslim would vote for UKIP.

The electoral commission conducted a comprehensive review of electoral fraud - published in January 2014 - and concluded that, yes it happens but it's pretty rare even in places where there are lots of allegations of said fraud (like Bradford).

The thing with postal vote fraud is that there was just one event where it was widespread (I recall one candidate talking of another candidate - nothing like a bit of hearsay - farming hundreds of votes) and that was the bizarre decision of the then Blair government to 'trial' all-postal elections in 2004. Bringing about results like this one:



OK, I don't know if all that was down to vote farming but a striking result, no? And we know 2004 was a problem because nearly a quarter of those convicted of electoral fraud since 1994 were from that year's election. Since 2004 there's been no postal-only elections (choosing the Labour leader aside) removing the opportunity for the sort of wholesale vote farming that some say went on that year.

The electoral commission's conclusion about the significance of electoral fraud - and postal vote fraud in particular - is spot on:




Which brings us to the other issue - the one the left is so agitated about - individual registration.

It is believed that the Tories’ individual electoral registration (IER) reforms mean that 1.9 million people could fall off the electoral register in under six weeks’ time. Momentum claim that a further 8 million adults may not be on the register at all, meaning that 10 million will not be able to use their vote in next May’s elections.

Again there is some truth in this statement. Nearly two million names could fall off the electoral register under individual registration but this is mostly because those people don't exist, have moved, are registered somewhere else or simply aren't interested in being on said register. But the misinformation continues - here's Gloria de Piero MP who is leading Labour's charge on the issue:

We know what kinds of voters are more likely to be missing: they are private renters, people from BAME communities, the unemployed and lower-paid manual workers. But perhaps the greatest divide is between the older and the younger generation. Some 95% of over-65s are on the electoral register, yet the proportion of 18 to 24-year-olds is just 70%

In one respect there's nothing new here. Under the household registration system the young, ethnic minorities, private renters and the lower paid were 'under-registered' so all the new system has done is reveal the truth about the accuracy (or rather inaccuracy) of Britain's electoral registers. And much of the blame for this rests (other than with people who aren't bothered) with local authorities and especially councils in urban areas that tend to vote Labour.

Under individual registration people are automatically registered if they are receiving any form of benefit - JSA, ESA, housing benefit, tax credits, pensions or child benefit. So all those unemployed and low-paid that Gloria is worried for have been registered (assuming they're claiming the benefits to which they're entitled). Local councils have also been encouraged to use their other records - council tax and so forth - to transfer people to the new system. The result of this is that around 90% of the existing register transfers across.

And those who haven't transferred? They are people who are not claiming benefits, not the head of a household, not council tax payers and not otherwise known to the authorities (in the nicest way). The biggest such group isn't the BAME, the lower-paid, manual workers or such - it is students. Whereas before students were either registered by Mum or Dad on the form at home or else registered en bloc in student accommodation now they have to actually fill in a form to get a vote. And (surprise, surprise) they don't.

The switch to individual registration is a huge success - the register is more accurate, the (not very common but real) practice of signing up false names is ended, and people are encouraged to take responsibility for their own registration rather than rely on someone else. As a result a load of inaccuracies - 1.9m or so - have been cleared out of the system, local councils have been funded to get a more precise register, and we can have greater confidence in the register as a guide to who is living where. This isn't gerrymandering but a route to an accurate record of the electorate. The problem for Labour is that most of the system's inaccuracies are in places where Labour Councils have done a lousy job keeping an accurate register.

...