Unlikely parallels

An article by Quentin Letts in today's Observer comment section discusses whether the head of the UK Electoral Commission, Sam Younger, may be more powerful than we had previously thought.

Suggesting that Younger may be called upon to approve or otherwise an array of initiatives, from a TV show called Vote for Me (intended to produce a candidate for a parliamentary seat) to setting referendum questions, Letts wonders whether Parliament has unwittingly "created a monster".

As far as I'm aware, in many areas the Commission's powers are limited to making recommendations, which the Government may accept or reject. In the recent case of all-postal voting, for example, the Commission's recommendation to limit the exercise to certain regions - pointing out that no others were organisationally ready to take part - was overturned.

Lord Rennard stated in the House of Lords "The Commission says that the risks of fraud outweigh the benefits if there are four experiments. It says that the north-west is not suitable. It says in its most recent letter that the position has not changed since December," - a position attacked by Tony Blair as "absolutely extraordinary". Election officals and the electorate itself have to live with the consequences of seemingly uninformed decisions on the part of the Government, while the Commission is all too aware of the limits on its power.

Letts (whose main day job seems to be Dail Mail sketch writer) asks whether Younger is to be Britain's Katherine Harris. You may remember Harris from the 2000 presidential elections in Florida: she was the Secretary of State and county elections supervisor who implemented policies widely regarded as amounting to vote rigging.

Hardly. Harris, to my eyes and to those of others, had a strongly party political agenda (she's now a Republican member of Congress), and her many actions before, during and after that election displayed a complete disregard for equity.

The UK Electoral Commission is attempting to provide a professional and expert service to UK statutory election administration, free of any loyalties to parties or interest groups. Its recommendations are based on extensive work, which can be seen in the reports it produces, and it has in certain contexts commissioned independent research (available on its website).

Letts makes the accusation of "institutional modernism" against the Commission. I feel this is hardly fair. While I and others may argue with the exact position taken by the Commission on matters such as electronic voting, I'd be the first to point out that the yearning to be modern - such as the push for electronic voting - is in fact rife within the Labour party: the Commission seems merely to be attempting to contain these strong pressures within sensible bounds, and is concerned with vital issues such as voter confidence in systems and technology, a factor that political parties ignore at their peril.