Does Electoral Law Need Reform?

[Kromovaracun]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/26/uk-democracy-under-threat-and-reform-is-urgent-says-electoral-regulator

The Electoral Commission has warned that UK democracy is under threat unless a number of reforms are brought in, including:

- Requiring all digital campaigns to state their source of funding.
- Explicitly barring foreign organisations or individuals from spending on UK elections.
- Requiring campaigns to declare their spending sooner.
- Increasing the maximum fine per offense from its current £20,000 for those who breach electoral spending limits.

Do you agree that electoral law needs urgent reform? And do you agree with these proposals?

To me it seems quite worrying that some of these were not already in place. Although, the imposition of fines at all on those who break electoral law seems utterly toothless. So many of these people are million/billionaires, it is utterly insignificant to them (Leave.Eu was fined £70k when its co-founder is a multimillionaire). At the very least such an offence should warrant a criminal record.

[Old_Geezer]

No idea how urgent it is as I don't know the scale of any problem. The suggestions are worth discussing though by those in the know.

If the founder of Leave.Eu should have a criminal record then it should also apply to those in government at the time that put out the remain leaflets etc. and pretended it wasn't campaigning and need not be counted in the budget for it.

[Kromovaracun]

//it should also apply to those in government at the time that put out the remain leaflets etc. and pretended it wasn't campaigning and need not be counted in the budget for it. //

I agree, it was extremely cynical. It is quite worrying indeed that the electoral commission does not seem concerned at all about the threat of incumbent governments interfering in democracy unfairly.

[ToraToraTora]

Yes, I think it needs reform but not just in funding area as you have focused on here. We need to stop postal voting for a start.

[Gromit]

Are we any nearer to finding out where The Constitutional Research Council got £425,000 to donate to the DUP, who then used it for advertisements in a newspaper that isn’t even distributed in Northern Ireland ?

// The Constitutional Research Council (CRC) can today be revealed as the mystery donor that funded the party's drive for the UK to leave the European Union.

It is chaired by Richard Cook, a former vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.
The group donated £425,622 to the DUP, which funded a series of pro-Leave adverts, including a high-profile wraparound ad in the Metro newspaper. //

All very fishy. Especially when Avid UKIPer Aaron Banks was coordinating his efforts with the Russians.

[Kromovaracun]

//I think it needs reform but not just in funding area as you have focused on here//

Why not? As it stands you can flagrantly break spending rules and get nothing but a slap on the wrist - if you're rich enough. That is a serious problem in dire need of counteraction, surely?

[Kromovaracun]

Postal voting seems like a relatively trivial issue when we're effectively allowing people to just buy elections.

[youngmafbog]

"Why not? "

Because TTT is trying to straighten out the electoral system in an unbiased way.

Spending is just your hobby horse. Spending does not necessarily equate to one single vote but Postal voting does.

[Kromovaracun]

Single votes only matter in marginal constituencies anyway. Campaign finance has a direct impact on the manifesto/policy promises that party leaders make. In nationwide campaigns like referenda, spending has a huge impact on "reach", communications, etc.

Why do you think restrictions on election spending exist at all? What do you think the impact of abolishing them entirely would be?

[ToraToraTora]

"Postal voting seems like a relatively trivial issue" - Maybe to you but I am concerned about block voting by intimidation, especially amoung Muslims.

[youngmafbog]

"What do you think the impact of abolishing them entirely would be? "

Very little actually.

I still dont get why if undertaking Electoral reform you wouldn't want to clean the whole shebang up?

[Kromovaracun]

// straighten out the electoral system in an unbiased way. //

What does that even mean?

Our "bias" should be towards solving the biggest structural issues in our electoral system, surely? If postal voting fraud is a widepsread problem, I'm all ears to suggestions as to how it can be made more difficult. I'm not sure it's very fair to just abolish it though.

[ToraToraTora]

"we're effectively allowing people to just buy elections. " - I agree we need spending rules but no amount of money can govern were the X goes when in the booth. There is very little empirical evidence that overspending effects voters.

[Kromovaracun]

I am very confused.

Are you really, truly comfortable with the idea of the richest people in the UK overwhelming all opposition to their interests through sheer spending power? Because that's what you'd be getting without any campaign finance restrictions. Furthermore the system you're describing there cannot possibly be a democracy - it would be an oligarchy.

[Kromovaracun]

It doesn't need to affect voters if it affects manifesto promises.

[ToraToraTora]

I am also confused, where is your evidence that spending power alone has the effects you suggest? The US has either no limit or a very high one and they seem to manage. I am more concerned with multiple voting and block voting via proxy/postal using intimidation etc.

[Kromovaracun]

//The US has either no limit or a very high one and they seem to manage. //

.....

Are you serious?

[ToraToraTora]

yes, are you? So you don't like the last winner, is that it?

[youngmafbog]

"Are you really, truly comfortable with the idea of the richest people in the UK overwhelming all opposition to their interests through sheer spending power?"

Well actually I cant see anyone saying that. All that is being argued is that if undertaking Electoral reform you dont concentrate on individual hobby horses and sort the whole lot out together.

But for some reason you don't want to do that, you just want the spending bit done. Why is that I wonder?

[Kromovaracun]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-campaign-finance-law

The USA has had a decades long battle that is still ongoing over campaign finance and until 2010 actually had harsher campaign finance rules than we do. The whole reason they have this fight is because the better-funded candidate wins in 90%+ of cases, and US elections at all levels are notorious for being influenced by dirty money on both sides. It can barely be called a functional democracy.

If you want to live under the US system, 3T, go there. I do not want the UK to slide into becoming like the US.

[youngmafbog]

But you are still refusing to say why you only want to concentrate on spending.

Why?