Letter: Finding the missing voters Enfranchising lost voices
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Your report "Poll tax lost voters reappear" (21 July) is a relief to all who have campaigned against the pernicious impact of the poll tax on voting rights. Until its imposition, electoral registration levels were generally high. When it became law they dipped dramatically. My own estimates are that between 3 and 4 million people are disenfranchised. This has been described as "broadly correct" by the director of statistics at the former Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
However, massive under-registration - which compromises democracy, damages census surveys, distorts opinion polls and central government grants to councils - cannot be blamed exclusively on the poll tax. Other reasons include increasing political alienation and rootlessness. The chief problem with the electoral registration system is that it is predicated on outdated social patterns. A voter registers where they live in October and keeps their vote at that place for up to 16 months. But increasinglypeople move around for economic and social reasons.
The solution is relatively simple and cheap - the introduction of a rolling register so that, with suitable safeguards against fiddling, citizens vote where they live, when they live there. But the Home Office refuses to accept the argument, on spurious cost grounds, but probably because they calculate that the Conservative Party benefits from high levels of electoral exclusion.
Harry Barnes MP
House of Commons
London SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments