PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS IN BRITISH ELECTIONS
| Date | 01 March 2015 |
| Author | ALISTAIR CLARK |
| Published date | 01 March 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12106 |
doi : 10. 1111/p adm .12106
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND THE INTEGRITY OF
THE ELECTORAL PROCESS IN BRITISH ELECTIONS
ALISTAIR CLARK
Although Britain has often been held up as being a model of electoral integrity, recent controver-
sies have suggested that this perception may not be wholly justied. This article explores overall
standards of electoral administration across Britain, utilizing performance reporting data for return-
ing ofcers in the 2010 general election to outline a comprehensive measure for the integrity of
the administration of the electoral process. Discussion begins by outlining the question of electoral
integrity and, most importantly, the issue of electoral administration. The second section considers
recent British controversies, while also outlining steps taken to monitor the performance of electoral
administrators. The third section introduces the performance standards and the index of electoral
integrity developed from these, while the fourth section presents an analysis. The article concludes
with discussion of the challenges facing electoral administrators, and highlights the utility of an
index of electoral integrity in helping electoral professionals address these challenges.
INTRODUCTION
Assessing the effectiveness and performance of public administration has been a key con-
cern in many countries. Nowhere is this more crucial to democracies than in the eld
of electoral administration. Poor performance and difculties in electoral administration
have the potential to undermine both the legitimacy of the electoral process and, poten-
tially, of the government elected. Examination of electoral administration and integrity is
therefore of vital interest in democracies, yet as Wise (2001, p. 138) notes, ‘public adminis-
tration has not devoted attention to electoral administration with anything like the priority
it has given to other areas of public policy’.
This article provides an exploratory assessment of overall standards of electoral admin-
istration across Britain in the 2010 general election. Although often held up as being a
model of electoral integrity, recent controversies in Britain have suggested that this per-
ception may not be wholly justied. Incidents casting doubt on the integrity of the process
have been evident across the whole of the UK. Many of these controversies about the
integrity of the electoral process can be attributed to difculties in electoral administration.
This is an understudied area of public administration in Britain. Britain has a decentral-
ized system of electoral administration, with local council returning ofcers responsible
for the conduct of elections in their jurisdiction. Performance standards for returning of-
cers in the UK were set by the Electoral Administration Act 2006. Compliance with these
standards now has to be reported to the UK Electoral Commission. The article utilizes the
subsequent performance reporting data for returning ofcers in the 2010 general election
to outline a comprehensive measure for the integrity of the administration of the elec-
toral process in general elections in Britain. Discussion begins by assessing the question
of electoral integrity as understood by comparative scholars and its component elements,
most importantly,the issue of electoral administration. The second section considers recent
British controversies which have put the administration of elections under unprecedented
scrutiny, while also outlining steps taken to monitor the performance of electoral admin-
istrators. The third section introduces the data deployed by outlining the performance
Alistair Clark is in the Department of Politics at Newcastle University,Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Public Administration Vol.93, No. 1, 2015 (86–102)
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS IN BRITAIN 87
standards for returning ofcers, while the fourth section presents an analysis of the data.
The article concludes with discussion of the challenges facing electoral administrators and
the potential consequences of these challenges in maintaining electoral integrity in Britain.
INTEGRITY, ADMINISTRATION, AND THE ELECTORAL PROCESS
Interest in the conduct of elections has concerned itself primarily with questions of cam-
paigning, voting behaviour, and electoral systems. The question of electoral integrity is
only beginning to be seriously considered in this research (Norris 2013a). The democratic
transitions literature has taken electoral integrity most seriously. In that eld, process
has been seen as important as outcomes in determining the legitimacy of elections in
what are often highly conictual political situations (Pastor 1999; Mozaffar and Schedler
2002; Elklit and Reynolds 2005). In advanced democracies, the integrity of the electoral
process is essentially taken for granted for a variety of reasons. Public administration in
developed countries has often lengthy experience of conducting elections. Consequently
questions about the integrity of the process tend only to be raised when something goes
badly wrong. For example, the disputed 2000 presidential election in the USA stimulated
assorted research on American electoral integrity and administration (Wise 2001; Alvarez
and Hall 2006; Montjoy 2008).
Electoral integrity can be thought of in broad and narrow terms. At its broadest, this is
placed within a framework of promoting democracy, respect for fundamental freedoms,
and human rights. Such freedoms are fundamental to declaring any election ‘free and fair’
(Elklit and Svensson 1997). The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE 2010, p. 18 and appendix A) sets out a range of requirements relating to elec-
tions. These include: holding free elections at regular intervals; guaranteeing universal
and equal suffrage; respecting the right of citizens and parties to compete for ofce; the
absence of violence or intimidation; non-discriminatory media access; ensuring votes are
cast by secret ballot and results reported honestly and openly; and ensuring candidates
receiving the necessary support are permitted to hold ofce until their term expires. Nor-
ris (2013b) shows how such international standards have gained broad acceptance across
the world, while a grouping of Electoral Assistance Bodies, the ACE Electoral Knowledge
Network, summarizes the ve key elements of electoral integrity as being:
•A set of standards based on generally accepted democratic principles.
•A legal framework that imposes checks and balances on the institutional structure.
•Firmly entrenched protection mechanisms, such as independent observation.
•Enforcement measures.
•Fair, transparent, and equitable election administration. (ACE Electoral Knowledge
Network n.d.)
Electoral integrity can be cast much more narrowly around this latter point of fair,trans-
parent, and equitable electoral administration. Minnite (2010) suggests that while the con-
duct of candidates, parties, and political organizations can do much to raise doubts about
the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, what gives them an opportunity to
raise questions often comes down to, in the rst place, standards of administration in
conducting elections. Elklit and Svensson (1997) observe that a necessary feature in deter-
mining the fairness of elections is to assess how rules and laws are applied in practice.
For Schaffer (2008, pp. 3–4), vote integrity simply means an honest and accurate tallying
of the vote. A similar denition is used by the UK Electoral Commission (2009a). For it,
Public Administration Vol.93, No. 1, 2015 (86–102)
© 2014 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial