20 years after Parliament votes for online imprint rules, government moves to implement them

It’s eleven years since I wrote about “the Government’s farcical slowness over updating election imprint rules” to deal with the internet.

What’s more, a child born the day the Electoral Commission first recommended such changes would be have done its GCSEs last year.

And a child born on the day Parliament first legislated to give the powers to update these rules? They could be two years into university by now.

But finally, slowly, making snails look like Usain Bolt, we have a government consultation on the details of how to update election imprint rules for the online world.

Here is is.

The Electoral Commission has welcomed the consultation:

The use of digital tools for election and referendum campaigning is extensive, and we know that many voters are increasingly concerned about truth, transparency and the targeting of political advertisements.

We have recommended extending imprint requirements to digital election and referendum material so we look forward to considering the Government’s proposals and the opportunity to deliver real benefits for voters, parties and campaigners.

2 responses to “20 years after Parliament votes for online imprint rules, government moves to implement them”

  1. and there was a survey sent around parish councils this week asking opinions on on-line voting, compulsory voting etc.. Purporting to be seeking increased turnout, it seemed heavily loaded against the paper and pencil system.
    In the comments box I gave the argument that it wasn’t the way we vote, but the way we count the votes that needs changing..
    I will look back and forward it to you.

  2. When it comes to elections, I much prefer ballot papers and ballot pencils in the privacy of a polling booth. Seems much safer than any electronic form of voting, as not so easily manipulated. We know that voting machines in the USA are far some satisfactory as a way of recording votes. Why should we expect an online version to be any better? Just as with postal votes, it’s not possible to ensure that an elector is not forced to vote in particular way by someone overseeing them vote. That’s a key reason I’m uncomfortable about the escalation in postal ballots recently. Also many people with postal ballots do vote well in advance of the election day and cannot change their vote to take account of anything that happens in the immediate run-up to the election.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments and data you submit with them will be handled in line with the privacy and moderation policies.