Introduction
This report summarises the proceedings of the conference on
international electoral standards held at the UN in New
York sponsored by the Nigeria Permanent Mission to the UN
and organised by the Campaign to Defend the Right to a
Secret Ballot (CDRSB). The CDRSB seeks to defend this Right
with regard to the unconditional use of postal ballots,
that is to say, without conditions such as illness or
absence from usual place of residence as a reason for
voting by post. The CDRSB was the first British
organisation to be formed to oppose this practice, which
was introduced by means of the UK Representation of the
People Act 2000.
The initiative to form the CDRSB was taken by Dr Keith
Nilsen, while acting as secretary to the Labour Committee
on Democratic Accountability of Secret Services (LCDASS),
an organisation formed under composite 54 seconded by him
and passed unanimously at the 1992 Labour Party conference.
In 2001 two letters on postal ballots were published in the
Daily Telegraph. The first, in May, was by George
Cunningham, a former SDP/Labour MP, the second, in support
of the first, was by Dr Nilsen, published on 25 July. The
CDRSB held its inaugural meeting on March 16th 2002
supported by the Society for Democracy including Random
Selection (SDRS), itself the result of an initiative on
House of Lords reform taken by the LCDASS. No Labour MP
supported this initiative at that time. Although, for
example, the former Labour MP George Galloway attracted
media interest on this question, especially after being
threatened by Muslim extremists, he did not respond to our
letters asking for support from Labour MPs in 2002.
Similarly though the Liberal Democrat MP John Hemmings
campaigned against unrestricted use of postal ballots in
Birmingham after the formation of the CDRSB he has not
maintained that approach: of 19 early day motions sponsored
by him since none have mentioned this practice.
The unconditional use of postal ballots is a recent
development. Their use in Government elections was banned
by unanimous vote of the French National Assembly in 1975,
but since 1989 they have been introduced in the UK,
Germany, Ukraine, and a number of US states. This practice
has been subject to radically distinct evaluations of what
is acceptable in regard to electoral standards.
For example, while it was uncritically endorsed in the UK
Parliament, in Northern Ireland British political parties
oppose this practice on the grounds that unrestricted use
of postal ballots creates unacceptably high levels of
opportunity for intimidation and electoral fraud.
In 2004 in the Ukraine 'pro-Russian' parties supported this
practice while 'pro-Western' parties opposed it to such an
extent that new elections had to be organised in which the
unrestricted use of postal ballots was banned. Anti-Russian
parties received Western support in taking this stance,
including from the US Congress. Postal ballots are still
restricted in Italy and Australia, which publishes the
number of postal votes cast for each party, whereas in the
UK this information remains secret. In the 2005 UK General
Election the Daily Express published poll results
indicating the Labour Party had a 15% lead in postal
ballots, as compared to less than 2% among votes cast at
polling stations. In the USA itself opinion is divided on
this question. Previously no states allowed the use of
absentee ballots on demand but in the last 15 years twenty
nine states have adopted this approach despite several
reports recommending a halt to such practices, including by
the Federal Election Commission, chaired by former
Presidents Carter and Ford. This report, the most
authoritative to the present time, explicitly warns such
practices "threaten the hard won Right to a Secret Ballot."
Discussion at the conference took place throughout the day,
though the main meeting took place in the morning. For
reasons of clarity and to answer enquiries raised at the
meeting this report has been presented as follows: first,
preparations for the conference; second, conference
proceedings together with opening remarks by the chair and
CDRSB proposals, the discussion which followed, and the
consensus that emerged in regard to the CDRSB proposals
together with suggestions for implementation of conference
objectives; third, historical analysis of the relation
between electoral standards, common sense, and conflict
resolution.