Failure to prepare is not a reason for governments to postpone elections

The prime minister has declined to confirm that mayoral, council and police commissioner elections in England will take place as scheduled on 6 May. Meanwhile, the Scottish Parliament is passing legislation that will allow for a six-month postponement of the election in Scotland. A similar bill is also expected to be introduced shortly in the Welsh Parliament.

Amidst a surging pandemic, it is right and proper that governments across the UK are keeping their options open. But postponing elections should be an absolute last resort, and any delay should be kept as short as possible. Voters have a basic democratic right to cast their judgement on political leaders, and to ‘kick the rascals out’ should they so choose.

Ministers should consider all options for how to hold the elections in a safe way

There has already been a one-year postponement of the elections due in May 2020, including for the big city mayoral roles in London, Greater Manchester, Liverpool and the West Midlands. But in spring 2020, the pandemic was a new and emergent crisis, and the government had little choice but to cancel the polls at late notice as the country went into its first, deep lockdown.

Despite rising coronavirus cases, and continued restrictions on people’s movements, it is harder to justify a second postponement in England, or indeed an extension of the five-year Scottish and Welsh parliamentary terms. The UK and devolved governments have now had many months to prepare for the elections and put in measures to adapt to the pandemic. In addition, there are still four months in which to implement a plan for how elections can be safely held. But ministers must move fast.

Other countries have shown that elections can take place during the pandemic. The US presidential and congressional elections were held on schedule in November 2020, with record levels of turn out, and many other western democracies have held national, regional and local polls over recent months.

The key question is therefore not whether the elections can be held, but rather how the electoral process could be reformed to enable people to vote safely. Only if there is no way to bring the risks down to a justifiable level should postponement be considered.

Postal voting and spreading voting over several days would help to reduce the risks

One possible reform is a switch to all-postal voting. There is precedent: the 2004 north east devolution referendum was held on an all-postal basis. And the Scottish government’s election bill, expected to received Royal Assent soon, makes provision for an all-postal vote, although the Electoral Management Board for Scotland does not believe that an all-postal election could be organized sooner than the autumn.

But even if a fully postal election is not feasible, it should be possible to increase substantially the share of voters who cast their ballots by mail. This would reduce the pressure on polling stations, just as the US elections last year involved a huge expansion of ‘early voting’. Making this happen in the UK will require a big public communications campaign and registration drive, targeting older and other clinically at-risk groups in particular. Special provision might also be needed for anyone required to self-isolate over the election period.

Another option, also being considered in Scotland, is to spread voting over a few days, making it easier to maintain safe social distancing throughout the process. A further way to avoid large numbers of voters from congregating would be expand the number of polling places, potentially even to outdoor locations, naturally including suitable shelter from the vagaries of the British climate.

In addition, the government should produce clear guidance and training for how to make polling stations and the counting process Covid-secure. This would no doubt include the familiar pandemic paraphernalia of plastic screens, masks, gloves, sanitizer, and ventilation. Polling stations might also need a larger than normal supply of disposable pencils. In addition, polling and count staff could be prioritized for vaccination to reduce the personal risk they would otherwise face. And taking all necessary steps to make election days safe is not be enough to make people feel safe: preparing for elections comes hand in hand with persuading people to turn out on polling day. Coordinated communications campaigns are key.

Democracy should not be put on hold

None of these changes could reduce the risks to zero. And it may turn out to be genuinely impossible to hold the elections in May without a disproportionate risk to public health, especially if the current surge in infections is sustained. 

But the prime minister and his devolved counterparts must take all possible steps to avoid this outcome, and should therefore explore all options for how to hold a safe set of elections in May or soon afterwards.

Putting democracy on hold should never be a decision that governments take – or are allowed to take – lightly or due to their own avoidable failure to take action in good time.