Should people be asked if they are party supporters when they register to vote?

Chris Clark and Rav Seeruthun on a small change that if adopted, would free activists to spend more time on community work

Every year at party conferences we hear professional politicians eulogise hard-working party volunteers. And there’s no activity more often evoked than that of ‘knocking on doors’.

It’s a common delusion that the purpose of doorstep canvassing is to ‘persuade’ voters. Having taken part in our fair share of Labour canvassing sessions, we’ve both had the dispiriting experience of a novice volunteer (or indeed a stubborn veteran) coming off a doorstep after a 10 minute conversation saying: ‘Well… he wasn’t sure at first, but I think I persuaded him.’

Going out and talking to people can help counter the accusation ‘You’re only after my vote’ or ‘We only see you at election time.’ But if we’re honest with ourselves, voters’ scepticism about our true intentions generally isn’t entirely misplaced.

Because as it stands, canvassing is all about identifying supporters – the people who already support you. If someone equivocates, that’s a ‘D’ (don’t know); and if they’re negative, then that’s an ‘A’ (against). We’ve got what we need from them, and it’s time to move on.

Our contention is that actually, both the novice canvasser and the veteran have a point, that we ought to be aspiring to hold more and better quality conversations with people who aren’t yet Labour supporters.

While the ‘first past the post’ voting system means that national parties have to pitch their policies at swing voters, in terms of local activity on the ground, people who don’t currently support us or even cast a vote won’t get much of our attention.

It’s not wicked or cynical for political parties to go after votes. That’s how democracy works after all. But there is another way of doing politics. Twice in the last five years, we have travelled to Hillsborough County in Florida to join Democratic Party volunteers working on the Presidential election campaigns.

One of the things that struck us was the fact that in America, citizens are given the opportunity to record a party preference on the form when they register to vote. They don’t have to – many choose to state ‘no party’ or ‘independent’ – but if they do register a preference, then in many states, they get the chance to participate in local primaries to nominate candidates (most famously for the Presidential election, but this happens for less high profile positions too).

Primaries are controversial in the Labour party, as are any changes that might affect the influence that party members and trade unions have in the selection of candidates. But whether or not UK political parties choose to introduce primaries, the administrative cost of adding a box on the electoral registration form would be negligible, and yet it would enable political parties to redirect their efforts from voter ID.

Those advocating electoral reform or the state funding of political parties ought to consider this – a small step that would reduce the cost of our politics and at the same time free up every party’s activists’ time to carry out more useful work than ‘door-knocking’. Making politics cheaper and at the same time more responsive to the wishes of the people – it’s a win-win.

It’s great that Labour and the trade unions are embracing the community organising approach promoted by Movement for Change. Think how much more we could achieve if we could shift the focus of our work from ‘voter ID’ to more productive activity.

Chris Clark is a Labour & Co-operative councillor from Ashford, Kent. He was PPC for Ashford in 2010. He works in the rail industry, and is a member of the TSSA trade union.

Dr Rav Seeruthun was the PPC for Maidstone and the Weald in the 2010 General Election. He is a Consultant in pharmaceutical medicine and is currently a Senior Director in a company running clinical trials. Rav is also a qualified General Practitioner having worked in the NHS for eight years.