The image is the cover of a poster produced by the Electoral Commission. It was part of a campaign launched in July 2014 to make voters aware of the change from household to individual voter registration — the letter that is being picked up contains this information. We also see five pieces of junk mail, presumably to convey that the letter isn't just another piece of junk with "important information" written on the envelope. Or perhaps the Electoral Commission is trying to covertly warn us that not reading the letter carefully may result in more junk mail. It is quite possible, as the changes to the Representation of the People Regulations included changes to the edited register as well.

As we have seen, the government decided in July 2012 that the edited register should be retained. It was, according to the Parliamentary Secretary for Political and Constitutional Reform, a finely balanced decision but in the end the government felt that not selling voters' personal details would be bad for charities and businesses.

However, the Representation of the People Regulations 2013 didn't just maintain the status quo. One of the options in the 2009 consultation was to retain the edited register but to improve guidance for the public. In effect, that is the option the government chose. The edited register needed a better, more descriptive name and a standard explanation of what the register is. There are two versions of the statutory description: a short and a longer version (for those interesting in finding out more).

The Government's approach

The Cabinet Office started consulting on a new name for the edited register and the prescribed wording in November 2012. I obtained some information about the process via a Freedom of Information request I submitted to the Electoral Commission, which was one of the parties that was consulted. The Information Commissioner's Office and Association of Electoral Administrators, both of whom have also long argued against using voters' personal details as a commodity, were also consulted. On the other side were a dozen or so junk marketing lobby groups, including 192.com, the Direct Marketing Association, Equifax, Experian, the Institute of Fundraising and even the Remote Gambling Association.

The Electoral Commission's first contribution was to point out that it still wanted to see the edited register abolished and that it had concerns about the government's approach:

At the outset, we would stress that we remain strongly of the view that the edited register should be abolished, and that a person’s data once given should only be used for electoral purposes and for other important civic procedures, including drawing ward and constituency boundaries, selecting juries, preventing and detecting crime and supporting the credit reference process.

While we acknowledge that the Government intends to retain the edited register for commercial sale and welcome the fact that steps are being taken to ensure that electors are better able to make an informed decision on how their personal information may be used, we have significant reservations about the approach proposed in the consultation paper.

The Electoral Commission's reservations about the government's approach were perhaps linked to the involvement of so many marketing outfits. The prescribed wording includes a list with examples of how the data on the edited register may be used, and all the examples have been written by the likes of the DMA and Remote Gambling Association. It is fair enough to give them a say but it seems rather obvious that they shouldn't be authoring the statutory prescribed wording. They of course avoided terms like "junk mail", and even more neutral terms, such as "unsolicited mail" or "advertising mail" were left out. Instead, the text talks about "direct marketing firms" using the register to "maintain mailing lists". Similarly, the very first example in the list is designed purely to suggest that people who opt out might struggle to buy goods and services, or even rent a house. I will get back to the examples shortly. First, though, let's look at what focus groups made of the prescribed wording…

User feedback

The government commissioned Ipsos Mori to do research into various drafts of the prescribed wording, and it published the results in May 2013. The research made uncomfortable reading for the government. The first two paragraphs of the executive summary set the tone:

There is low awareness of the electoral register and few have heard of the edited register. Understanding of the electoral register is limited, with some participants even believing it to be a record of who pays council tax or similar to the census. There is little recall among participants of having completed the electoral registration form either initially or during the annual canvass. Participants have little knowledge of what personal details are on the electoral register and infer that it includes details beyond name and address, such as phone numbers.

There is a sense that the details contained in the register are already commonly available. Despite this, and in line with broader public concern about privacy of personal data, there is a negative reaction to the notion of the edited register when it is explained to participants. This, and the lack of detailed knowledge about the register, needs to be borne in mind when interpreting the public's reactions to the form of words.

So, few people know what the edited register is about, and when the register is explained to them they don't like it. And it gets better; most people in the focus groups understood the edited register is used by junk mail companies, and they didn't like that either. In fact, it made them cynical about politics, politicians and government:

While participants admit to knowing very little about the register, most draw a connection between the electoral register holding names and addresses and receiving direct marketing in the post and even cold-calls from sellers (even though telephone numbers are not included in either version of the register), something which they resent receiving.

This link, despite the admitted poor knowledge of the register, betrays a wider cynicism towards politics, politicians and government […] Throughout the interviews and focus groups, participants express concerns about the way their personal data is used. This attitude towards privacy and use of personal data colours many views of the edited register, especially those of older participants. It should be kept in mind that understanding of and reactions to the form of words are, in part, influenced by this context.

Finally, when asked at the end of the interview or focus group if they would tick the box to opt out of the edited register, there is a distinct bias towards opting out of the edited register. The younger participants are more likely to stay on the edited register as they feel this could be necessary to help get jobs or accommodation in later life. However, most feel uncomfortable with the edited register being for sale and so say they would opt out.

The research doesn't quite suggest that the edited register can be a reason why people don't register to vote but it does beg the question: why are we selling voters' personal details? How does it help the democratic process? Clearly, most voters don't want election offices to sell their name and address, and the main reason for not opting out appears to be that peope are worried they might have difficulty finding a job and place to live if they opt out. Isn't that madness? How did we get to a situation where people registering to vote feel forced to let junk mail companies exploit their personal details because they fear they might otherwise struggle to get a job or rent a property?

Clear as mud

Of course, there was no going back. The decision to retain the edited register had already been made. The government did acknowledge there was low awareness about there being two versions of the electoral register and that there is limited understanding of how both versions differ, or how they may be used. However, that wasn't seen as an argument for scrapping the sale of voters' personal details. Instead, they hoped that the new prescribed wording was going to enhance electors' understanding:

The Government committed to reviewing the wording and names used to describe the two versions of the electoral register on registration forms and elsewhere and made clear it would amend the relevant Regulations if it became apparent that doing so would enhance electors' understanding. The Government believes it is important for electors to be able to understand how their data may be used and to be able to make an informed choice about whether or not they wish their details to appear in the edited register. In the Government’s view the descriptions should be:

• Impartial
• Balanced
• Easily understandable
• Practical (i.e. not take up too much space on registration forms); and
• Consistent

That sounds good, but the difficulty is that the for-sale register is sold on a "no questions asked" basis. Anyone can buy the register, and it may be used for any purpose. A list broker might buy the register and use it to clean up existing mailing lists. The same list broker might also use the data as a junk mail list, and perhaps sell it to third parties. One of the third parties might want to use the data to identify specific groups of people, such as people living alone. Or, if they are more ambitious they might start an online people finding website that combines electoral roll data with other data sources. The point is, nobody knows how the data is used. As a result, it is not so easy to provide impartial, balanced and easily understandable information.

The participants in the Ipsos Mori study struggled with the description of the edited register and some suggested it should simply explain that the register is for sale and available to anyone. That would likely mean that opt-out rates would increase even further — at the time about 40% of voters had already opted out. It would render the edited register useless, and that was never the intention. The only reason why government decided to retain the register was so that the data could be commoditised by private businesses and other organisations. And so the government's solution was to once again listen to the data mining companies. They accepted a recommendation by Experian: don't mention that the data may be used for any purpose. The problem with the word "any", according to Experian, was that it gave the impression that [the edited register] is sold or provided more widely than it actually is. Experian didn't provide any evidence for the claim — and how could they possibly know how widely the data is used — but the government must have reckoned that recommendations made by Experian can only be impartial and balanced.

A second Experian recommendation, to mention in the text that the data must always be processed in line with data-protection legislation, was also accepted. There is nothing wrong with the recommendation itself (although you can argue that it is stating the blindingly obvious) but you can see what the junk mail lobby was aiming for: reassuring voters that their personal details aren't widely used and that everything is done correctly.

The junk mail lobby was equally bullish. The short version of the text at one point stated that opting out of the edited register may make it harder to access some goods or services. It is astonishing that the government seriously considered printing that statement next to the opt-out box. There is absolutely nothing "impartial" and "balanced" about statements like that.

Thankfully, the Ipos Mori's focus groups didn't respond well to the statement and it was removed from the final version of the blurb (although it is still the first example of how data is used in the long version). The sentence got younger people worried about the consequences of opting out — which no doubt was the junk mail lobby's aim — while older voters correctly perceived it as "threatening" and "menacing":

Among older participants, there is suspicion that the perceived “threat” is, in fact, deliberately misleading and an attempt to persuade them to go on the edited register. Older participants and those from higher social grades describe this as an attempted threat but dismiss it. However, it does create a sense of unease, making them more likely to opt out of the edited register. This conclusion provokes further negative reaction, leading participants to suggest that it reflects a sinister or "Orwellian" intent by the state.

The final wording

So, what is the final wording? Here is the short version of the text:

There are two registers. Why?

Using information received from the public, registration officers keep two registers — the electoral register and the open register (also known as the edited register).

The electoral register lists the names and addresses of everyone who is registered to vote in public elections. The register is used for electoral purposes, such as making sure only eligible people can vote. It is also used for other limited purposes specified in law, such as:

• detecting crime (e.g. fraud)
• calling people for jury service
• checking credit applications.

The open register is an extract of the electoral register, but is not used for elections. It can be bought by any person, company or organisation. For example, it is used by businesses and charities to confirm name and address details.

Your name and address will be included in the open register unless you ask for them to be removed. Removing your details from the open register does not affect your right to vote.

Somehow nobody picked up on the fact that the text doesn't answer the question it set out to answer ("There are two registers. Why?"). The text explains what the two registers are but not why there are two registers. More importantly, the text doesn't give you a clear idea of how your personal details may be processed. The one example — confirming name and address details — was no doubt suggested by the junk mail lobby, who were arguing that the electoral register was purely used to clean up mailing lists, and not as a source of junk mail lists. There is no evidence for that claim, but somehow it is good enough to be included in an Act of Parliament. The mention of charities is, as always, included to give you a warm, fuzzy feeling. The suggestion is that being on the open register is a good thing, because it somehow helps charities.

The long version of the text is equally insulting:

There are two registers. Why?

Using information received from the public, registration officers keep two registers — the electoral register and the open register (also known as the edited register).

The electoral register lists the names and addresses of everyone who is registered to vote in public elections.

The register is used for electoral purposes — such as making sure only eligible people can vote — and for other limited purposes specified in law. The personal data in the register must always be processed in line with data-protection legislation.

Who uses the electoral register?

• Election staff, political parties, candidates and holders of elected office use the register for electoral purposes.
• Your local council and the British Library hold copies that anyone may look at under supervision. A copy is also held by the Electoral Commission, the Boundary Commissions (which set constituency boundaries for most elections) and the Office for National Statistics.
• The council can use the register for duties relating to security, enforcing the law and preventing crime. The police and the security services can also use it for law enforcement.
• The register is used when calling people for jury service.
• Government departments may buy the register from local registration officers and use it to help prevent and detect crime. They can also use it to safeguard national security by checking the background of job applicants and employees.
• Credit reference agencies can buy the register. They help other organisations to check the names and addresses of people applying for credit. They also use it to carry out identity checks when trying to prevent and detect money laundering.

It is a criminal offence for anyone to supply or use the register for anything else.

The open register is an extract of the electoral register, but is not used for elections. It can be bought by any person, company or organisation. For example, it is used by businesses and charities to confirm name and address details. The personal data in the register must always be processed in line with data-protection legislation.

Your name and address will be included in the open register unless you ask for them to be removed. Removing your details from the open register would not affect your right to vote.

Who uses the open register?

Users of the open register include:

• businesses checking the identity and address details of people who apply for their services such as insurance, goods hire and property rental, as well as when they shop online
• businesses selling age-restricted goods or services, such as alcohol and gambling online, to meet the rules on verifying the age of their customers
• charities and voluntary agencies, for example to help maintain contact information for those who have chosen to donate bone marrow and to help people separated by adoption to find each other
• charities, to help with fundraising and contacting people who have made donations
• debt-collection agencies when tracing people who have changed address without telling their creditors
• direct-marketing firms when maintaining their mailing lists
• landlords and letting agents when checking the identity of potential tenants
• local councils when identifying and contacting residents
• online directory firms to help users of the websites find people, such as when reuniting friends and families
• organisations tracing and identifying beneficiaries of wills, pensions and insurance policies
• private-sector firms to verify details of job applicants.

The problem wth the blurb about the open register is that it is neither impartial nor balanced. All 11 examples of how the open register is used suggest that being on the open register is beneficial. The text doesn't mention that the open register may be used as a source of junk mail lists; it doesn't say that random websites may publish your name and address online (typically combined with other information from other sources); it doesn't say that rapists can use the data to identify, say, single women. And, thanks to Experian, it fails to make electors aware that the data is sold on a "no questions asked" basis and that it may be used for any purpose.

In other words, the blurb is one long sales pitch. The message is that the default option — that is, opting in — is the correct choice. It presents the open register as some sort of public-benefit database. What's more, it suggests that opting out can have serieus repercussions. Just look at each bullet point and deduce what is implied. The examples shamelessly suggest that businesses won't be able to check your identity when you buy stuff (so presumably they will refuse to do business with you). Buying alcohol might be more difficult, and renting a property might no longer be possible. Potential employers might not be able to offer you a job. So, by opting out you might suddenly find yourself homeless and jobless, and you won't even be able to buy a bottle of whiskey to forget about your predicament for a few hours.

Other examples conceal how the data may be used. The participants in the Ipsos Mori focus groups made the connection between the open register and junk mail. The examples avoid the term "junk mail". Instead, they talk about "direct marketing firms" using the data to "maintain mailing lists" and charities using the data to "help with fundraising". Of course, "help with fundraising" translates to "sending unsolicited mail-outs on a massive scale" — and the direct marketing firms can use the data for the exact same purpose.

The Electoral Commission partly raised these issues. It commented that the main example in the short version was subjective and that the long version didn't explain why people might want to opt out:

The additional information about the 'open access register' states that: 'It is mainly used by businesses and charities to confirm name and address details'. This seems very subjective — there are lots of other uses — including using the information for commercial purposes — and it is not clear what evidence there is to support the statement that these are the 'main' uses. We’d therefore prefer for this sentence to be left out.

[…]

What is lacking is any indication of why people might want to exclude themselves from the register: i.e. for privacy reasons, or to limit junk mail.

In its response, the Cabinet Office argued that the example about direct marketing firms maintaining mailing lists was sufficient:

In your email you suggest that the long 'form of words' lacks any indication of why people may want to exclude themselves from the register. We have sought to make the form of words neutral in tone — simply providing electors with information about how the edited register is used and by whom to allow them to make up their own minds about whether or not they wish to be included in it. To that end we have also not sought to provide any indication of why people may wish to be included in the register. We have also included, in the list of uses, that the register can be used by "direct marketing firms to maintain their mailing lists" which addresses your point about limiting junk mail. The Information Commissioner’s Office did not raise any concerns in their response on the wording about privacy issues.

That was the end of the discussion. The statement that the form of words is neutral in tone wasn't challenged, nor did anyone question whether or not electors would understand that "maintaining mailing list" really means "sending junk mail". And so we are in the crazy situation that, according to research commissioned by the government, the vast majority of people don't want to be on the open register and that some people would consider not opting out because they are worried they will struggle to find a job and a home. It is madness, but that is what you get when you let junk marketing companies write statutory legislation.

Ten years on

Despite the statutory sales pitch the vast majority of voters choose to opt out of being included on the open register. According to the Office for National Statistics, 35.6 per cent of voters in England and Wales were opted out in 2013. By 2022, that had nearly doubled, to 68.3 per cent. In all but one constituency the majority of voters have opted out. You can find all the data in a Codeberg repository.

This is quite remarkable. In fact, I reckon the opt-out rate is a fascinating research topic for political scientists interested in nudge theory. The registration form is clearly designed to encourage voters to go with the default option (opt in), yet nearly 70 per cent of voters opt out. Perhaps this is not surprising, given what Ipos Mori's focus groups concluded. Still, an opt-out rate of 68.3 per cent is exceptionally high. It also renders the open register pretty much useless (which is exactly what the Cabinet Office was trying to avoid).