Effective democracy depends on the active participation of voters. Sadly, fewer and fewer people are exercising their democratic rights and the legitimacy of all aspects of government suffers as a result. General election turnouts have fallen from 84 per cent in 1950 to just above, and just below, 60 per cent in 2005 and 2001 respectively. Participation in local polls is worse. Expectations are so low that returning officers will feel pleased if four out of ten voters turn out in this week's local elections.

As final preparations are made for the polls in one third of councils in England and Wales, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, a foundation set up to promote social inclusion and constitutional change, has issued a reminder of the parlous state of our democratic machinery. The electoral process, it says in a report published today, is vulnerable to large-scale fraud. Recent extensions of postal voting exacerbate the threat while failing to improve turnouts, it adds. The system is beset by administrative inefficiency and, according to Rowntree, electoral registers are incomplete and inaccurate. Moreover, campaign spending by political parties has replaced the truer battle of ideas in some closely run contests.

Rowntree is quite right to demand that remedial action is taken quickly. Sadly, the necessary political will appears lacking and previous efforts to improve the mechanics have backfired. Postal voting is a case in point. Voters can now secure a postal vote by asking for one, where they used to have to show they needed one because they would be away from home, or because work commitments prevented attendance in person. But it became too easy to obtain a postal vote and fraudulent hijacking of postal votes by political parties called some results into question.

Instances of poll rigging are not rare. The Rowntree report points to 42 convictions for electoral fraud in the past seven years. Yet these problems sit alongside fears that as many as 3.5 million people have fallen off electoral rolls because too little time and effort have been spent completing the necessary paperwork.

Rowntree is not the first organisation to point out the shortcomings of the British democratic process. The Council of Europe, the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society have all highlighted serious defects. So has Richard Mawrey, QC, presiding over an election court established in 2005 to examine a scandal in Birmingham. He said the system would “disgrace a banana republic”. Rowntree wants voters to produce photographic identification; for more safeguards to be set up around postal and proxy votes; and for political expenditure to be restricted. The clearest way to clean up the system is individual registration. Multiple registration by a single householder leaves open the chance that fictitious voters join the roll. Crosses on postal votes for a whole household can easily be made fraudulently by the nominated householder.

Individual registration is no panacea. There is a danger that law-abiding eligible voters will fall off the lists through inertia. This threat is increased when authorities' track record of reform is reviewed. But the case for individual registration gains ground with every new electoral failing, and it should be implemented as part of a concerted drive to make elections clean and popular. Good government requires it.