The Election Authority’s information that you can vote without ID – if another person with identification vouches for you – has surprised and stirred emotions on social media. But it is actually the result of a tightening of the law 20 years ago, the Swedish fact-checking media outlet and NORDIS partner Källkritikbyrån reports.
A post published on Twitter/X on Monday reads: “What the fuck is this shit? It’s like asking for election fraud”. The post has so far been viewed more than 163,000 times according to the platform’s counter.
Attached is an image of the Election Authority’s information sheet, with a paragraph marked in red:
You do not need to bring your voting card in order to vote. But you need to bring an ID document. If you do not have an ID document, another person can certify that you are you. That person must show their ID document.
From screenshot on Twitter/X of the Election Authority’s information sheet
Post on Twitter/X on 17 August.
“Doesn’t this sound like a loophole in the voting procedure, ‘someone else can certify that you are you’?”, one user writes on Twitter/X and receives agreement in the comments section. “Screams election fraud”, another writes.
Rule dating back 20 years
It may sound strange – but the background to this is in fact a tightening of the law. Until 2006, no ID document at all was needed to vote.
Post on Twitter/X on 10 August.
Instead, it was enough for you to state your personal details. If the election official did not recognise you, they checked that you really were on the electoral roll, and had not already voted. Then the vote was received.
If another voter then entered the polling station and claimed to be the same person, the attempted fraud would of course soon be discovered.
During the 1990s, ID requirements had indeed been discussed. But the conclusion of the inquiries that had been appointed was that there were no signs that the system was being exploited. That, combined with the fact that one hundred thousand voters over the age of 65 were estimated to lack ID documents, meant that the risks of such a requirement were considered to outweigh the benefits.
At the beginning of the 2000s, that equation shifted. Ahead of the 2004 EU election, the newspaper Sydsvenskan revealed how they had followed a man who voted under ten different names, in ten different polling stations. He said that it was easy to obtain voting cards from people who did not themselves intend to participate, or were willing to sell their influence.
From the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet’s article in 2004.
This, together with the assumption that fewer and fewer people lacked ID documents, meant that ahead of the 2006 election the current regulations were introduced, requiring you to identify yourself. But that still does not mean a requirement for an ID document.
In order not to exclude those who nevertheless lack one – for example pensioners without a driving licence, with expired passports – an exception was added: “Voters who are not known to the election officials shall identify themselves or prove their identity in another way”.
For example, by someone else vouching for you.
Excerpt from post on Facebook on 18 August.
Both are checked off
What this means in practice is that the person shows their own ID document, and confirms that you are you. Your name is checked against the electoral roll, and if you have not already voted, your vote is received. But what also happens is that the person who identified you is registered.
If suspicions of fraud were then to arise – for example because you had given a name belonging to another person entitled to vote, and that person now comes to the polling station – a police report is filed. The offence, “improper conduct in voting”, carries six months’ imprisonment, or up to four years for a serious offence, on the scale of penalties.
But this, according to Anna Nyqvist, head of the Election Authority’s office, has never happened since 2006:
– We have, as far as I know, never heard of it happening. To cheat in this way, if it is even possible, quite a lot would be required.
Comment on Twitter/X on 18 August.
She is supported by Jan Teorell, professor of political science at Stockholm University. He is in an inconvenient position when we call, but writes in an email:
In order to cast a vote in the election, you must of course be checked off on the electoral roll, so it is not possible to ‘cook up’ false votes from people who do not exist.
If one wanted to use this method to influence an election, it would therefore require pretending to identify someone as being another person who actually exists on the electoral roll, and moreover doing this very many times.
This hardly seems particularly feasible and quite soon the voters who come to the polling station and find themselves checked off without having voted would begin to react.
From email from Jan Teorell
– I would say that it is quite unlikely that this has occurred, because we would with great probability have knowledge of it, says Anna Nyqvist.
Comment on Twitter/X on 16 August.
When the Swedish fact-checking media outlet and NORDIS partner Källkritikbyrån calls political science professors Henrik Ekengren Oscarsson at the University of Gothenburg, and Anders Sannerstedt at Lund University, neither are they familiar with problems connected to the current system.
At the same time, both are open to the possibility that new data – which, for example, shows that few need the possibility of secondary identification, or that irregularities have in fact occurred in connection with it, could open the way for future changes to the regulations.
– We are constantly polishing the diamond that is our election administration, says Henrik Ekengren Oscarsson.
American tones have reached Sweden
In recent years, the Election Authority has seen a marked increase in posts on social media that suggest, or outright claim, that systematic election fraud occurs or could occur – something the authority has so far seen no signs of, or risks of, in Sweden.
Instead, Anna Nyqvist links the development to that in the United States.
From the AFP news agency 1 November 2024.
There, since 2016, heated debates about election integrity have followed one another – not least in connection with the 2020 election, of course, when tensions escalated in the storming of the Capitol.
– This matter of identifying oneself, and the risk of incorrect identities in the electoral roll and so on, also has some spillover from the United States. There has been a lot of discussion there about how one should be able to identify oneself, and there they have a different challenge from what we have, in that in several states they do not have an automatic electoral roll. Our electoral roll comes from the population register, so it is not possible simply to insert an identity, but you would really need to find a person who will not vote.
Excerpt from post on Twitter/X on 16 August.
At the same time, Nyqvist says, Sweden is so far relatively spared from such tendencies – if by “such” one means casting suspicion on the electoral system.
– Such things still happen on a very small scale, I would say. Fortunately, voters in Sweden have a very high level of confidence in the electoral system. So when we talk about this, it cannot be compared with countries that have challenges in this area. But individual issues and individual discussions on social media, we feel that these have increased, says Anna Nyqvist.
Post on Twitter/X on 19 August.
In summary: You can go to a polling station together with a person, show your ID document and confirm that the person is who they say they are. The person is checked off on the electoral roll and can cast their vote, and you are also registered.
It is a criminal offence to cheat with this. The offence, “improper conduct in voting”, carries six months’ imprisonment, or up to four years for a serious offence, on the scale of penalties.
The possibility of identifying someone who lacks an ID document appears to have surprised some people on social media who are concerned about potential election fraud, but we find no signs that this is a recurring problem. The Election Authority tells Källkritikbyrån that they are not aware of cases where this possibility has been abused since it was introduced in 2006.