You are perfectly correct. One of the biggest problems with name and address matching (in any context) is different spellings of a name or common mis-spellings. Now, in most circumstances a margin of error is acceptable. For example, if Dan Sullivan is mismatched to Danny O’Sullivan in a direct marketing list, it is an annoyance but you can remedy it by contacting the company and asking that they either correct their error or remove you from their lists (which could mean that Danny O’Sullivan doesn’t get junk mail either).

In other areas there is less margin for error. For example Healthcare - mixing up two patients (which does happen - more than we might want) can have disastrous consequences (fancy a stomach removal instead of your tonsils out?). Likewise, the electoral register requires spot on accuracy, not ‘close enough for government work’.

The PPS Identity (which is more than just your PPS Number) is a candidate ‘master identifier’. However it too is fraught with problems:

1) PPS numbers can be miskeyed, with digits being transposed or letters being misread from forms.
2) I am aware of cases where people have a PPS number, are getting stuff sent to their homes by Welfare and Revenue but when they go to use their PPS Identity in another government process, it turns out there is no name and address associated to the PPS number. This shows a significant risk in PPS Identities as a set of master data which needs to be addressed.

Ultimately, a total root and branch review of the Electoral Register processes is required, including issues such as ownership and governance of the Electoral Register, standardisation of process and a rigorous look at what the process and controls need to be for a 21st Century, Information Age Electoral Register.

Check out my other posts on this topic for more information (Information Quality/Electoral IQ)