Electoral pilot scheme evaluation. Peterborough City Council

Transcription

1 Electoral pilot scheme evaluation Peterborough City Council August 2006

2 Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact the Electoral Commission: Tel: publications@electoralcommission.org.uk We are an independent body that was set up by the UK Parliament. Our mission is to foster public confidence and participation by promoting integrity, involvement and effectiveness in the democratic process.

3 Contents Executive summary 1 1 Introduction 2 2 Context 4 3 Pilot scheme description 5 4 Evaluation 9 Management of the pilot scheme 9 Impact on voting 10 Public awareness and feedback 11 Accessibility 13 Security and user confidence 14 Impact on turnout 15 Cost and value for money 16 5 Conclusions and findings 17

4 Executive summary In response to a prospectus issued to local authorities in England inviting applications for electoral pilot schemes at the May 2006 elections, Peterborough City Council successfully submitted an application to pilot the innovation of requiring electors to provide a signature before their ballot papers would be issued by staff in polling stations. Conclusions and findings Facilitating voting or the counting of votes: The pilot scheme had no significant impact on facilitating voting either positively or negatively. While a very small number of voters voiced opposition to signing for their ballot papers in the polling station, the requirement was widely accepted by the majority of voters. The pilot scheme had no impact on the counting of votes, or on the capacity of voters to make an informed choice at the elections. Whether the turnout of voters was higher than it would otherwise have been: Although turnout increased by four percentage points on the last comparable council elections in 2002, there is no evidence to suggest that the pilot scheme had either a positive or negative impact. The objectives of the pilot scheme were not primarily related to turnout. Whether voters found procedures easy to use: Voters did not appear to have any significant problems with the process of signing for ballot papers in the polling station, although there was a relatively low level of awareness as to why they were being required to sign and what would be done with the lists on which they provided their signatures following the election. Very few people appear to have objected to signing, or to have been unable to sign or mark the corresponding number list sheet. Whether the scheme led to any increase in personation or other offences or malpractice: The Commission has no evidence to suggest that the pilot scheme led to an increase in personation or other malpractice. There were no complaints to the Council or the police regarding potential fraud or security breaches in respect of the pilot procedures. Our opinion research, observations on polling day and comments recorded by voters all indicate that many voters perceived the requirement to sign for ballot papers in polling stations as an additional safeguard against fraud and an improvement to the security of the electoral process. Of those surveyed by the Commission, 36% considered that the requirement would increase confidence in the voting process, while only 5% said that they thought there would be less confidence. Whether the procedures led to any increase in expenditure or savings by the authority: The pilot scheme did not lead to a significant increase in the cost of running the election. The Council s Electoral Services team considered that the additional cost of the pilot scheme of 4,962 was good value for money. This amount equates to a cost of 17p per polling station voter, or 5p per eligible elector. 1

5 1 Introduction 1.1 Under the Representation of the People Act 2000, any local authority in England or Wales can submit proposals to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to carry out an electoral pilot scheme. Electoral pilot schemes can involve changes to when, where and how voting at local elections is to take place, or to how the votes cast at the elections are to be counted, or may allow candidates to send election communications free of charge for postage. The Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to evaluate and report on any pilot scheme approved by the Secretary of State. 1.2 A total of 176 local authorities in England held elections in May In October 2005, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Commission issued a joint prospectus to local authorities inviting applications for electoral pilot schemes at the May 2006 elections. Thirty-four applications were received in response to the prospectus, and in February 2006 the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs announced that he had approved 16 pilot schemes in a total of 22 local authority areas, although one authority later withdrew. A full list of all the authorities holding pilot schemes in May 2006 is available on the Commission s website at This report presents the Commission s evaluation of the electoral pilot scheme in Peterborough City Council at the elections on 4 May Part A includes our evaluation findings, and Part B comprises the Statutory Order that allows the local authority to conduct the pilot scheme. The evaluation includes a description of the scheme and an assessment as to: the scheme s success or otherwise in facilitating voting or the counting of votes, or in encouraging voting or enabling voters to make informed choices at the elections whether the turnout of voters was higher than it would have been if the scheme had not applied whether voters found the procedures provided for their assistance by the scheme easy to use whether the procedures provided for by the scheme led to any increase in personation or other electoral offences, or in any other malpractice in connection with elections whether those procedures led to any increase in expenditure, or to any savings, by the authority 1.4 In addition to these statutory requirements, the Commission s evaluation also considers, where appropriate: the extent to which the pilot scheme facilitated or otherwise encouraged participation among particular communities, including young people, Black and Minority Ethnic groups and disabled people overall levels of user awareness and comprehension of the voting method being tested, including an assessment of the effectiveness of any literature or other materials used in the promotion of the scheme 2

6 the attitudes and opinions of key stakeholders, including voters, with a view to determining overall levels of confidence in the voting method being tested whether the scheme resulted in measurable improvements, or had any adverse impact, with respect to efficient and effective service delivery to voters whether the scheme resulted in measurable improvements to, or had any adverse impact on, the existing system of electoral administration whether the scheme represented good value for money 1.5 Where appropriate, the Commission may also make recommendations as to whether changes should be made to electoral arrangements more widely through roll-out of the pilot scheme procedures. 1.6 The Commission is required to submit its evaluation report to the Secretary of State and any of the local authorities involved in the pilot scheme, and those local authorities are required to publish the evaluation report within three months of the election. The Commission has also published this report on its website. 1.7 In preparing this report, the Commission has drawn on information provided by Peterborough City Council, together with its own observation and assessment of the pilot scheme and the views expressed to it by a number of other stakeholders. The Commission has also drawn on public opinion research, including a survey of candidates and agents, carried out by the British Market Research Bureau, and accessibility research carried out by Scope, a disability campaign organisation, on our behalf. We would particularly like to thank the Returning Officer and the Electoral Services department of Peterborough City Council for their assistance in undertaking this evaluation and for supplying us with the information and data to support it. 3

7 2 Context The area 2.1 The city of Peterborough is situated in the East of England region and has good communication links, being on the main east coast (London to Newcastle) railway line and close to the A1 and A47 trunk roads. The Council area comprises the city area and a relatively small rural hinterland. The city has experienced population growth in recent years (more than a 15% increase over the last two decades) and at the 2001 census a population of just over 156,000 was recorded. It contains significant Black and Minority Ethnic communities the 2001 census statistics indicate that around 10% of Peterborough s residents classify themselves as non-white. The council 2.2 Peterborough City Council (hereafter known as Peterborough or the Council ) became a single-tier unitary authority in There are 57 councillors, representing 24 wards, who are elected from a mixture of single, two and threemember wards. The Council is elected by thirds and, at the elections on 4 May 2006, 19 of the 24 wards had elections (17 wards elected one councillor each and two wards elected two councillors each). The local government election was combined with a Parish Council election in the parish of Glinton (within the district ward of Glinton and Wittering). 2.3 The number of electors registered to vote in the 19 wards which had elections was 104,837. The total number of electors on the electoral register was 119,706 (as at December 2005), meaning that around 88% of the Peterborough electorate was able to participate in the elections. 2.4 Prior to the May 2006 local elections, Peterborough was a Conservativecontrolled authority, with the party having 30 of the 57 councillors. The remaining seats were held by seven Labour group, six Independent group, five Minority Parties group, four Liberal Democrat group and one unaffiliated councillor, with four seats being vacant. Following the election, the Conservatives retained control of the Council, increasing their number of councillors to 35. The Council area contains three Parliamentary constituencies, either wholly or in part, and all are currently Conservative-held. Stewart Jackson MP is the member for the Peterborough constituency, Shailesh Vara MP is the member for North West Cambridgeshire, and Malcolm Moss MP is the member for North East Cambridgeshire. 2.5 The Council has been concerned in the recent past about allegations of electoral fraud regarding postal voting in the combined European Parliamentary and all-out local elections held in June 2004, which have led to an ongoing police investigation. The Council has taken steps to address the issue; a new electronic scanning system was introduced in time for the 2005 annual canvass which allows the Council to check signatures on postal vote applications against canvass forms. 4

8 3 Pilot scheme description The pilot scheme application 3.1 In response to the October 2005 electoral pilot scheme prospectus, Peterborough City Council submitted an application to pilot two changes to electoral procedures. These were: the use of electronic counting of ballots (e-counting) at the election a requirement for electors to provide a signature before their ballot papers would be issued by staff in polling stations 3.2 In a Written Ministerial Statement issued on 13 February 2006, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs announced that the Government had given approval to the Council s application to pilot only the signature requirement. 1 That requirement was included within the Government s Electoral Administration Bill, which had been introduced to the House of Commons in October The final pilot Order Peterborough City Council (Election Security Measures) Pilot Order was made on 23 March 2006 and came into force on the same day. Pilot scheme details Requiring voters at polling stations to sign for receipt of their ballot papers 3.3 The Council s pilot scheme application had initially envisaged that the signature requirement would not necessitate any amendment to the ballot paper or the counterfoil but would require changes to the polling station electoral register. The polling station register would have been altered so that a space would have been provided for polling station staff to enter the ballot paper number and for the elector to provide their signature. The ballot paper number and polling station register could not have been viewed together other than under an election petition. 3.4 In the event, Peterborough decided to move away from this proposal. The polling station electoral register was not amended; instead, the Order required that each voter provide their signature in a designated space on a separate corresponding number list maintained by the Presiding Officer, next to columns for the relevant ballot paper number (pre-printed) and elector number (entered by polling station staff). Once the voter had provided their signature on the list, the Presiding Officer issued them with a ballot paper. This replaced ballot papers being torn from a book, leaving a stub (counterfoil) on which the elector number would have been written. 3.5 This change of approach occurred due to the considerable additional work that would have been required to reformat the electoral registers and because of concerns about data protection. Marked copies of the electoral register are 1 Official Record (House of Lords) 13 February 2006: Vol 678, Column WS51, 5

9 available for inspection after the election and such copies would, under the original proposal, have contained voters signatures. 3.6 Where a voter would not provide a signature, the Presiding Officer was required to refuse to provide them with a ballot paper. The refusal was final and could not be overturned on polling day, although it could be challenged after the event via an election petition. The Presiding Officer could dispense with the requirement for a voter to provide a signature, and instead mark the space with the letters PI (for physical incapacity) if they were satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for a voter to sign in a consistent or distinctive way because of any incapacity or inability to read. 3.7 At the close of poll the Presiding Officer would place the completed list containing voters signatures in a separate packet and seal it. The list would not be open for inspection following the election, and the sealed packet could be opened only under an order made by an election court. The sealed packet of signatures would be stored securely by the Council for a period of six months after the election in the same way that counterfoils are kept after a traditionally run election. Unless a court had ordered the opening of the packet within this period, the signatures would then be destroyed. Objectives of the pilot scheme 3.8 In its pilot scheme application, the Council indicated that the proposed innovation aimed to: reinforce public confidence in elections reduce the potential for personation at polling stations encourage a higher turnout among voters, who would be reassured that the principle of one person one vote was being upheld 3.9 The Council s project management documentation stated that with this pilot scheme, the Council can show that it is taking on the concerns of voters, councillors and the police and putting in place packages that will reduce the opportunity for election irregularities to occur whilst making [potential] investigation and prosecutions easier to complete and process In commenting formally on the application, the Commission reiterated previously stated concerns that a compulsory requirement to sign for ballot papers in polling stations would be a disproportionate response to the risk of personation in polling stations and that there was a real risk that such a requirement could deter some electors from casting a vote However, the Commission agreed that there would be considerable learning value to be gained from small-scale piloting of this new procedure before it is rolled 2 Comments by The Electoral Commission on pilot scheme applications under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000, December 2005, 6

10 out nationwide through provisions in the Electoral Administration Act. In particular, the Commission valued the opportunity to evaluate the views and reactions of voters to the new requirement The background paper attached to the Secretary of State s Written Statement announcing approval of the May 2006 pilot scheme programme noted the Government s view that Peterborough s proposal will provide valuable learning The following section outlines the key objectives of the pilot scheme, as they relate to the statutory evaluation criteria specified in Chapter 1, Introduction. Facilitating voting or the counting of votes 3.14 The Council had to manage the risk that the requirement to sign could act as a deterrent to voting. A measure of the extent to which this had been avoided was electors acceptance of the process. This was assessed through analysis of the number of voters refusing to sign, through observation on polling day, and through analysis of opinion research and exit surveys. No impact on the counting of votes was expected as a result of this pilot scheme. Turnout 3.15 The Council stated that in tackling the issue of personation through the requirement for polling station voters to provide a signature it hoped a higher turnout among voters could be encouraged. However, the Council also had to manage the risk that the requirement to sign could act as a deterrent to voting to the extent that there was a significant impact on turnout. Ease of use by voters 3.16 While the pilot scheme did not specifically aim to increase ease of use for electors, the Council identified that the requirement for polling station voters to provide a signature had to be clearly communicated to electors. In addition, care would have to be taken that the requirement to sign did not increase barriers to participation among electors with disabilities or other difficulties with writing. Security and confidence 3.17 Probably the most important objective of the pilot scheme from the Council s perspective was that of increasing public confidence in the integrity of elections and reducing the potential for personation. It was considered that requiring electors in polling stations to provide a signature before they received their ballot papers would lead to an increased confidence in the system through the perception of additional security measures being in place In addition, it was believed that a requirement to sign for ballot papers might also work as a deterrent to potential electoral fraud. However, there was an acknowledgement that the collection of voters signatures would probably not assist in the detection of fraud, as there was to be no power, or mechanism, for signature checking during or after the election. 7

11 Efficiency 3.19 In introducing a new element to the voting process in polling stations, there was a risk that the signing process (and any associated voter queries) could cause the development of bottlenecks of people waiting to vote. The Council was of the view that, by delivering a specific advertising campaign for voters and appropriate training for polling station staff, the pilot would not impact negatively in terms of efficiency The Council acknowledged that the pilot scheme would result in additional costs, but believed the scale of such costs to be relatively small. It estimated that polling station staff training, additional advertising strategies and translation work would cost in the region of 4,000 to 6,000 in total. It stated that some advertising would effectively be free of charge, via the Council newsletter that is distributed to every household in the area on a monthly basis. 8

12 4 Evaluation Management of the pilot scheme Electoral Services team 4.1 The Electoral Services team at Peterborough consists of a full-time Electoral Services Officer, two other full-time members of staff and a part-time (20 hours per week) employee. In the period leading up to the election, Peterborough additionally employed two temporary full-time members of staff. The Returning Officer is the Chief Executive of the Council. Project management 4.2 The Council produced project management documentation, including project definition, objectives, deliverables, scope, approach and constraints. Regular highlight reports were produced detailing key milestones of the project and key risks. The project manager was the Council s Electoral Services Officer. 4.3 The Council reported no major issues or problems connected to the pilot in the lead-up to polling day. However, it did acknowledge subsequently that the timeframe for making all relevant arrangements in connection with the pilot had been tight, with little allowance for any unforeseen issues arising. The Council stated that if it applied to conduct a similar pilot in future, it would adopt a more rigorous approach to project management. Training 4.4 The Council arranged for a series of training sessions (six in total) for Poll Clerks and Presiding Officers, to explain how the election should work with the requirement for voters to sign for their ballot papers. These sessions were held on 27, 28, 30 and 31 March, and 4 and 29 April. An additional training session was held (on 2 May) for polling station inspectors, Deputy Returning Officers and count staff. 4.5 The training for Poll Clerks and Presiding Officers was in the form of a presentation and specifically covered the new procedures for requiring signatures in polling stations. Procedures for instances where voters were either unable, or refused, to provide a signature were also outlined. At the end of the sessions there was an opportunity to ask questions. 4.6 At a meeting held after the election with a small number of Poll Clerks and Presiding Officers, it was stated that the training offered had been beneficial and covered all aspects of the election. Although the written training materials did not directly cover guidance on what polling staff were to do in some specific situations, such as an elector clearly signing an incorrect or inappropriate name (e.g. Donald Duck ), this question was raised by polling staff at the training sessions and responded to by the Council, which advised that in such a situation a ballot paper should not be issued. 9

13 Impact on voting 4.7 From the voter s perspective, the pilot scheme involved only one additional step to the traditional process of voting in person, that step being signing for their ballot paper before receiving it. However, this extra step had the potential to affect voters experience of, views on, and confidence in the voting process. 4.8 The opinion research carried out on behalf of the Commission and the survey carried out by the Council both point, in overall terms, to the pilot having a neutral or positive impact on voters. Very few negative comments were received. The Council s survey indicated that almost all electors (98%) either rated the process of voting under the pilot scheme as easy (40%) or very easy (58%). 4.9 A similar conclusion was reached in the Commission s research, where in response to a question asking whether or not voters minded signing for their ballot papers, 97% replied that they did not. 3 Even when including those who did not vote in a polling station and therefore did not sign for their ballot papers, a large majority said that they did (or would) not mind doing so in the future (86% of postal voters and 91% of people who did not vote in the election) The main reasons given by respondents for not wanting to sign for the ballot paper (and it should be noted that this was only a very small proportion of respondents) were either that they could not see a rationale for doing so, that it was an invasion of their privacy, or that it affected the secrecy of their vote During election day, Commission evaluators observed the issuing of ballot papers at a number of polling stations, and spoke to polling staff about the effect of the pilot scheme on the voting process. None of the polling staff the Commission spoke to had major concerns with the new process or considered it to have had a significant negative impact on voting. No instances were observed or reported of queues forming due to the requirement to provide a signature slowing down the issuing process, although it did take slightly longer to process voters than the traditional voting process would have done However, while the requirement to sign in polling stations did not appear to have a major impact on the ability of voters to exercise their democratic right within the polling station, some administrative and practice issues were identified through Commission observation, voters comments and feedback from Presiding Officers and Poll Clerks after the election. For example, it is possible that a larger turnout, such as at a UK Parliamentary general election, could have created bottlenecks of voters, particularly at peak periods. 3 This figure is based on a small sample size, using respondents from three pilot areas (Brentwood, Lewisham and Peterborough) trialling signing in polling stations. 4 This percentage is based on respondents from Brentwood, Lewisham and Peterborough. 10

14 4.13 Some voters queried signing their name in pencil to receive their ballot papers, preferring to do so in pen due to concerns about the possibility of a pencil signature being rubbed out. Polling station staff took a pragmatic approach to this issue, most allowing signing to be carried out in pen, although voters still marked their ballot papers as normal using a pencil, apparently without complaint Feedback from some polling staff after the election also indicated that they thought the space allocated on the signing sheet for voters to sign for their ballot paper(s) was too small and resulted in some voters going outside their allotted space. It was suggested that if in future signing for ballot papers was a requirement, more space should be allocated for the voter to sign One part of the Council area the parish of Glinton held two polls, one for a City Council seat and one for the Parish Council. Electors in the parish were required to sign twice if they wanted to exercise their right to vote in both elections, once for their City Council election ballot paper and once for their Parish Council ballot paper Most voters in Glinton chose to use both votes and do not appear to have been deterred by having to sign twice for the two ballot papers, although polling staff in that area believed the overall voting process to have taken slightly, though not significantly, longer than if the elections had been run along traditional lines. Public awareness and feedback Impact and effectiveness of publicity arrangements 4.17 The Council s project management information included a communication plan for the run-up to the elections, which included information mechanisms such as press releases, posters, advertisements and interviews with council officers. The Council translated promotional material from English into the 11 most commonly spoken foreign languages in Peterborough The Council s free newspaper for local residents, Your Peterborough, featured an article in the April 2006 edition ( Going to the polls ) which included details of the pilot scheme requirement for voters to sign for their ballot papers. This followed on from a council press release issued on 14 February entitled Sign for ballot papers scheme to crack down on voter fraud A series of 12 advertisements was placed in a local newspaper, the Peterborough Evening Telegraph, in the run-up to the May 2006 elections, advertising the upcoming elections. Three of the 12 advertisements made reference to the pilot scheme. Those three (colour) advertisements appeared as follows: advertisement A 27 April, 2 May and 4 May advertisement B 24 April, 26 April and 3 May advertisement C 6 April and 12 April 5 The languages were Bengali, Czech, French, Hindi, Italian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Slovak and Urdu. 11

15 4.20 The advertisements also appeared in poster format. Prior to the election, the Council placed them in various public areas, such as at the Town Hall and in libraries, while it also ensured that the posters were displayed prominently in polling stations on the day of the election The Council also commissioned two radio advertising campaigns on local radio station Lite FM that ran from 1 February until polling day. The first was to promote voter registration while the second focused on the local elections themselves. The election-specific campaign ran from 20 March until polling day and comprised a total of 240 half-minute advertisements (40 per week for six weeks) The Commission wrote to a range of local stakeholders shortly after the election to request their assessment of the pilot scheme, enclosing a questionnaire. We also made the questionnaire available from our website, together with a facility to provide further comment. We received five responses and are grateful to those concerned for providing us with their views, which we have incorporated into our evaluation of the pilot scheme. Three of the five respondents to the Commission s post-election stakeholder survey mentioned finding out about the pilot scheme from the local media The Council s own survey also asked how people found out about the requirement to sign for their ballot papers. 6 The largest number of respondents (43%) found out at the polling station. A further 12% claimed to have found out via a leaflet, 9% via a newspaper and 6% via the radio. Seven per cent of respondents found out via other methods, which may have included reading the back of their polling card, which included this information, although not prominently. Voter awareness and comprehension 4.24 Our research found that less than one in ten people (9%) in the Peterborough area were aware that a pilot scheme was in operation at these elections. A third (33%) of respondents (both voters and non-voters) did not think a pilot scheme was in operation, while more than half (58%) did not know Of those who were aware that a pilot scheme was in operation at these elections, around a third (34%) believed they knew what the pilot scheme was, while approaching two-thirds (62%) said that they did not. 7 Of the five respondents who were aware that a pilot scheme was in operation at these elections and believed they knew what the pilot scheme was, two stated that it was signing for the ballot paper in polling stations The research also indicated that, while nearly all polling station voters (94%) remembered being asked to sign for their ballot papers, less than half (47%) were aware that this was a new arrangement. 6 The Council survey asked respondents to list one source. 7 These figures are based on a small sample size. 12

16 4.27 These findings generally indicate a poor awareness of the pilot scheme s operation at these elections. Despite the Council s communication strategy, the vast majority of local people did not appear to know there was a pilot scheme in operation at the local elections in Peterborough this year. As this was the first time a pilot of this nature has been undertaken, it would be unfair to have expected too high a level of awareness at these elections. If the practice of signing for one s ballot paper was repeated at future elections, awareness may improve substantially. However, the Commission s research clearly indicates that the Council s communication strategy prior to the election appears to have had only minimal impact on voter awareness A response received from a Peterborough community group to the Commission s stakeholder survey stated that some electors may have been apprehensive about giving their signature and that this may have dissuaded them from voting. However, on the evidence available to the Commission at the time of this report, we have no reason to believe that any electors were dissuaded from voting because of the requirement for a signature Our research also explored voters understanding as to the purpose of the requirement to sign for their ballot papers. Around a third of respondents in Peterborough (34%) believed the purpose of the requirement was to prevent fraud, vote rigging or people voting twice, 23% thought it was for confirmation of their identity, while 12% stated that they thought it was a security measure. Impact on campaigning by candidates 4.30 This pilot scheme did not generally affect campaigning by candidates. The Council s survey indicates that at least some of the candidates explained to voters about the requirement to sign for their ballot papers at these elections, but we are aware of no other evidence about the pilot scheme impacting on campaigning. A councillor who responded to the Commission s post-election stakeholder survey stated that the pilot scheme did not affect his own campaign. Accessibility 4.31 The Commission asked Scope to undertake some research on its behalf into accessibility issues at the elections. In respect of the Peterborough pilot scheme, the research noted that signing any document can present a significant barrier for a number of disabled people, including: people with visual impairments, especially those people who have acquired a visual impairment later in life people with co-ordination impairments, such as some people who have cerebral palsy people with neurological conditions, such as some people with aphasia some learning disabled people 4.32 Scope also examined in some detail the impact on older people of requiring voters to sign for their ballot papers. The research concluded that the Council did not take sufficient steps to inform organisations that represent disabled or older 13

17 people (for example the Alzheimer s Society) that people would have to sign for their ballot paper The research also found that, although the local elections were prominently advertised at the top of the Council website s homepage, there was very little detail about the pilot innovation and no information about assistance for disabled voters at polling stations. It concluded that greater use could have been made of the website Scope also undertook a site visit to certain polling stations on election day. Their assessment found that the polling stations were largely accessible, that information on the signing process was prominently displayed, and that polling staff indicated that information was available in a range of other languages. However, feedback from Poll Clerks indicates that the translations remained virtually unused, as most people who do not understand English and who come to the polling station to vote are accompanied by someone who can translate for them if necessary The research was positive in its assessment of polling staff, commenting that they provided a high level of face-to-face support to voters [and demonstrated] a can do attitude to supporting voters. For example, election staff were observed sensitively supporting an older voter in signing for the ballot paper. Security and user confidence 4.36 The most important aspect of the pilot scheme from the Council s perspective was to improve perceptions of confidence and security in the elections among voters. The results of the Commission s research and the Council s survey indicate that the perceptions of electors to the pilot scheme achieving this aim were generally positive The Commission s research asked whether people believed that signing for their ballot paper would affect electoral fraud. Half (50%) of those surveyed in the Peterborough area (including voters and non-voters) believed it would decrease the level of electoral fraud, while 38% believed that signing for the ballot paper would make no difference to the level of electoral fraud. Only 4% believed the level of electoral fraud would increase as a result Similar results were found in relation to a question about whether signing for their ballot paper would affect confidence in the voting process 36% stated that they thought there would be more confidence in the process, while only 5% said they thought there would be less (59% said that it would make no difference) The Council s own survey reached similar conclusions. In response to a question to voters about how they felt signing for the ballot paper affected the security of the process of voting, more than half (54%) stated that they believed it to be more secure, with just under half (44%) believing that it made no difference. Less than 2% of voters believed it to be less secure Another question asked in the Council survey was whether the requirement to sign for the ballot paper would put electors off voting at future elections nearly 95% of respondents stated that it would not. 14

18 4.41 However, focus groups carried out on behalf of the Commission found that participants were more sceptical of the value of the pilot scheme. Specifically, they questioned how much of a deterrent signing at the polling station would be against fraud, when no previous signatures were held against which to check the authenticity of the signature. Although participants recognised that signatures could be checked retrospectively, they felt unsure how it would help catch perpetrators of electoral fraud A practical issue which arose on polling day in relation to user confidence (and as mentioned in paragraph 4.13 earlier in this chapter) was the use of pencils to sign for the ballot paper. It is traditional at British elections to fill in the ballot paper using a pencil, and this is what was provided at polling stations for the Peterborough local elections. However, people are most familiar with signing for something such as a credit card slip or recorded postal item in pen Although most voters appear to have accepted without question the requirement to sign for their ballot papers before casting their vote, some queried why they were expected to sign an official document in pencil rather than in pen, as it would be possible for a pencil signature to be rubbed out. Feedback from polling station staff on the day and at a subsequent debrief meeting indicated that most Presiding Officers had taken a pragmatic approach to this issue and allowed signing in pen. However, ballots were still cast in pencil The Commission has not been made aware of any allegations of fraud or malpractice arising from the pilot scheme at this election. At present, therefore, there is no substantiated evidence to suggest that the procedures provided for by the scheme in respect of requiring signatures in polling stations led to any increase in electoral offences, or in any other malpractice in connection with elections. The Commission notes that the period in which a prosecution can be launched is one year, and so such evidence may still come to light. Impact on turnout 4.45 The overall level of turnout in Peterborough at these elections was 36.7%, which was an increase of approximately four percentage points on the last comparable set of council elections in May There were 38,487 votes cast (including invalid votes). The Council had set a target of 26% turnout for the May 2006 elections in its project management information, which was therefore considerably exceeded As discussed elsewhere in this report, the public seem overwhelmingly to have had no particular problem with, or objection to, signing for their ballot papers before voting, and it therefore seems unlikely that the scheme acted to depress turnout at the 2006 elections. There is also no evidence to suggest that electors were specifically encouraged to vote by the pilot scheme provision. We would therefore suggest that the pilot scheme had no statistically significant impact either positive or negative on turnout. 15

19 Cost and value for money 4.47 The cost of the pilot scheme to the Council was estimated at 4,962, which equates to an approximate expense of 5p per eligible elector or 17p per polling station voter. Much of the pilot-related expenditure was subsumed within the Council s normal local elections expenditure, but certain elements were identified as being incurred specifically due to the pilot scheme The advertisement series in the Peterborough Evening Telegraph cost a total of 3,478 and half this amount was attributed by the Council to the pilot scheme. The Lite FM radio advertisements cost a similar amount ( 3,384) to the newspaper advertisements and, again, half the total was attributed to the pilot scheme The Council also had to cover additional staffing costs, which included the mandatory attendance of polling station staff at the pre-election training, some of which was specific to the pilot scheme. The Council estimated the additional staffing expenditure to be 1,339. Finally, the Council incurred expenditure of 192 on pilotrelated translation costs for information material in other languages Peterborough s Electoral Services team considered that the additional cost of the pilot scheme to the Council of 4,962 was good value for money. The Commission notes that some of the communication and training costs could conceivably be reduced or removed if the pilot scheme was carried out again, or the requirement to sign was rolled out for all elections. 16

20 5 Conclusions and findings Conclusions 5.1 In terms of the five statutory evaluation criteria, the Electoral Commission s conclusions in relation to the electoral pilot scheme in Peterborough City Council are as follows: Facilitating voting or the counting of votes: The pilot scheme had no significant impact on facilitating voting either positively or negatively. While a very small number of voters voiced opposition to signing for their ballot papers in the polling station, the requirement was widely accepted by the majority of voters. The pilot scheme had no impact on the counting of votes, or on the capacity of voters to make an informed choice at the elections. Whether the turnout of voters was higher than it would otherwise have been: Although turnout increased by four percentage points on the last comparable council elections in 2002, there is no evidence to suggest that the pilot scheme had either a positive or negative impact. The objectives of the pilot scheme were not primarily related to turnout. Whether voters found procedures easy to use: Voters did not appear to have any significant problems with the process of signing for ballot papers in the polling station, although there was a relatively low level of awareness as to why they were being required to sign and what would be done with the lists on which they provided their signatures following the election. Very few people appear to have objected to signing, or to have been unable to sign or mark the corresponding number list sheet. Whether the scheme led to any increase in personation or other offences or malpractice: The Commission has no evidence to suggest that the pilot scheme led to an increase in personation or other malpractice. There were no complaints to the Council or the police regarding potential fraud or security breaches in respect of the pilot procedures. Our opinion research, observations on polling day and comments recorded by voters all indicate that many voters perceived the requirement to sign for ballot papers in polling stations as an additional safeguard against fraud and an improvement to the security of the electoral process. Of those surveyed by the Commission, 36% considered that the requirement would increase confidence in the voting process, while only 5% said that they thought there would be less confidence. Whether the procedures led to any increase in expenditure or savings by the authority: The pilot scheme did not lead to a significant increase in the cost of running the election. The Council s Electoral Services team considered that the additional cost of the pilot scheme of 4,962 was good value for money. This amount equates to a cost of 17p per polling station voter, or 5p per eligible elector. 17

21 Learning 5.2 The Commission s evaluation of this pilot scheme has identified the following key learning points: The need for greater publicity about the requirement to sign for ballot papers in polling stations. The inclusion of information about the requirement to sign for ballot papers in polling stations on the polling card the Council did this but it was very small and most people did not notice it. The need for greater clarity in training and briefing materials and guidance as to what polling staff should do in certain instances, such as when voters refuse to provide a signature or sign in a clearly incorrect or inappropriate name (such as Donald Duck ). There should be a mechanism to cover up previous signatures provided on the corresponding number list, in order to assuage concerns regarding secrecy. Appropriate space for electors signatures should be provided on the corresponding number list. Pens rather than pencils should be used when requiring voters to sign for their ballot papers. Issues 5.3 Key issues remaining to be addressed in relation to the innovations, whether through further piloting or other development work, follow: It is important to recognise the limitations of the pilot; although voters signed for their ballot papers, the polling staff could not check the signatures against any other source. If the provisions had been in force at a UK Parliamentary general election, where voter turnout could be expected to be considerably higher, the slightly longer time that it took to process voters means that careful consideration would need to be given to ensuring that the numbers of polling staff were appropriate for such an election. Consideration should be given as to whether electors should be required to sign one corresponding number list per election at combined elections, or whether just one signature would suffice in such an instance. Further consideration should be given to the impact of the pilot scheme on voters with a disability and voters who cannot communicate in the English language. Although the Council took steps to minimise the impact of the pilot on these parts of the community, it is important that nobody is disenfranchised by the requirement to sign for their ballot paper. 18