Research Report local elections postpolling. research. Prepared for: Electoral Commission

Transcription

1 Research Report 2013 local elections postpolling public opinion research Prepared for: Electoral Commission

2 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research Prepared for: Electoral Commission Date: May 2013 Produced by BMG Research Bostock Marketing Group Ltd, Project: 9122 Registered in England No Registered office: 7 Holt Court North Heneage Street West Aston Science Park Birmingham B7 4AX UK Tel: +44 (0) UK VAT Registration No Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Member No. B4626 Market Research Society Company Partner British Quality Foundation Member The provision of Market Research Services in accordance with ISO 20252:2006 The provision of Market Research Services in accordance with ISO 9001:2008 Investors in People Standard - Certificate No. WMQC 0614 Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS) Member Company Registered under the Data Protection Act - Registration No. Z The BMG Research logo is a trade mark of Bostock Marketing Group Ltd

3 Executive summary Table of Contents 1 Executive summary Registration Turnout Knowledge Satisfaction with voting procedures Voter experience Electoral fraud Background and method Background Method Reporting Registration, turnout and voting Registration Turnout Reasons for voting/not voting Knowledge Level of knowledge about the elections Ease of accessing information, and sufficiency of information Ease of accessing information Sufficiency of information Preferred method of communication Voting procedures Satisfaction with voting procedures Ease of filling in ballot papers Confidence The Voter experience Polling stations Satisfaction Usefulness of support/information available Perceptions of polling stations Convenience Postal voting

4 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research Satisfaction Ease of understanding Usefulness of written instructions Convenience Election fraud Understanding of electoral fraud Safety from fraud Extent to which different types of fraud are regarded as a problem Effectiveness of methods to prevent fraud Views on electoral fraud Appendix A: Marked up questionnaire Appendix B: Unweighted and weighted profile of respondents

5 Executive summary 1 Executive summary 1.1 Registration Close to nine in ten (88%) were satisfied with the procedure for getting their name on the list of people who are registered to vote, with just one per cent expressing dissatisfaction in this respect. 1.2 Turnout Overall turnout in England was 31%, while turnout in Anglesey was 51%. As is commonly the case in post-polling surveys, self-reported turnout among the sample surveyed was higher than this, at around half (51%). While the sample design sought to achieve half of all interviews with voters, claimed turnout is also likely to be higher than actual turnout because voters are more receptive to agreeing to take part in an interview about electoral issues, and also because they are likely to be easier to reach than non-voting members of the public. Reasons for voting centred on civic responsibility (70%), while reasons for not voting were largely centred on circumstances (57%), as is the norm in post-polling public opinion research. 1.3 Knowledge Close to half (47%) felt they knew a lot or a fair amount about the elections, while over half (53%) felt they knew not very much or nothing at all. Over three in five (62%) said they had seen or heard advertising or publicity about the election, with the most common sources leaflets or flyers from a candidate/political party (28%) and leaflets or flyers from the council (17%). While four in five (81%) found it easy to access information on how to cast their vote, and two thirds (68%) found it easy to access information on what the election was for, this reduced to half (49%) in relation to accessing information on parties and candidates. Reflecting this, while three quarters (73%) agreed they had enough information on how to cast their vote, half (49%) agreed that they had enough information on parties and candidates to make an informed decision on who to vote for, although this was higher in Anglesey, at 59%. 1.4 Satisfaction with voting procedures Four in five (79%) were satisfied with the procedures for voting in elections and referendums in Great Britain in general (as opposed to these elections specifically), and almost all voters (98%) found it easy to fill in the ballot paper. Three quarters (74%) felt confident that the elections were well run. 1.5 Voter experience Almost all (97%) who voted at a polling station were satisfied with the process, and the vast majority of those who made use of the help or support available from polling station staff, and written instructions on how to vote useful to an extent. 3

6 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research Similarly almost all (96%) who voted by post were satisfied with the process for doing so, almost all felt it was easy to understand what they needed to do in order to complete and return their postal vote (99%) and found the written instructions on how to vote and return their vote useful (96%). 1.6 Electoral fraud Close to half (46%) felt they know a lot or a little about electoral fraud, while half (50%) felt they understood hardly anything or nothing at all. Respondents most commonly understood the term electoral fraud to mean someone using someone else s vote (41%) or cheating/corruption/vote rigging (22%). While three quarters (77%) felt that voting in general is safe from fraud or abuse, and nine in ten (88%) that voting in a polling station is safe from fraud, this figure fell to somewhat under half (47%) in relation to postal voting, with a significant minority of over a quarter (28%) who felt it was unsafe. However it should be noted that postal voters were more likely than those who voted at a polling station to regard postal voting as safe (82% compared to 38%). While a third (31%) did not know, and close to half (48%) felt there was hardly any or no electoral fraud, a fifth (22%) did believe there had been a lot or a little. However, electoral fraud was regarded as significantly less of a problem than benefit fraud or false insurance claims (15% compared to 79% and 83% respectively). The measure regarded as most effective in preventing electoral fraud was the requirement to show some form of ID at the polling station (90%). Interestingly, while very few respondents felt they had little choice in who to vote for because of pressure from other people (3%) and a similarly small proportion felt electoral fraud is common where they live (2%), significant proportions did feel that it would be easy to get away with electoral fraud in Great Britain (43%) and that there could be enough electoral fraud in some areas to affect the election result (41%)., 4

7 Background and method 2 Background and method 2.1 Background This report summarises the results of the May 2 nd 2013 elections post-polling day public opinion research. Elections were held in the areas shown in the table below, and the sample was designed to be representative of these areas in terms of demographic breakdown. It was also designed to reflect the prevalence of the population in these areas, with the exception of Anglesey, the only area in Wales in which elections were held, to allow for robust analysis in this area. Figure 1: Where elections took place Counties with two-tier structures Buckinghamshire Hampshire Nottinghamshire Cambridgeshire Hertfordshire Oxfordshire Cumbria Kent Somerset Derbyshire Lancashire Staffordshire Devon Leicestershire Suffolk Dorset Lincolnshire Surrey East Sussex Norfolk Warwickshire Essex North Yorkshire West Sussex Gloucestershire Northamptonshire Worcestershire Unitary authorities Bristol (one third) Isle of Wight Shropshire Cornwall Isles of Scilly Wiltshire Durham Northumberland Wales Anglesey The research was undertaken to understand the electoral experiences of the public, and covered issues relating to registration, voting/non-voting and reasons for this, satisfaction with the voting process, confidence in the way the election was run, and views on electoral fraud. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix A of this report, which includes total sample results. 5

8 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research 2.2 Method A total of 1,003 interviews were undertaken between 3 rd and 19 th May via Computer Aided Telephone Interview (CATI), 802 in England (spread proportionate to the population in areas holding elections) and 201 in Anglesey. Contacts were sourced from a mixture of Random Digit Dial (RDD) and lifestyle contacts, and respondents were screened into the sample on the basis of their postcode to ensure they were resident within an election-holding area. In line with previous research approximately half the sample (51%) reported having voted in the elections, although this was higher in Anglesey than in England (56% compared to 51%), reflecting the significantly higher turnout here Reporting Data described in this report have been weighted by age, gender and work status to adjust for minor deviations from the target sample. Except in the case of Anglesey, which has been rim-weighted to 0.3% of the total sample to reflect the size of its population relative to other areas holding elections, no geographic weights have been applied because the sample was designed to be proportionally representative of those areas holding elections. Although all data shown in this report are weighted, all bases shown are unweighted in order to provide an indication of the robustness of the results. The unweighted and weighted sample profiles can be found in Appendix B of this report. This report considers the results across England and Anglesey combined, noting significant differences between the two at the 95% level of confidence. For single response questions, where results do not sum to 100% this is due to rounding. A sample size of 1,003 carries a maximum confidence interval of ±3.1% at the 95% level of confidence. For Anglesey, a sample size of 201 carries a maximum confidence interval of ±6.9% at the 95% level of confidence. 1 Turnout for Anglesey was 51%, which compared to 31% in England. 6

9 Registration, turnout and voting 3 Registration, turnout and voting 3.1 Registration Almost all respondents reported being registered on the electoral role where they currently live (97%) and an additional 1% at another address. While a very high proportion of respondents in Anglesey also reported being registered (94% overall), a significantly higher, albeit still very small, proportion reported not being registered than in England (3% compared to 1%). It should be noted that these are self-reported measures, and should not be taken as reliable estimates as to the proportion of the population who are actually registered to vote. Close to nine in ten (88%) were satisfied with the procedure for getting their name on the list of people who are registered to vote, including two thirds (65%) who were very satisfied. Just one per cent indicated a level of dissatisfaction (fairly dissatisfied) with this process. This is largely consistent with previous post-polling public opinion research Turnout Overall turnout in England was 31%, while turnout in Anglesey was 51%. As is commonly the case, levels of reported turnout exceed those outlined above, with 51% overall who reported having voted. Reflecting actual turnout, this figure was somewhat, but not significantly higher among respondents in Anglesey (56%) than English respondents (51%). Again it should be noted that this type of post-polling research is unsuited to providing reliable estimates for voter turnout, as the sample design deliberately sought to achieve at least half of all interviews with this group. The figure overleaf illustrates how this varied by gender and age, and illustrates that, as is commonly the case, reported turnout increased by age, from 32% of those aged up to 34, to 72% of those aged 65 or more. 2 Nov 2012 (PCC): 84% satisfied; May 2012 (English local elections): 85%; Jun 2009 (English local elections): 87%. 7

10 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research Figure 2: Reported turnout by gender and age (all respondents) TOTAL 51% Men (458) Women (545) 49% 53% 18 to 24 (99) 25 to 34 (121) 35 to 54 (344) 55 to 64 (174) 65+ (257) 32% 32% 50% 52% 72% Q3: As you may know, on Thursday 2 nd May 2013 the <xx> local/county council election was held in your area. Many people told us they didn t manage to vote on May the 2 nd. How about you did you manage to vote? Bases in parentheses Three quarters (75%) of voters reported voting at a polling station, while a quarter (25%) reported voting by post. No respondents within the sample reported voting by proxy. 3.3 Reasons for voting/not voting Respondents who said they voted were asked their reasons for doing so, and the key reasons cited largely related to a sense of civic responsibility (79%), with the most common responses related to this a feeling that there is an obligation to vote (49%), and that they always do vote (27%). Other reasons provided for voting can be summarised as follows: To express my view (28%); To help create change (9%); English respondents were more likely to mention reasons relating to civic duty than respondents in Anglesey (70% compared to 55%), while respondents in Anglesey were more likely to mention the desire to create change (27% compared to 8%). Those who said they did not vote were also asked their reasons for doing so. The key reasons cited related to circumstances (57%), as is commonly the case, with the most common responses within this a lack of time/being too busy (22%), being away (12%), or simply forgetting (11%). Other reasons provided for not voting can be summarised as follows: Disinterest (12%); Lack of awareness (12%); The candidates/parties (9%); A perception that elections are not important (4%); Admin reasons (3%); Indecision/complexity (2%). Miscellaneous (5%). 8

11 Registration, turnout and voting Respondents in Anglesey were more likely than their English counterparts to say they did not vote or admin reasons (10% compared to 3%), and that there was no point because the council cannot do very much (7% compared to 2%). They were also more likely to mention reasons relating to candidates or parties (17% compared to 9%). 9

12 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research 4 Knowledge 4.1 Level of knowledge about the elections When asked how much, if anything, they felt they knew about the elections, close to half (47%) said they felt they knew a great deal or a fair amount, including one in ten (9%) who felt they knew a great deal. In contrast the corresponding 53% felt they knew not very much or nothing at all, including one in seven (14%) who felt they knew nothing at all. This compares with a quarter (24%) following the November 2012 PCC elections, where significantly fewer felt they knew a great deal or a fair amount about the elections, and is more in line with the 51% reported following the May 2012 English local elections. Voters were significantly more likely to report knowing a great deal or a fair amount about the elections than non-voters (59% compared to 34%). Reflecting this, there were significant differences between respondents in England and Anglesey: those in Anglesey, where turnout was higher than in England, were significantly more likely to feel they knew a great deal or a fair amount about the election (61% compared to 47% in England). Figure 3: Level of knowledge about the elections (all respondents) A great deal 9% A fair amount 38% Not very much 39% Nothing at all 14% Q7: How much, if anything, did you feel you knew about the <xx> local/county election on May the 2 nd? Would you say you knew...? Base = 1,003 Over three in five (62%) of all respondents said they had seen or heard advertising, publicity or other information about the election, which matches the proportion who did so following the May 2012 elections (64%), and is significantly greater than was the case following the November 2012 PCC elections (33%). The most commonly mentioned sources of information (mentioned by 5% or more) were: Leaflets or flyers from a candidate/political party (28%); Leaflet or flyer from local council (17%); 10

13 Knowledge Newspaper article (8%); Leaflet or flyer from another source (7%); Television advertising (7%); Television programme or interview (5%). Respondents in Anglesey were significantly more likely than those in England to report having seen or heard advertising or publicity (72% compared to 62%), and were more likely to mention the source as being newspaper articles (22% compared to 8%), newspaper advertising (11% compared to 5%), and canvassers (7% compared to 1%). 4.2 Ease of accessing information, and sufficiency of information Ease of accessing information Respondents were asked how easy or difficult it was to access information on how to cast their vote, what the election was for, and about parties and candidates. Four in five (81%) said they found it very or fairly easy to access information on how to cast their vote, with less than ten (6%) finding it difficult to any extent, although this rose to 12% in Anglesey (compared to 6% in England). Respondents were less likely to say that they found it easy to access information on what the election was for (68%), with one in six (15%) reporting difficulties in this respect. However, respondents in Anglesey were directionally more likely to say that they found it easy to access information on what the election was for than those in England (74% compared to 68%). The response was more equivocal with regard to accessing information on parties and candidates, with half (49%) reporting that they found this easy, and a third (32%) that they found it difficult to an extent. Figure 4: Ease of accessing information (all respondents) How to cast your vote What the election was for Information on parties and candidates Very easy 54% Very easy 33% Very easy 22% Fairly easy 27% Fairly easy 30% Fairly easy 27% Neither easy nor difficult 7% Neither easy nor difficult 10% Neither easy nor difficult 11% Fairly difficult 4% Fairly difficult 9% Fairly difficult 19% Very difficult 2% Very difficult 6% Very difficult 13% 6% 7% 8% Q9: For each of the following statements, would you say it is very easy, fairly easy, neither easy nor difficult, fairly difficult or very difficult to access information on...? Base = 1,003 11

14 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research Sufficiency of information Respondents were also asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that they had enough information on how to cast their vote, and enough information on parties and candidates to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for. Three quarters (73%) agreed that they did have enough information on how to vote, while one in five (19%) felt they did not. In relation to having sufficient information on parties and candidates to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for, while half (49%) agreed that this was the case, two in five (43%) felt it was not. Respondents in Anglesey were more likely to agree that they had sufficient information on parties and candidates to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for (59% compared to 49%). Figure 5: Sufficiency of information (all respondents) I had enough information on how to cast my vote I had enough information on parties and candidates to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for Agree strongly 44% Agree strongly 28% Tend to agree 29% Tend to agree 21% Neither agree nor disagree 8% Neither agree nor disagree 7% Tend to disagree 9% Tend to disagree 19% Disagree strongly 10% Disagree strongly 24% 1% 1% Q10: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Base = 1,003 When asked where they found information on parties and candidates the key sources cited (mentioned by 5% or more) were: Leaflet of flyer from a candidate/political party (63%); Leaflet or flyer from another source (30%); Press (14%); Candidate s website (10%); Posters or billboards (5%); People talking about it (5%); Political parties websites (5%); On another specific website (5%). 12

15 Knowledge Reflecting the findings outlined above, those in Anglesey were more likely than those in England to mention leaflets/flyers from a candidate/political party (75% compared to 63%) and councillors/candidates/canvassers (13% compared to 4%). 4.3 Preferred method of communication Respondents were asked, when it comes to receiving information about parties and candidates in elections, what form of communication they would most prefer. One method predominated leaflets or booklets through the door mentioned by 62% of all respondents. The other main methods mentioned included: messages (9%, rising to 17% of those aged up to 34); Personal contact with parties/candidates (8%, rising to 21% of those in Anglesey, and 12% of those aged 65 or more); TV or radio advertising (5%). 13

16 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research 5 Voting procedures 5.1 Satisfaction with voting procedures Four in five (79%) of all respondents indicated satisfaction with the procedures for voting in elections and referendums in Great Britain in general, including over a third (36%) who were very satisfied. This is very much in line with findings from previous post-polling public opinion research 3. Satisfaction increased with age, from 64% of those aged 18 to 24, to 86% of those aged 65 or more. Fewer than one in ten (9%) indicated a level of dissatisfaction, and among this group (73 respondents) the key reasons cited were: Not having enough information (29%); Don t like the voting system (14%); The system is unfair (13%); Need more options (11%); Voting system should be online (10%); Politicians/candidates don t let themselves be known (8%); Voting should be spread over a few days (7%). Figure 6: Satisfaction with procedures for voting (all respondents) Very satisfied 36% Fairly satisfied 43% Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 11% Fairly dissatisfied 6% Very dissatisfied 3% 1% Q13: Generally speaking, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the procedures for voting in elections and referendums in Great Britain? Base = 1,003 3 Nov 2012 (PCC): 78% satisfied; May 2012 (English local elections): 80%; Jun 2009 (English local elections): 80%. 14

17 Voting procedures 5.2 Ease of filling in ballot papers Among those respondents who voted, almost all (98%) felt it was very or fairly easy to fill in the ballot paper, including close to nine in ten (88%) who felt it was very easy. Again this closely matches the levels achieved in previous research 4. However it should be noted that, albeit a small proportion, close to one in ten (8%) of voters in Anglesey did feel it was difficult to fill in the ballot paper. Figure 7: Ease of filling in ballot paper (voters) Very easy 88% Fairly easy 10% Neither easy nor difficult <0.5% Fairly difficult 1% Very difficult <0.5% 1% Q26: Some people said it was difficult to fill in the ballot paper(s) when voting in the 2 nd of May election. How easy or difficult did you find it to fill in the ballot paper(s) for the local council election? Was it...? IF NECESSARY: By fill in we mean place your vote on the form rather than decide who to vote for. Base: voters = Nov 2012 (PCC): 94% satisfied; May 2012 (English local elections): 98%; Jun 2009 (English local elections): 93%. 15

18 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research 6 Confidence Three quarters (74%) of respondents felt confident that the May 2013 elections were well run, including a third (35%) who felt very confident. This matches the levels achieved in the May 2012 elections (73%), and significantly exceeds the levels achieved following the November 2012 PCC elections (33%). Overall one in ten (12%) respondents felt a lack of confidence (although this rose to a fifth (19%) among respondents in Anglesey), and one in seven (14%) did not know. Figure 8: Confidence that the election was well run (all respondents) Very confident 35% Fairly confident 39% Not very confident 8% Not at all confident 3% 14% Q15: How confident, if at all, are you that the <xx> local/county council election was well run on the 2 nd of May? Base = 1,003 Reasons for feeling confident that the elections were well run focussed on the fact that they were well organised (41%), with other reasons mentioned by 6% or fewer. However, it is interesting to note that respondents in Anglesey were significantly less likely to mention the level of organisation (26% compared to 41% in England), and more likely to mention the fact that they were well publicised (11% compared to 3%) and that they had not heard any negative feedback (10% compared to 3%). Reasons for not feeling confident that the elections were well run focussed on the lack of information/publicity (54%), and the fact that information was scarce/confusing/some people did not understand what the vote was for (12%). Other reasons were mentioned by 7% or fewer. 16

19 The Voter experience 7 The Voter experience 7.1 Polling stations Satisfaction Almost all respondents (97%) who voted at a polling station expressed satisfaction with the process for doing so, with three quarters (77%) very satisfied, and only one per cent indicated a level of dissatisfaction. This closely matches the levels achieved in previous research 5. Figure 9: Satisfaction with voting at polling station (voters at polling stations) Very satisfied 77% Fairly satisfied 19% Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied 2% 1% Very dissatisfied 0% 1% Q18: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the process of voting at a polling station? Would you say...? Base: voters at polling stations = Usefulness of support/information available Polling station voters were asked how useful they found the help or support available from polling station staff on how to vote, and how useful, if at all, were any written instructions on how to vote, such as posters on display in the polling booth or guidance on the ballot paper(s). While a quarter (25%) did not make use of the help or support available from polling station staff, where respondents had done so they were almost universally positive (72% found them very or fairly useful) with only three per cent expressing dissatisfaction. Similarly, while a fifth (21%) did not make use of the written instructions available, where respondents had done so they were very largely positive (73% found them very or fairly useful, while 4% found them to be not very or not at all useful). 5 Nov 2012 (PCC): 94% satisfied; May 2012 (English local elections): 98%; Jun 2009 (English local elections): 98%. 17

20 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research The proportions finding the support and information available at polling stations useful was higher than has been seen in previous post-polling research (proportions have varied between 62% and 68%), but this is due to a decrease in the proportion who report not making use of them, rather than an increase in the proportion who did not find them useful (proportions have varied between 2% and 5%). Figure 10: Usefulness of support/information at polling stations (voters at polling stations) Help and support from polling station staff on how to vote Written instructions on how to vote Very useful 55% Very useful 45% Fairly useful 18% Fairly useful 28% Not very useful 2% Not very useful 3% Not at all useful <0.5% Not at all useful 1% Didn't use them/need them 25% Didn't use them/need them 21% 1% 2% Q19/Q20: Thinking back to when you went to vote at the polling station, how useful, if at all, was the help or support available from polling station staff on how to vote/were the written instructions on how to vote, such as a poster on display in the polling booth, or guidance on the ballot paper(s)? Base: voters at polling stations = Perceptions of polling stations Those who had voted at a polling station were asked to rate their level of agreement/disagreement with a range of statements regarding their experiences at the polling station. Almost all respondents agreed that it was safe (100%), well run by staff (99%) and well ordered (98%), and almost all disagreed that it took too long to vote (97%), that it was intimidating (98%) and that it was chaotic (96%). These very positive results reflect the universally high ratings achieved on these measures in previous post-polling research. 18

21 The Voter experience Figure 11: Perceptions of polling stations (voters at polling stations) It was safe It was well run by staff It was welll ordered Agree strongly 87% Agree strongly 85% Agree strongly 82% Tend to agree 12% Tend to agree 14% Tend to agree 16% Neither agree nor disagree 0% Neither agree nor disagree 1% Neither agree nor disagree 2% Tend to disagree <0.5% Tend to disagree <0.5% Tend to disagree <0.5% Disagree strongly <0.5% Disagree strongly <0.5% Disagree strongly <0.5% 0% <0.5% 0% It took too long to vote It was intimidating It was chaotic Agree strongly 1% Agree strongly 1% Agree strongly <0.5% Tend to agree 1% Tend to agree <0.5% Tend to agree 1% Neither agree nor disagree 0% Neither agree nor disagree 1% Neither agree nor disagree 2% Tend to disagree 12% Tend to disagree 10% Tend to disagree 12% Disagree strongly 85% Disagree strongly 88% Disagree strongly 84% 1% 1% <0.5% Q21: Thinking back to your experience of voting at the polling station, please say whether you agree or disagree with the following. Base: voters at polling stations = Convenience Four in five (80%) of all respondents felt from what they had heard, seen or experienced, that voting at a polling station on the 2 nd of May was convenient, including half (50%) who felt it was very convenient. Less than one in ten (7%) felt that it was inconvenient to a degree, and within this, voters were significantly less likely than non-voters to feel it was inconvenient (4% compared to 10%). 19

22 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research Perceived convenience of voting at a polling station was higher than has been the case in previous post-polling research, with the highest to date achieved following the June 2009 English local elections, where 72% felt it was convenient. Figure 12: Perceived convenience of voting at polling station (all respondents) Very convenient 50% Fairly convenient 30% Neither convenient nor inconvenient Fairly inconvenient 5% 5% Very inconvenient 2% 8% Q17/Q22: From what you have seen or heard or experienced, do you think that voting at the polling station on the 2 nd of May election was...? Base = 1, Postal voting Satisfaction Almost all respondents (96%) who voted by post expressed satisfaction with the process, and only one per cent indicated a level of dissatisfaction. This reflects previous levels of satisfaction which, for relevant post-polling surveys, have ranged between 95% and 98%. Figure 13: Satisfaction with voting by post (postal voters) Very satisfied 87% Fairly satisfied 9% Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied 1% 1% Very dissatisfied 0% 2% Q23: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the process of voting by post? Would you say...? Base: postal voters =

23 The Voter experience Ease of understanding Almost all (99%) of those who voted by post felt it was very or fairly easy to understand what they had to do in order to complete and return their postal vote. Again this reflects previous levels of satisfaction which, for relevant post-polling surveys, have ranged between 95% and 97%. Figure 14: Ease of voting by post (postal voters) Very easy 82% Fairly easy 17% Neither easy nor difficult Fairly difficult Very difficult 0% 1% 0% <0.5% Q24: How easy or difficult was it to understand what you had to do in order to complete and return your postal vote(s)? Would you say...? Base: postal voters = Usefulness of written instructions Almost all (96%) of those who voted by post found the written instructions on how to vote and return their vote, such as guidance on the ballot paper(s) useful, again reflecting levels achieved in previous post-polling research (proportions have varied between 96% and 98%). Figure 15: Usefulness of written instructions (postal voters) Very useful 76% Fairly useful 20% Not very useful Not at all useful 0% 0% Didn't use them/need them 4% <0.5% Q25: Thinking back to when you voted by post, how useful, if at all, were any written instructions on how to vote and return your vote, such as guidance on the ballot paper(s)? Were they...? Base: postal voters =

24 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research Convenience A quarter (24%) of all respondents did not know whether voting by post was convenient. However, where respondents did offer an opinion with regard to postal voting this was very largely positive, with over half (54%) feeling it was convenient, and less than one in ten (8%) feeling it was inconvenient. The perceived convenience of postal voting has remained relatively consistent over time (proportions have varied between 56% and 58%). Figure 16: Perceived convenience of voting by post (all respondents) Very convenient 33% Fairly convenient 21% Neither convenient nor inconvenient 14% Fairly inconvenient 5% Very inconvenient 2% 24% Q17/Q22: From what you have seen or heard or experienced, do you think that /voting by post for the 2 nd of May election was...? Base = 1,003 22

25 Election fraud 8 Election fraud 8.1 Understanding of electoral fraud When asked what they understand by the term electoral fraud, a fifth (22%) said they did not know, which is a decrease on the 29% who said this following the May 2012 English local elections. Where respondents did offer a response, the main themes were: Someone using someone else s vote (41%); Cheating/corruption/vote rigging (22%); Spoiling/tampering with ballot papers (8%); When those who are ineligible vote (7%); Misuse of postal voting (7%); Deliberately miscounting votes (6%); Casting a vote where you are not registered (6%). When asked to rate their level of understanding of electoral fraud, close to half (46%) said they understood a lot or a little, while half (50%) said they understood hardly anything or nothing (although this rose to 68% among those aged 18 to 24), including a fifth (19%) who felt they understood nothing at all. This level of understanding is in line with those indicated in previous post-polling surveys, where between 45% and 50% felt they understood a lot or a little about electoral fraud. Figure 17: Level of understanding of electoral fraud (all respondents) A lot 9% A little 37% Hardly anything at all 31% Nothing at all 19% 4% Q28: As you know, there are many types of fraud, such as benefit fraud and insurance fraud. How much do you feel you understand about electoral fraud in the UK, that is, fraud relating to the elections and voting? Would you say...? Base = 1,003 23

26 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research 8.2 Safety from fraud Respondents were asked how safe from fraud or abuse they felt voting in general is, and how safe from fraud they felt voting at a polling station and by post is. While three quarters (77%) felt that voting in general is safe from fraud or abuse, and nine in ten (88%) that voting in a polling station is safe from fraud, this figure fell to somewhat under half (47%) in relation to postal voting, with a significant minority of over a quarter (28%) who felt it was unsafe, although this proportion was lower in Anglesey (19%). While these results are consistent with previous post-polling research in relation to voting in general, and voting at a polling station, they do indicate a reduction in the proportion who feel voting by post is safe, from 57% in the most recent November 2012 PCC elections. Figure 18: Extent to which voting is seen as safe from fraud (all respondents) Voting in general Voting at a polling station Voting by post Very safe 27% Very safe 42% Very safe 13% Fairly safe 50% Fairly safe 45% Fairly safe 33% Neither safe nor unsafe 10% Neither safe nor unsafe 4% Neither safe nor unsafe 14% Fairly unsafe 6% Fairly unsafe <0.5% Fairly unsafe 22% Very unsafe 1% Very unsafe <0.5% Very unsafe 6% 7% <0.5% 12% Q29/Q30/Q31: In general, when it comes to being safe from fraud or abuse, would you say that voting/voting at a polling station/voting by post is...? Base = 1,003 Voters were more likely than non-voters to feel that voting in general (83% compared to 71%) and voting at a polling station (91% compared to 84%) is safe from fraud, with the views of both groups consistent in relation to voting by post (49% and 44% respectively). While those who had voted at a polling station and postal voters were equally likely to feel that voting at a polling station is not safe from fraud (4% compared to 3%), postal voters were significantly less likely than those who voted at a polling station to feel that postal voting is not safe from fraud (9% compared to 32%). While a third (31%) did not know, and close to half (48%) felt there was hardly any or no electoral fraud, a fifth (22%) did believe there had been a lot or a little. This is 24

27 Election fraud reduced from the level seen following the November 2012 PCC elections (27%) and the May 2012 English local elections (35%). When asked which of a range of statements best described why they thought electoral fraud or abuse took place on May the 2 nd, the key reasons suggested were: The increase in identity fraud (48%); The lack of obligation to provide identification to vote (48%); General impression that fraud is a problem (47%); Postal voting is not secure (43%); People registering multiple times/voters from the same address (37%); Many people/politicians cannot be trusted (34%); I saw stories in the media about electoral fraud (18%). Figure 19: Perceptions of extent of electoral fraud (all respondents) A lot 1% A little 21% Hardly anything at all 33% Not at all 15% 31% Q32: How much, if at all, do you think that electoral fraud took place at the May the 2 nd elections? Would you say that it happened...? Base = 1, Extent to which different types of fraud are regarded as a problem When asked the extent to which they thought different types of fraud are regarded as a problem, respondents were significantly more likely to identify benefit fraud and false insurance claims as a problem than electoral fraud (79% and 83% respectively compared to 16% in relation to electoral fraud). In contrast, close to two thirds (64%) felt electoral fraud is not a very big problem or not a problem at all. Respondents in Anglesey were more likely than those in England to perceive a problem with regard to benefit fraud (90% compared to 79%), but no more likely to perceive a problem with electoral fraud. 25

28 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research Figure 20: Extent to which types of fraud are regarded as a problem (all respondents) Electoral fraud Benefit fraud Fake insurance claim Not a problem at all 13% Not a problem at all 2% Not a problem at all 1% Not a very big problem 51% Not a very big problem 12% Not a very big problem 8% A fairly big problem 12% A fairly big problem 31% A fairly big problem 34% A very big problem 3% A very big problem 48% A very big problem 49% 20% 6% 8% Q36: From what you know or have heard, how much of a problem, if at all, do you think different types of fraud are in Great Britain? Base = 1, Effectiveness of methods to prevent fraud Respondents were asked how effective, if at all, they think a range of measures would be in preventing electoral fraud: People being required to show some form of ID at the polling station People being required to sign in order to check their identity before being given their ballot paper in the polling station Stop political parties, candidates, canvassers, campaigners from handling postal vote applications/postal ballot papers Having independent observers in all polling stations Stopping people voting for others by proxy Stopping postal voting on demand The requirement to show ID at the polling station was ranked as most effective (90% very or fairly effective), in line with previous post-polling research. The requirement to sign before receiving a ballot paper was regarded as an effective method of preventing electoral fraud by three quarters (74%) of all respondents, and stopping political parties, candidates, canvassers and campaigners from handling postal vote applications and ballot papers by seven in ten (71%). While a majority of respondents regarded other suggested measures as effective, significant minorities felt stopping postal voting on demand (34%), stopping proxy voting (30%) and having independent observers at polling stations (28%) would not be effective in preventing electoral fraud. 26

29 Election fraud Respondents in Anglesey were more likely than those in England to believe having independent observers in all polling stations would be effective in preventing electoral fraud (74% compared to 65%), and less likely to believe that the requirement to show identification at the polling station (90% compared to 83%) would be so. Figure 21: Effectiveness of methods to prevent fraud (all respondents) Required to show ID at polling station Required to sign before being given ballot paper Stop parties etc. handling postal vote applications/ballots Very effective 61% Very effective 41% Very effective 43% Fairly effective 30% Fairly effective 33% Fairly effective 28% Not very effective 5% Not very effective 15% Not very effective 11% Not effective at all 2% Not effective at all 7% Not effective at all 5% 3% 5% 13% Independent observers at polling stations Stop people voting by proxy Stop postal voting on demand Very effective 33% Very effective 30% Very effective 24% Fairly effective 31% Fairly effective 30% Fairly effective 29% Not very effective 18% Not very effective 20% Not very effective 23% Not effective at all 10% Not effective at all 10% Not effective at all 11% 7% 11% 13% Q37: How effective, if at all, do you think each of the following would be in preventing electoral fraud taking place? Would you say.? Base = 1,003 27

30 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research 8.5 Views on electoral fraud Three in ten (29%) respondents agreed that they would know how to report someone who had committed electoral fraud. However, over half (52%) disagreed that this was the case. Figure 22: Whether would know how to report someone who had committed electoral fraud (all respondents) Agree stongly 13% Tend to agree 16% Neither 6% Tend to disagree 18% Disagree strongly 33% 13% Q38: For each of the following please tell me whether you agree or disagree. Base = 1,003 The majority of respondents (88%) did not feel they had little choice about who to vote for as a result of external pressure, and only three per cent felt that they did. Similarly, while a quarter (24%) did not know, where respondents felt they did the majority (66%) did not feel that electoral fraud is common where they live, and again only two per cent felt that it was. In contrast, while respondents largely felt that they, and their area, were free from electoral fraud, significant proportions did feel that it would be easy to get away with electoral fraud in Great Britain (43% compared to 31% who disagreed), and that there could be enough electoral fraud in some areas to affect the election result (41% compared to 29% who disagreed). 28

31 Election fraud Figure 23: Views on electoral fraud (all respondents) I felt I had little or no choice about who to vote for because of pressure from people I know Electoral fraud is very common where I live Agree strongly 1% Agree strongly 1% Tend to agree 2% Tend to agree 2% Neither agree nor disagree 4% Neither agree nor disagree 8% Tend to disagree 14% Tend to disagree 24% Disagree strongly 73% Disagree strongly 42% 5% 24% It would be easy to get away with electoral fraud in Great Britain There could be enough electoral fraud in some areas to affect the election result Agree strongly 14% Agree strongly 14% Tend to agree 29% Tend to agree 27% Neither agree nor disagree 11% Neither agree nor disagree 18% Tend to disagree 19% Tend to disagree 20% Disagree strongly 12% Disagree strongly 9% 15% 11% Q38: For each of the following please tell me whether you agree or disagree. Base = 1,003 29

32 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research 9 Appendix A: Marked up questionnaire 30

33 Appendix A: Marked up questionnaire 31

34 local elections post-polling public opinion research

35 Appendix A: Marked up questionnaire 33

36 local elections post-polling public opinion research

37 Appendix A: Marked up questionnaire 35

38 local elections post-polling public opinion research

39 Appendix A: Marked up questionnaire 37

40 local elections post-polling public opinion research

41 Appendix A: Marked up questionnaire 39

42 local elections post-polling public opinion research

43 Appendix A: Marked up questionnaire 41

44 local elections post-polling public opinion research

45 Appendix A: Marked up questionnaire 43

46 local elections post-polling public opinion research

47 Appendix A: Marked up questionnaire 45

48 local elections post-polling public opinion research

49 Appendix A: Marked up questionnaire 47

50 2013 local elections post-polling public opinion research 10 Appendix B: Unweighted and weighted profile of respondents REGION UNWEIGHTED (1,003) WEIGHTED (1,003) East 16% 19% East Midlands 12% 15% North West 6% 7% North East 3% 3% Yorkshire and Humber 2% 2% South East 22% 28% South West 12% 16% West Midlands 8% 10% Wales 20% *% GENDER Male 46% 50% Female 54% 50% AGE 18 to 24 10% 10% 25 to 34 12% 14% 35 to 44 11% 12% 45 to 54 23% 24% 55 to 64 17% 16% % 23% Prefer not to say 1% 1% ECONOMIC ACTIVITY In full-time employment (30+ hours) 39% 48% In part-time employment (up to 30 hours) 15% 20% Not working but seeking work/temporarily unemployed 4% 5% Not working/not seeking work 6% 3% Retired 31% 22% Student 4% 2% Refused 1% 1% SEG AB 26% 29% C1 34% 33% C2 14% 14% DE 15% 18% Insufficient details 3% 2% Refused 4% 4% 48

51 Appendix B: Unweighted and weighted profile of respondents TENURE UNWEIGHTED (1,003) WEIGHTED (1,003) Owned outright 43% 39% Owned with a mortgage or loan 30% 32% Rented from a Housing Association or the council 8% 7% Rented from a private landlord, letting agency or friend or relative 9% 10% Rent free 7% 7% Refused 4% 5% ETHNICITY White 96% 96% Asian or Asian British 1% 1% Black or Black British <0.5% <0.5% Mixed 1% 1% Refused 2% 2% DISABILITY STATUS Yes 13% 10% No 86% 89% Refused 1% 1% RELIGION None/atheist 31% 33% Buddhist <0.5% 1% Catholic 18% 18% Hindu <0.5% <0.5% Judaism <0.5% <0.5% Moslem <0.5% <0.5% Protestant 34% 32% Sikh <0.5% <0.5% Other (specify) 11% 9% Refused 6% 7% 49

52 With more than 20 years experience, BMG Research has established a strong reputation for delivering high quality research and consultancy. BMG serves both the social public sector and the commercial private sector, providing market and customer insight which is vital in the development of plans, the support of campaigns and the evaluation of performance. Innovation and development is very much at the heart of our business, and considerable attention is paid to the utilisation of the most recent technologies and information systems to ensure that market and customer intelligence is widely shared.