« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER ONE: PROCESSES
By the time the researcher commenced the evaluation the
electoral process was already underway. Accordingly, it was
not possible to observe the early stages of planning and
preparation for the process nor indeed the critical stage
of issue of the postal ballot packs. However, a very full
and helpful briefing was provided by the Returning
Officer's staff on the process adopted and the researcher
was able to observe the opening of postal returns and the
Count itself. The researcher was also able to attend the
post-election debriefing convened by the Returning Officer
and his staff with the candidates and agents. Copies of all
relevant documentary material were provided, including the
Returning Officer's own Evaluation Report and the
independent surveys that are referred to in that
document.
The following sections comprise the researcher's own
independent evaluation of the pilot scheme. The format and
evaluation criteria previously adopted by the Electoral
Commission are followed.
APPLICATION AND SCHEME
At its meeting on 19
th August 2004, the City of Edinburgh Council
determined to apply to the Scottish Executive in terms of
Section 5 of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act
2002 to undertake an all postal electoral pilot in a
by-election in its Colinton (No. 43) Ward, caused by the
death of the incumbent Councillor.
The Scottish Executive approved the proposal and on 23
rd September 2004 issued The City of Edinburgh
Council (All Posting Voting Scheme) Order 2004 with a
Commencement Date of 24
th September 2004. The date of the by-election
was Thursday 28
th October 2004.
PILOT DESCRIPTION
This was the fourth time in Scotland that an all postal
electoral pilot had taken place. The scheme approved for
the by-election at Colinton drew on the experience of and
lessons derived from the evaluations of previous all postal
pilots. The details of the scheme are set out in the
appendices to Edinburgh's own Evaluation Report and are
described briefly in the following paragraphs.
Notice of the by-election was given on 24
th September 2004 at the City Chambers,
Edinburgh and published in the local press on 27
th September 2004. The Closing Date for
Nominations was 6
th October 2004. Ballot papers were issued to
electors commencing on 16 October 2004 to be returned not
later than 5.00pm on 28
th October 2004.
Prior to the issuing of ballot papers, during the week
commencing 27
th September 2004, the Returning Officer sent
letters to each individual elector explaining the pilot and
giving details on how to vote. As at conventional
elections, electors could request that their ballot paper
be sent to an address other than that at which they were
registered or to appoint a proxy.
The ballot pack comprised a single-piece ballot paper
and declaration of identity, together with instructions to
electors, the ballot paper envelope 'A' and the return
envelope 'B'. The ballot paper and declaration of identity
were bar-coded, rather than marked with the elector's
registration number. The ballot paper was water-marked
rather than perforated with the usual 'official mark'. This
arrangement proved to be highly efficient and, in the view
of the evaluator, consideration should be given to its
adoption for all postal ballots
The printing, assembly and issuing of the ballot pack
were subcontracted to Electoral Reform Services (
ERS) and Royal Mail. It had been
intended that delivery to electors would commence on 16
October 2004 and be completed by 18
th October 2004. In the event, due to some
confusion about handover between
ERS and Royal Mail, very few packs were
in fact delivered on the 16 and the bulk were not delivered
until 19
th October 2004.
Electors were instructed to post their returns in time
for them to be received by the 28
th October 2004 deadline. Alternatively, ballot
papers could be delivered to one of the three Assistance
and Delivery Points (
ADPs), two of which were in the ward and
the third at the City Chambers. Training on the new
arrangements and in particular issues relating to security
and fraud, was given to those who staffed the
ADPs.
The Returning Officer made arrangements to replace
ballot papers accidentally spoilt or lost with re-issues
provided that a request was made before 5pm two days before
the close of poll, in the case of postal enquiries, and the
day before the close of poll in the case of personal
applications.
Ballot returns began to arrive on 20
th October 2004, and arrangements were in place
for a daily opening of returns at the City Chambers. The
bar-codes (which were visible through the address window of
the return envelope) were scanned to record returns. The
process then followed the normal procedure for opening
postal ballots. The return envelopes were opened to ensure
that they had been properly returned with a signed
declaration of identity and the corresponding ballot paper
envelope. The ballot paper envelopes were then opened to
check that they contained a corresponding ballot paper. The
ballot papers were then counted face down into bundles of
fifty. This process took place at pre-determined times
during the week prior to the close of poll and in the
presence of candidates' agents. Once counted, each day's
ballot papers were sealed in a ballot box and securely
stored in the City Chambers until the Count.
The Count took place at Edinburgh City Chambers at 5.00
pm on 28
th October 2004, after the close of poll. The
Count followed the normal procedure with stage one being
verification that the number of ballot papers in each box
tallied with the record of the opening of postal returns
and stage two being the separation and counting of votes
cast for each candidate. The result was declared at 6.30
pm.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
A formal pilot project plan was developed by the
Returning Officer's staff and this detailed key project
responsibilities and milestones. The Returning Officer also
put in place mechanisms to assist in evaluating the success
or otherwise of the pilot scheme. These included survey
research among the electorate, post-election consultation
meetings with candidates and political parties and
discussion among those involved in the administration of
the election.
RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT
When the Council considered the proposal to apply to
undertake a pilot the application was approved on division
with the Labour administration (29) voting for and the
Conservatives and other opposition parties (27) opposing
the application.
All prospective candidates and political parties were
informed of the pilot and the Returning Officer held a
meeting with these groups to talk them through the new
voting arrangements. A nomination pack was also provided to
all prospective candidates. A post-election debriefing was
held with candidates and agents on 1
st November 2004. Notwithstanding previous
political disagreements over the application for the postal
pilot scheme, the overall conclusion of this meeting was
that the pilot had been efficiently conducted and there
were no significant problems reported that would have
affected the poll to any material extent. Some concerns
were, however, expressed about the initial delay in ballot
packs being delivered, the cost of the all postal process
and some questions about security of opened postal returns
pending the Count.
Relationships between the Scottish Executive and the
Council were considered to be good. Observers from the
Scottish Executive attended key stages of the process.
There was some concern on the part of the Returning
Officer's staff that the Order allowing the pilot was only
formally signed and issued the day before the Notice of
Poll was due to be published. While at the end of the day
this did not affect preparations or the conduct of the
poll, it inevitably meant a level of unnecessary
uncertainty and stress for those concerned.
PUBLIC AWARENESS AND FEEDBACK
With the exception of a letter from the Returning
Officer to each individual elector explaining the pilot and
giving details on how to vote, publicity about the postal
pilot was confined to that normally carried out in
connection with a by-election. The Notice of Election and
Notice of Poll were published in Council Offices and other
public and community buildings in the ward as well as in
the local press.
In fulfilling its requirement to evaluate the pilot
scheme, the Council undertook a range of post-election
consultations in the form of meetings among stakeholders
including candidates, political parties and electoral
administrators. The views of the electorate were researched
using survey samples and qualitative research as
follows:
A telephone survey of a random sample of 500 of the
electorate. This was jointly commissioned by the Council
and the Scottish Executive and was carried out by
MORI Scotland between 29
th October and 2
nd November 2004 (the main findings from this
survey are contained in Chapter Two, below).
A post election integrity check was carried out by the
Returning Officer's staff involving letters to 500 randomly
selected voters seeking confirmation that they had in fact
voted. Only 132 electors responded to the post-election
integrity check and all confirmed that they had voted in
the by-election.
IMPACT ON TURNOUT
The turnout was 61.1%. This was only 4.7% lower than
Colinton's turnout at the 2003 all-Council election, which
took place on the same day as elections to the Scottish
Parliament. The turnout was significantly higher than that
usually achieved in normal Council by-elections.
A very low number (4 papers or 0.1%) of ballot papers
were rejected at the Count as unmarked or void for
uncertainty. This compares very favourably with other
elections. Only 36 postal returns (0.61%) were rejected as
defective. Again, this compares favourably with other
elections.
ACCESSIBILITY
In his initial letter to all electors, the Returning
Officer explained the new voting arrangements. Electors
were provided with a telephone hotline and were told that
if anyone needed assistance they should contact the
election office. Only 33 people availed themselves of this
service.
The main issue in relation to accessibility related to
prospective voters with visual impairment. Returning
Officer's staff were available at the Assistance and
Delivery Points and were prepared to visit homes to assist
electors in completing their ballot papers and, in
accordance with the Order, a voting device was made
available at the Assistance and Delivery Points to assist
those with sight impairments. No electors availed
themselves of this assistance.
When considering accessibility more generally, party
workers and agents also felt that the arrangements made and
the period of time electors were given to cast their vote
was satisfactory and facilitated accessibility.
SECURITY AND FRAUD
As mentioned previously, some party candidates and
workers said that they thought an all-postal system was not
secure. However, beyond this generalised concern, no
evidence was found to suggest that the procedures actually
resulted in any increase in personation or other electoral
offences, or any other malpractice in connection with
elections. As regards security of the opened postal
returns, this was handled in exactly the same way as postal
ballots in a normal election. The opened ballots were
handled face down and after counting were sealed in ballot
boxes which were then securely stored prior to delivery to
the Count.
COST
The cost of conducting the by-election using all-postal
arrangements was £18,141 (the Council's Returning Officer
has supplied full details in his evaluation report). This
represented an increase of almost double the usual cost of
a by-election being carried out using conventional
arrangements.
In his own report the Council's Returning Officer
indicates areas where costs could be reduced in the
longer-term, including reducing advertising spend as people
became more familiar with postal voting. Other social,
non-financial benefits should be considered, such as the
Council not having to close primary schools on the day of
the election as would normally have been the case.
« Previous | Contents | Next »