Memorandum by Doncaster Metropolitan Borough
Council (PVF 03)
Further to your letter of 14 June 2004 regarding
the all postal voting pilot for the Combined European Parliamentary
and Local Elections on 10 June 2004. With regard to your questions
regarding the process I would respond as follows:
GENERAL
1. The late publication of the statutory
instrument to enable the conduct of the pilot did cause considerable
difficulties in the delivery of the process. Particularly as changes
between the various drafts and the final statutory instrument
were not annotated so that changes could be readily identified.
2. The short timescale between the close
of nominations and the delivery schedule also caused problems
as there was little time to allow for contingencies in the event
of problems arising. This is particularly important considering
the short timescale for the delivery of the pilot which provided
little time for appropriate planning and testing of methods to
ensure the smooth delivery of processes.
3. This Authority has been involved with
pilot schemes since their inception and consequently the mandatory
nature of the pilot did not cause any particular problems. Problems
that were experienced related much more to the short time scale
remaining following the final decision to implement the pilot
process.
4. A number of incidents have been reported
to the Police in general stem from complaints by candidates and
relate to issues such as failure to incorporate printed and published
by on election notices and publications and the contents of those
publications. One of these complaints does relate to an allegation
that a candidate(s) in one ward of the Authority visited properties
immediately after the postman delivered ballot papers and suggests
that interaction with voters in certain cases may have been excessive.
The complainant has not provided any particular evidence for his
concern, other than referring to a complaint by a voter. I have
attached a copy of the correspondence referring issues to the
Police for your information but based upon the information currently
available to me I feel that it is unlikely that any proceedings
will be brought regarding these issues.
PRINTING AND
DISSEMINATION
5. The Authority was able to secure two
potential suppliers for the printing of ballot papers but some
printers were indicating that they were either approaching or
had reached the capacity that they were willing to undertake for
this project.
6. No.
7. The co-operation received with Royal
Mail was excellent and they were very supportive within the limitations
agreed under the National Contract.
8. (a) 53.
9. I have no information on which to base
an estimate but consider that the number of ballot papers undelivered
would be very low. I have shown below the ballot papers reported
as undelivered by voters.
Total 250.
VOTING PRACTICALITIES
AND RETURN
10. (a) Responses from voters indicate
that the requirement for a signed witness did cause problems and
was also disliked.
(b) The use of a double enveloping
systems appears to have cause considerable difficulty to some
voters and certainly proved a deterrent because of the overall
complexity of the postal voting process combined with the requirement
for a witness signature. A number of voters and candidates indicated
a clear preference to the system used at the Authority's pilot
scheme in May 2003 which utilised a one piece mailer and a simplified
declaration of identity only requiring the voter's signature.
(c) A considerable number of voters
and candidates reported that the instructions were considered
to be far too complicated and lengthy.
11. (a) 30 as at 23 June 2004.
(b) 1,968 were initially rejected but
746 were allowed following returns of declarations of identity
leaving a total of 1,128 or 0.14% of the total votes cast.
12. Turnout was increased at both the European
(39.1%) and the Local (39.2%) however the Local turnout represented
a fall from the previous pilot in May 2003 where the turnout was
47.03%.
13. An approximate fall of 8% from 47.03%
to 39.2%.
COST AND
RESOURCES
14. (a) Extra staff were used to assist
with the opening and processing of returned ballot packs.
(b) Some work was undertaken outside
normal office hours but was not recharged as overtime but by an
additional payment to staff for the particular election duties.
15. The overall cost of the election is
currently being calculated and is not yet available.
16. Not applicable as the Election was combined
with the Authority's own election.
| 
