Memorandum by the Association of Electoral
Administrators (AEA) (PVF 11)
Thank you for your letter of 14 June 2004 inviting
comment on the recent elections.
By way of clarification I must state that I
have had no time to conduct any qualitative research on the issues
you raise. Furthermore due to only receiving your request yesterday
and the fact that I am leaving the country for a two week holiday
tomorrow my response is not as in depth as I would like it to
be.
GENERAL
1. The publishing of the statutory instruments
was indeed too late. Organisation of elections is a huge logistical
exercise and considerable preplanning is required to enable the
process to run efficiently and to the benefit of the elector.
Arrangements relating to staff appointments and stationery etc
were delayed until early April due to the uncertainty. Many Administrators
found themselves competing with colleagues to secure equipment
and printing contractors. The size of the European ballot paper
created an additional burden. Many contractors were unable to
cope with the size. Administrators had to re-order ballot boxes
and polling booths had insufficient shelf space for the paper
to be viewed and marked in the normal way.
2. The Association has commented before
on the short timescale between nominations closedown and the despatch
of postal votes. The timescale is shortened further in local elections
to take account of the withdrawal period. The organisation of
postal votes has become the most resource hungry process in election
preparation. Adequate time must be set aside and a review of the
timetable is essential.
3. Unfortunately I cannot comment on this
aspect not being a pilot region or for the reasons given above
other than my view that Local Authorities should be given the
option to pilot or not. The more serious issue here is the confusion
and delay over which Regions were selected.
4. I have received no allegations of fraud
locally although press reports suggest that public confidence
in the process was seriously dented.
PRINTING AND
DISSEMINATION
5-9 I am not in a position to comment on
these issues.
VOTING PRACTICALITIES
AND RETURNS
10. (a) There is regular objection to this
necessity and without doubt the highest percentage of rejected
ballot papers at postal vote opening is due to incomplete or incorrect
declarations of identity. Some electors state they have no-one
to witness. Others object to a third party requirement. Some votes
are rejected simply because a witness will sign and include their
address but fail (or do not see the need) to print their name.
(b)
As mentioned in 1 Above the size of the European
ballot paper caused problems, not only in polling stations but
also in postal vote preparation. There was little point including
the names of candidates. These names could have been displayed
in the polling booth "Notice to Voters". Election staff
had particular problems in dealing with large quantities of ballot
papers. Ballot boxes became difficult to manoeuvre and storage
became an issue.
(c)
The postal vote pack is confusing. The double
envelope system provides an element of security yet confuses some
electors. The declaration of identity is complex and user un-friendly.
A bullet point process document is preferable.
11. (a) 112;
12. Turnout increased from 25% in 1999 to
31%.
13. N/A.
COST AND
RESOURCES
14. (a) Five additional staff were recruited
to undertake the preparation stages of postal vote issue and opening
at a cost of £1,750.
(b) Existing staff hours were
in the region of + 100 at a cost of £2,500 (approx).
15. At this stage it is not possible to
provide an accurate estimate of cost although it is likely to
be in the region of £125,000 for the Southampton Counting
Area.
16. N/A.
AEA Executive Director
| 
