Memorandum by Chorley Borough Council
(PVF 17)
GENERAL
1. Did you experience problems because
the Government was slow in publishing the necessary statutory
instruments?
Changes from the drafts to the final order did
cause some problems in changes to both our planned approaches
to the project and the approach of our supplier. Changes to the
timetable also caused concern at this stage. However because of
our previous experience with two pilots in which all postal was
an option we were able to cope successfully.
2. Were problems caused by the very
short time scale between close of nominations and the need to
deliver postal voting documents to electors?
The timescales were tight and we would suggest
that in future the timetable is brought forward further.
3. Earlier pilots had been self selecting—ie
those who were keen and had the resources volunteered. Did the
fact that all-postal ballots were mandatory for these elections
cause problems with skills and resources?
The main problem was the additional workload
as a direct result of the procedures surrounding the dealing with
declarations of identity. In addition the requirement to scan
the DOIs instead of the ballot papers fails to provide an independent
check of ballotpapers received, ie a figure against which verification
can be made. This was part of our two previous pilots. The lack
of that verification caused a problem at the final count when
it appeared that there might have been an inaccuracy in papers
counted each day. This error would have been identified if the
ballot papers had been scanned instead of the DOI.
4. Have you received/reported any allegations
of fraud?
No.
PRINTING AND
DISSEMINATION
5. Was there sufficient printing capacity
to cope with all-postal elections?
For Chorley this was not a problem.
6. Did any of the ballot papers require
re-printing? If so, how many and why?
None.
7. Do you have any comments to make
on the performance of the Royal Mail?
The centralised contract negotiated by DCA and
imposed upon us resulted in less local flexibility. In addition
lack of up to date information on what had and what had not been
delivered was frustrating.
8. How many ballot papers did you:
Approximately 60 to houses of multiple occupancy.
We did not have to hand deliver any others.
9. How many electors do you estimate
did not receive ballot papers:
We are not aware of any ballot papers not being
delivered other than requests for replacements of which there
were 100. Some of these were for electors who had lost their voting
pack.
VOTING PRACTICALITIES
AND RETURNS
10. Are you aware of any practical difficulties
experienced by voters, as a result of:
(a) the need for a signed witness declaration
Reports that some elderly people had nobody to
witness their declarations. Others clearly did not understand
the need for this. We are not convinced that the DOI adds any
value in terms of fraud and clearly puts some electors off voting.
(b) the dimensions of the ballot envelopes
(c) complex and unclear instructions
The numbers of packs returned with items within
the wrong envelopes would suggest that many people did have problems
with the instructions. However given the complexity of the system
the instructions were as straightforward as they could be. It
is the process that needs simplifying.
11. How many and what percentage of
ballot papers:
(a) arrived back too late to be counted
111 (up to and including 17/6/04). As a percentage
of the returns this is 0.3%.
(b) were not counted because of errors in
completion of the ballot paper or the witness declarations? What
percentage of these were of the total votes cast?
559 with either an incomplete DOI or no DOI at
all. Of the votes cast this is 1.4%.
12. Did all-postal voting increase turnout?
Turnout was increased when compared to the last
comparable local election in Chorley. This was from 32.8% in 2000
to 49.8% in 2004.
13. For areas which had previousley
piloted voting in local elections. Was the turnout this year lower
than in previous years when all-postal voting was used?
No compared to last year the figures are
2002 = 61% (all postal pilot)
2003 = 49.8% (all postal plus internet and touchtone
phone)
2004 = 49.8%
COST AND
RESOURCES
14. As a result of using the all-postal
system did you need to bring in:
Yes, extra staff on a daily basis. Whilst this
was also true of our previous pilots the need to deal with the
declaration of identities increased this considerably.
Yes on Saturday 5 June. This was further compounded
by having to staff the ADP on this day and polling day and throughout
the election period.
If so, at what cost?
Not known at this stage.
15. What was the overall cost of the
election?
Not known at this stage.
16. For areas with european elections
only. Was the cost greater than a traditional ballot and if so,
by how much?
Not applicable.
| 
