Supplementary Memorandum by The Electoral
Commission (VOT 02(a))
INTRODUCTION TO
COMMISSION RESEARCH
The Commission has a research programme to ensure
that our policy recommendations and public awareness activity
is evidence-based. Our public opinion research has collected several
measures of public awareness of the registration process and attitudes
towards it. Several of our research reports including Voter
engagement among young people and Voter engagement among black
and minority ethnic communities, have considered registration
issues among these groups.
CURRENT RESEARCH
INTO UNDER-REGISTRATION
We have recently commissioned ONS to undertake
a research project to develop our understanding of the extent
and nature of non-registration in Britain, together with an assessment
of the operation and impact of rolling registration. This project
will utilise statistical analysis comparing electoral registers
with Census records (taking into account electoral eligibility),
and will be supplemented by public opinion research, case studies
of a selection of local authorities, and consultation with electoral
administrators to understand administrative practice.
WHAT THE
COMMISSION IS
DOING
This project has three key elements:
1. Firstly, the Commission is currently
retaining ONS to conduct a "register check" using 2001
Census data in order to produce accurate estimates for the proportion
of those eligible that are actually registered to vote, as well
as estimates for registration rates among key sub-groups.
2. Secondly, the Commission is conducting
desk research and case studies in-house. This includes selecting
local authorities (against a range of different variables) for
in-depth interviews with electoral registration staff in order
to explore, among other things, reasons for non-registration and
the impact of rolling registration on registration rates.
3. Thirdly, the Commission has procured
qualitative and quantitative public opinion work, to further measure
and explore public attitudes and behaviour in relation to registration.
These aspects will feed into a final report, written
in-house, drawing together the research findings from all three
elements of this project.
THE ONS REGISTER
"CHECK"
This is perhaps the most important element of
this project because this will allow the Commission to produce
an accurate measure of the proportion of the people eligible that
are actually registered to vote in Great Britain, as well as an
accurate breakdown of registration rates among subgroups.
To produce estimates such as this it is necessary
to compare population data with electoral registers from the same
period. The last time a study such as this was undertaken was
in 1993 by ONS's predecessor, the Office of Population Censuses
and Surveys (OPCS).
WHY ONS?
They are custodians of 2001 census data for
England and Wales, the best population data available. For this
reason, this project replies on ONS's involvement.
WHAT WILL
IT INVOLVE?
ONS are using data from the Census and Labour
Force Survey (LFS) relating to 10,000 individuals, and matching
their details with electoral registers from 2001 to produce estimates
for the proportion of the population registered. The benefit of
using a joint Census and LFS sample is that the LFS collects data
relating to individual's eligibility to be registered, whereas
the Census does not (for example nationality and student's residency).
WHAT ABOUT
SCOTLAND?
Although ONS holds census data for England and
Wales, the General Register Office in Scotland holds the Scottish
Census data. ONS are currently seeking permission to use Scottish
data. This relies on ONS reassuring the GRO in Scotland that this
data will be treated confidentially and that the project warrants
the transfer of this data. At this time, it cannot be confirmed
that this project will include Scotland.
OUTPUTS
The main output from this project will be an
integrated report, akin to that produced by the Commission in
Northern Ireland, bringing together the following elements:
— statistics on registration rates
in England, Wales (and possibly Scotland);
— in-depth studies of electoral
practice and local factors effecting registration rates;
— public attitudes and awareness
and reasons for non-registration.
The findings of this project will also inform
Commission's future work, including policy reviews, campaigns,
New Initiatives Fund (NIF) and outreach, add to the wider evidence
base on the extent of non-registration, including among sub-groups
and act as a benchmark against which to compare future analyses
of registration.
OTHER COMMISSION
RESEARCH
The Commission conducted research in Northern
Ireland in 2003 to review the impact of the Electoral Fraud Act
and the new registration arrangements. The research involved statistical
desk research and public opinion research. It concluded that:
— In respect of the last household-based
register, the registration rate of 95.5% was likely to have been
an over-estimate of the actual number of eligible persons registered
to vote (although it was not possible to quantify the factors
that inflated the register).
— The first register produced
under individual registration (December 2002) included 86% of
the 18+ population. This is largely explained by the fact that
the "carry forward" facility (the mechanism used under
the old household system to allow names to be carried forward
for one year when a registration form was not returned) no longer
applies.
Certain groups—such as young people and
students and those living in areas of high deprivation—were
less likely to be registered and encountered specific problems
with the new registration process.
Our Making an impact research report
published in 2002 identifies and assesses the impact of the different
communication methods employed by local authorities to publicise
electoral issues. The report focuses on the period 1997-2002 and
covers communication activities relating to a range of electoral
"mechanics" including the annual canvass and rolling
registration. The research draws upon the findings of a questionnaire
sent to all UK local authorities, together with interviews with
electoral registration officers, focus group work, consultation
meetings and an analysis of communication materials.
| 
