Part Four
PUBLIC AWARENESS
Campaigns work
4.1 The Commission's statutory role is to promote
public awareness of UK electoral and governmental systems. Campaigns
work is driven by electoral events. This imposes a challenge for
the Commission as the timing of electoral events is not certain.
The NAO reported on this area of activity in 2006.
4.2 The Commission spent £2.6 million on the
campaigns for the 2010 General Election to inform people how to
register to vote, to encourage them to do so, and to make sure
people know how to cast their vote. Most (some £2.1 million)
of this £2.6 million was spent in financial year 2010-11
and is therefore not part of the total spend for electoral administration
in 2009-10 set out in part 1. For the 2005 General Election, spend
on campaigns was some £4 million. These figures are not strictly
comparable as the Commission made a strategic choice, based on
research and the conclusions of the Committee on Standards in
Public Life, to focus on encouraging registration, rather than
both registration and turnout.[64]
As turnout increased between 2005 and 2010, this does not seem
to have had deleterious results. In the Commission's Corporate
Plan for 2010-11 planned campaigns spend is £1.45 million,
excluding the cost for publicity associated with referendums.
4.3 Since 2007, the Commission have used Central
Office of Information Artemis evaluation methodology to evaluate
its public awareness campaigns and obtain assurance that they
are effective in supporting corporate objectives. The Commission's
2010 campaign generated 2.7 million responses, including 2.6 million
website hits of over one minute in length. This is the minimum
length considered as being likely to lead to people accessing
services online.[65]
4.4 The Artemis report found that 57 per cent of
web visits resulted from respondents typing in the Electoral Commission
web address "aboutmyvote.co.uk". This awareness of the
Commission's existence suggests good message penetration. The
Artemis report observed that it is quite rare to see such high
volumes of direct contacts. The Artemis report also found that,
following targeted television advertising around the first leaders'
debate, there was a peak in web visits (figure 17), although there
was a dip between the debate and the registration deadline.
Figure
17 Electoral Commission website visits during
election campaign 
Source: COI Artemis, 'Electoral Commission: 2010
General Election and Local Elections: Campaign Evaluation'
4.5 The Artemis report also found that the Electoral
Commission campaign was the top performer in their dataset of
public sector campaigns in terms of cost. It found that the cost
per active response[66]
was £5 for the 2010 General Election compared with £15
for the 2009 European & Local Elections and the Artemis average
is £44. Some caution is necessary with such comparisons as
the Electoral Commission's campaign was aided by a large amount
of free publicity and had a naturally receptive audience.
4.6 Active response refers only to ordering or downloading
a registration form, not completing it. Data on subsequent completion
of registration forms are not available. Despite these limitations,
the Commission is doing well in fulfilling its legislative responsibilities
and evaluating its performance.
Local campaigns work
4.7 Local campaigns work is the weakest area for
both Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers, reflected
in low performance standards self-assessment scores. For example,
in 2009, 41 per cent of Electoral Registration Officers did not
have a public awareness strategy. This illustrates the value of
having performance standards to reveal these areas of weakness
and enable action to be taken.
4.8 However, this figure is improving with 25 per
cent fewer Electoral Registration Offices being 'below' standard
six on having a public awareness strategy between 2008 and 2009.[67]
Similarly, for Returning Officers, 9 per cent fewer were below
standard five on planning and delivering public awareness activity
between 2009 and 2010.[68]
4.9 In our survey of electoral administrators, 67
per cent found the assistance which the Commission provides to
support their work in improving public awareness to be very helpful
or fairly helpful. Fifty seven per cent thought that, in their
particular areas, the Commission's national campaigns to increase
registration are not very effective or not at all effective.
Public confidence
4.10 The Electoral Commission wants people across
the UK to be confident that electoral registration and elections
are well run.[69] Public
confidence data are therefore an important progress indicator.
Confidence in the overall running of elections has fallen[70]
from 92 per cent for the 2009 European and Local Elections to
70 per cent for the 2010 General Election (figure 18).[71]
The same question was not asked in 2005, but the historic picture
is of broad public confidence in the electoral system in the region
of 80 per cent.[72] Although
exactly equivalent data are not available, this fell after 1997
as a result of well-publicised problems with postal voting fraud,[73]
especially around 2005-06, but recovered by 2009.
Figure 18Confidence
in election(s)
| Confidence
| 20091
| 20102
|
| Base: All voters
| (n=1,241) | (n=1,790)
|
| % |
% |
| Very confident
| 54 | 25
|
| Fairly confident
| 38 | 45
|
| Not very confident
| 2 | 21
|
| Not at all confident
| 1 | 9
|
| Don't know |
4 | 1
|
Source: 1) Electoral Commission. 'European and
Local Elections 2009: Summary Report', 2009, Q13, p. 10.
2) Ipsos MORI, 'Electoral Commission Post-Election
Research', 2010, p.7
4.11 Voter confidence varied across the UK with voters
in Northern Ireland were more confident (86 per cent) than those
in England (68 per cent), Scotland (71 per cent) and Wales (73
per cent).[74] However,
confidence is affected by many issues outside the control of the
Electoral Commission.
4.12 It is difficult to compare public confidence
in the running of elections in the UK to countries such as Australia
and Canada, as this question is addressed differently by surveys
in each country. In the UK respondents were asked whether the
elections were well run (without specifying who runs them), whilst
in Canada the public were asked specifically about the way Elections
Canada runs elections. However, overall confidence was 70 per
cent in both the UK[75]
and Canada.[76] The Australian
Electoral Commission has carried out limited recent research into
public confidence.[77]
64 Data from Electoral Commission records & Committee
on Standards in Public Life, 11th Report 2007 Back
65
Central Office of Information Artemis Report, 'Electoral Commission:
2010 General Election and Local Elections: Campaign Evaluation' Back
66
Active response refers to ordering or downloading a registration
form Back
67
NAO analysis of Electoral Registration Officers' performance reports,
2008 and 2009 Back
68
NAO analysis of Returning Officers' performance reports, 2009
and 2010 Back
69
Electoral Commission Corporate Plan 2010-11 to 2014-15 Back
70
This aggregates respondents who were 'very' or 'fairly' confident
in the running of elections Back
71
Ipsos MORI, 'Electoral Commission Post-Election Research', 2010 Back
72
Birch, S, 'A Cross-National Analysis of Confidence in the Conduct
of Elections' 2005, p.34 Back
73
Stuart Wilks-Heeg, 'Purity of Elections in the UK' 2008, pp.49-51 Back
74
Electoral Commission, 'Report on the administration of the 2010
UK general election', July 2010 Back
75
Ipsos MORI, 'Electoral Commission Post-Election Research, United
Kingdom'. 2010 Back
76
Elections Canada, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Performance
Report 2008-09, p.10 Back
77
Australian Electoral Commission Annual Reports, 2008-09 and 2009-10 Back
| 
