An Election Freepost FAQ

Updated 15/12/19: I've added another question that came up in the general election.

 

Updated 21/11/19: Information about elections to the European Parliament is no longer relevant. To keep it for historic purposes I've italicised the relevant text.

Over the past week or so a number of people have been posting on social media about leaflets from various political parties they've received, often with their name and address on them.

Officially called "Election Communications", these are election freepost leaflets. In some elections all candidates/parties are entitled to have one item delivered to all voters/households by Royal Mail. For many voters it may be the only thing they receive from a particular party/candidate.

Not everyone knows the ins and outs of them, so here's a quick set of Frequently Asked Questions and answers.

What elections have the freepost option?

Elections to the Westminster and European Parliaments.

For directly elected mayors the electoral authorities will directly send out a booklet containing multiple one or two page manifestos from all candidates who submitted them and paid the fee.

Local council elections and, if I recall correctly, police & crime commissioner elections don't have them. I forget what the provision is for the devolved parliaments.

Why have we only received leaflets from some parties?

The freepost is an option available to all parties and independent candidates, but not everyone makes use of it whilst some campaigners opt to only send out a limited amount to targeted voters and/or areas. For example in the 2011 AV referendum the Yes campaign (infamously) decided against doing a full delivery.

Why did this arrive after my postal vote?

It largely depends upon when the leaflets were delivered to Royal Mail. The final deadlines for submission are usually after the bulk of postal votes go out and the distribution is often staggered. Unaddressed freeposts (more on these below) are especially vulnerable to this but also some are sent in batches so the ones to postal voters arrive earlier; however not every party or candidate will have the most up to date postal vote list to hand.

How did [X] party get my address details?

Political parties and candidates are allowed access to the electoral register for election purposes, including sending literature to voters.

I am on the closed register so why am I receiving this?

The option to opt out of the "open" version of the register only applies to its commercial sale to marketing companies. Political parties and candidates have the full register.

I am a citizen of an EU country who cannot vote in general elections so why did I receive an addressed leaflet in a general election?

Citizens of EU member states (excluding the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta) resident in the UK can only vote in local & devolved and, if they complete the correct form and get it processed in time, EU Parliament elections. If they receive an addressed mailing the most likely reason is that a party has used the wrong franchise selection on their register database.

Why did only some of us in this home receive addressed leaflets? 
and 
Why did we get different leaflets?

Some parties and candidates will try to maximise the effect of the freepost by sending more than one leaflet to a home wherever possible. A common tactic is to send a first leaflet to the first named person on the register for an address and then a second leaflet to the second named person. Other parties may have limited resources and will only send one leaflet per household but address it to a named voter to navigate shared letterboxes and the like.

Why is this leaflet addressed to someone I've never heard of?

Either they're a past resident at your address who is still listed there on the electoral register (or on an outdated one used by a party) or there's been a major database screw-up, which has hit one party this year.

Why are some not addressed at all?

Some parties and candidates opt to send unaddressed leaflets to all households. Both addressed and unaddressed are options available with Royal Mail, though not all printers are set up for individual addressed leaflets.

Why did I receive this when I have a "No junk mail" sign up?

Political communications do not meet the official definition of junk mail.

Political parties have announced a suspension of campaigning so why was this delivered?

This came up a bit in the 2017 general election. Once the leaflets have been submitted and accepted by Royal Mail, they are out of control of the parties who are unable to then get delivery delayed. Royal Mail's internal set-up simply doesn't allow for such an instruction to go through and be implemented.

Why have I received a leaflet for a different constituency?

Annoyingly some leaflets seem to turn up in neighbouring constituencies despite everything being correctly filled out. In my experience these are usually unaddressed freeposts and the problem stems from postal areas not aligning to administrative boundaries, ranging from the post code to regional level.

Why does [X] have my details when they're not a political party, but a registered company?

All political parties listed on the ballot paper are officially registered with the Electoral Commission on the Register of Political Parties. Some parties may also be registered as companies for operational reasons (e.g. here's "The Liberal Democrats Limited"'s registration at Companies House) but if they're on the register of parties then they are a recognised political party, no matter how many times somebody tweets otherwise.

Independent candidates are also entitled to a copy of the register for electoral purposes.

Uncertain ballot papers in the Cotswolds

One of the more interesting side shows in the local elections this week has been the result in the Tetbury Town ward on Cotswold District Council. The Conservative candidate retained the seat with a majority of just one vote over an independent and a lot of attention has focused upon one particular ballot paper that ultimately prevented the result from being a tie. (Details at Gloucestershire Live: Ballot paper with 'Brexit' and an arrow written across it accepted as deciding vote in controversial Cotswolds local election)

(The results for the district election, and indeed for just about every election in the area for the last five years can be found at Cotswold District Council - Election Results.)

There has been a lot of comment on the web and Twitter about this ballot paper and it's clear that many people are unaware of either the standard practice in election counts or the official guidance available. It is also clear that nobody has actually got a picture or scan of the ballot paper.

As someone who has lost count of the number of times I've been an election or counting agent, here's a quick rundown of how things work.

Most ballot papers have clear crosses in boxes for one or more candidates and the staff will separate them into separate piles. However some ballot papers aren't clear and if the counting staff are uncertain, or if a counting agent representing a candidate/party challenges a ballot paper's inclusion, then the ballot paper is set aside for adjudication.

The adjudication is carried out by the Returning Officer or by a deputy formally delegated the task. They have to formally determine whether or not the ballot paper shows a clear intention or if it is unclear or if the ballot paper must be rejected for other reasons.

The five categories of rejected votes are as follows:

Want of an official mark
This is an anti-counterfeiting measure. Today it's usually done by printing a special symbol on the ballot paper (with a different symbol for postal votes) but in the past special hole punches were used (and some disputed elections hinged on the failure of staff to properly punch the papers).

Voting for more Candidates than voter was entitled to
A straightforward category.

Writing or mark by which voter could be identified
This is to preserve the integrity of a secret ballot and aims to make it impossible for observers to definitely connect a vote to a voter. Writing your name, address or elector number will invalidate the vote.

Being unmarked or wholly void for uncertainty
This covers a wide range from completely blank ballot papers to those with just a message on them to those where the voter's choice can't be easily determined.

Rejected in part
This only comes up in multi-member elections. Sometimes some of the voter's choices are clear and others aren't and only the clear choices are admitted to the count.

The Returning Officer does not rule in a vacuum but instead draws upon the rules set down by legislation and previous court cases and summarised in official Electoral Commission guidance. There are several booklets for the various different elections, but the relevant one here is the excitingly named Dealing with doubtful ballot papers - Supporting local government elections in England and Wales (PDF). This contains examples and the relevant legislation or case references to guide. Occasionally more detailed guidance has to be consulted - the longest I've ever seen was when someone had neatly written "BNP" in a candidate's box. (The BNP was not standing in that election.) The ruling was that this was a valid vote and the candidate's face was a sight to behold. Never has a vote received been less wanted.

The rules and guidance aim heavily towards inclusion:

2.21 The key phrase in the Rules is: 'A ballot paper [...] shall not [...] be deemed to be void if an intention that the vote shall be for one or other of the candidates clearly appears.'
(Rule 47(3), Schedule 2, Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England & Wales) Rules 2006.) (Emphasis in the original.)

Specifically, a vote is still valid even if it is not placed in the box and even if it does not use a cross:

2.3 A ballot paper should not be rejected because the vote is:
• not marked in the proper place
• marked other than by a cross
• marked by more than one mark
(Rule 47(3), Schedule 2, Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England & Wales) Rules 2006)

The principles for determining the outcome are clearly set down:

2.22 Each ballot paper should be considered on its own merits and decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis.
...
2.24 The key question a Returning Officer should ask is whether the voter has, on the face of the paper, indicated a reasonably clear intention to vote for a candidate or candidates.

Now the ballot paper in question reportedly had a statement written on it (reports vary as to whether it was "I'm voting for Brexit" or just "Brexit") and an arrow pointing to the Conservative candidate (a detail that is not present in all the reports).

A reporter at the count made some tweets, including pictures and videos, that clearly show there was long and detailed consideration on this ballot paper with the guidance consulted:

They’re still going through the book - a lot of page turning pic.twitter.com/VKrjehVYQJ

— Leigh Boobyer (@LeighBoobyer) May 3, 2019

As a result the ballot paper was ruled to show a clear selection of the Conservative candidate and thus a valid vote for him. Note that this was a ruling on a ballot paper and it was not a "tie breaker", despite how some of the reports have described it. Rulings on ballot papers are made in elections all the time, though the ballot papers involved rarely swing the outcome. Tie breakers only come when the number of votes after adjudication are exactly equal and a determination is made one way or another.

It cannot be denied that this is not the easiest of ballot papers to rule on. And once again it must be emphasised that everyone talking about this one online has not actually seen the paper in question. But from what has been reported it sounds like the Returning Officer ruled rightly that the ballot paper showed the voter selecting one of the candidates.

The Independent candidate has said he intends to bring an election petition to challenge the result. If he does then whatever the outcome it should at least provide a bit more case law to help future rulings and the booklet linked to here will need to be updated.

Rethinking voter registration

The second of my pieces provoked by Tim Archer's ConservativeHome piece Why we need electoral reform – and it's got nothing to do with AV.

Tim writes:

Tower Hamlets is known for its overcrowding and currently has 221 homes where more than 8 people are registered to vote. These include a number of infamous Labour party households. For example, one Labour councillor who lives in a 3 bedroom property has 12 people registered to vote at his home – 7 of those were added on to the register in the month before the election. His sister who lives locally has 13 voters in her flat, two brothers have 16 voters in their two flats and three cousins have a further 23 voters between their 3 flats. That's 64 voters in one family between 7 homes, all in Tower Hamlets. Most of those were registered in the last 20 days before the election and had postal votes.

Many people campaigning in other parts of the countries have similar tales of finding homes that have rather more people registered to vote there than could possibly be accommodated. The pattern suggests fraud but it must also be noted that a great degree of accidental and semi-legitimate registration happens as well. This has particular implications for the plans to get greater equality of constituency size, since the numbers used will be the registered voters.

For those not familiar with the process of registration, it works roughly as follows:

1. Each year the council election services send out a form to every "household" they have on their list (I'll come back to this later), listing all voters currently on the register.
2. The "head of the household" is required to remove adults no longer living there, add anyone who is (including children who will soon reach the age of majority) and sign the form before sending it back.
3. If a form isn't returned the election services will try to arrange a visit to call on the property to ask directly.
4. Throughout the year it's possible to be added to through the "rolling register" process by sending a supplementary form.

It sounds simple doesn't it? But many problems arise in practice and the result is a lot of people find they are not on the register at all; whilst others remain on the register long after they have moved away or died. Some homes have people registered to them who have never lived there.

It is very easy to make a deliberately fraudulent return on the register and include extra names (and for that matter register them for permanent postal votes). But it's also surprisingly easy to make accidental errors, and the system isn't able to cope with them too well.

The first problem is that the system is not easy to understand. The "head of the household" is not well defined, especially in some arrangements such as student halls of residents, joint flats and the like. It is very easy to misunderstand the form and provide the wrong information. Examples I've found over the years include:

• People putting down their entire family instead of just the adults living there.
• New occupants of a home failing to remove previous occupants.
• Tenants putting their landlords down instead of themselves.

So far all these sound clearly wrong, if understandable. But often there simply aren't the resources available to check up on these

• Adult offspring being included on the register, even if they have never lived at the current address, on a "this will always be your home" attitude.
• Adult offspring being included on the register so that they can more easily get services such as bank accounts whilst renting short term.

The second of these is a real problem where the solutions could have awkward consequences. The root of the problem is the use of the register for non-electoral purposes and the result is that people find they have difficultly completing credit checks and the like without it. Many who rent in the short to medium term also don't like the hassle of having to change details when they move, especially if they will not be able to receive mail sent to old addresses. (And when bank statements get bounced back there's a danger of banks automatically freezing account access.) Something has to be done to limit the use of the register purely to election matters, but what alternatives will be in place to deal with the latter such cases? And the former is often a greyer area than it may seem.

• Someone who has moved into the home since the annual register has not been added.

This one is quite common and the problem is knowing what to do and where to go. (The best place is Electoral Commission: Voter registration and the electoral roll where you can get a registration form.) What is even less well known is how a person can take themselves off the register mid year - the Electoral Commission form in theory offers this but in practice many do not realise they were on the register and of course this doesn't help with registrations at multiple addresses.

• A dwelling of multiple occupancy has a flawed or missing registration.

The biggest cases are student halls of residence but there are many others. At the root level there is a difference in addresses between "where to send the mail" and "where you are registered as living", and voting is one of the areas that brings the distinction to the forefront. (TV Licences are another, and they too have problems.) For a standalone house occupied by a single family things are clear, but student rooms in a hall of residence with a central letter box are not. And between the two extremes there are many flats & houses internally subdivided and all manner of other arrangements that may not be on the election services database of homes and where getting the forms to individual units is difficult.

Some universities and landlords automatically register all their tenants. Others don't, citing such "problems" as the Data Protection Act (even though it doesn't stop counterparts). The result is that many people slip through the net completely. An individual unit in a dwelling of multiple occupancy can also have the address in many different formats, which only adds to the problem when people try to register. (TV Licensing seem have long had similar problems and there are many cases of students getting licences for their rooms only to then receive threatening letters from an incompetent agency that hasn't checked the variants.)

Those are the problems but is there an obvious solution that can solve them without at the same time making it exceptionally difficult to vote. Some form of individual registration is clearly desirable but it will do no-one any good if vast swathes of the population are not on the election register because the process to get on it is too difficult - does anyone seriously think requiring all people to queue up at a town hall during working hours with a passport and three separate utility bills, all personally addressed, is going to ensure everyone is on the register?

(Have a read of Antony Green's Election Blog: NSW Moves to Automatic Electoral Enrolment for a description of two very different systems of registration operated in New South Wales - automatic registration based on existing data for the state register, manual registration with a witnessed form known as the "purple people eater" and identification for the federal register. One version seems dangerously close to the super databases that no-one in the UK likes, the other seems excessively complicated.)

There is much talk of moving to individual registration but it needs to be extremely easy for people to find out how to do it and access the forms. And I wonder how it will solve the problem of people not having much proof of their current address (for example if utilities are included in the rent). Done right it could work well, but done wrong and it could make it very difficult for the ordinary citizen to exercise their democratic rights through no fault of their own.