Who can vote for what bodies?

Amongst the many comments about the elections this week and the problems many EU Citizens raised was the fact that their names appeared on the paper registers at polling stations but crossed through. Why was this?

The basic answer is that the election register combines six different categories of voters with differing entitlements to vote in different elections. All qualified voters who have registered and can vote in at least one set of elections appear are on the list but those ineligible to vote at the election in question at the polling station in question are crossed out.

More detail required? Sure.

Broadly there are three different franchises in this country:

• The local & devolved government franchise for electing councils, police & crime commissioners and devolved parliaments & assemblies.
• The Westminster franchise for electing the House of Commons.
• The European Parliament franchise for electing members of the European Parliament.

(I'll come to referendums later in the post.)

Due to the different voting entitlements of ex pats, EU citizens and members of the House of Lords there are six different categories of voters with various combinations of franchise. For operational simplicity a single electoral roll is maintained but has to indicate the differing eligibility. If you see a register you will note that some voters' names have letters next to them; these indicate the different categories. These are as follows:

• (No letter) - Citizens of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Commonwealth countries (including Cyprus and Malta) who have all three franchise.
• E - Ex pat members of the House of Lords who have the European Parliament franchise only.
• F - Ex pats who moved abroad from the United Kingdom in the last fifteen years who have the Westminster and European Parliament franchises (in the constituency of their last registered address) but not the local government franchise.
• G - Citizens of other European Union countries (excluding the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta covered above) who only have the local government franchise unless they've completed a further stage...
• K - Citizens of other European Union countries (excluding the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta covered above) who have completed, returned & had processed a formal declaration to state that they will be exercising their vote for the European Parliament in the United Kingdom and not in their country of citizenship, and thus have both the local government franchise and the European Parliament franchise.
• L - Members of the House of Lords who have both the local government franchise and the European Parliament franchise but not the Westminster franchise for the House of Commons.

(The document for converting from "G" to "K" is called the UC1 form, although annoyingly not on the form itself, or the "European Union citizens – European Parliament voter registration form (GB)" in Great Britain and the EC6 form, a code that does appear on it, or the "EUROPEAN UNION CITIZENS - EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT VOTER REGISTRATION FORM (NI)" in Northern Ireland.)

There are also two letters relating to how votes cast:

• A - Indicates a voter who has applied for a postal vote and thus cannot vote at the polling station.
• P - Proxy - a vote has proxied their vote for someone else to cast it on their behalf.

To summarise by franchise:

• Local & devolved government - (No letter), G, K, L
• Westminster - (No letter), F
• European Parliament - (No letter), E, F, K, L

Referendums usually use the same franchise as the relevant body in question though there have been some variations. Votes on various council matters or devolution use the local & devolved franchise. The AV and Brexit referendums used the Westminster franchise plus members of the House of Lords (E & L), with the latter also enfranchising voters in Gibraltar.

The standard election registers have all registered voters across the six categories listed. The copies for polling stations are printed so that all names appear but those unable to vote in a particular election are crossed out. As well as the categories of voters ineligible at the election, also crossed out are people with postal votes (A) and people on the register under the age of 18 on polling day.

This arrangement helps staff quickly identify the reason why a person will not be able to vote there, albeit at the expense of potentially confusing ineligible voters who may not understand why they can't vote when their name is on this list.

The problems relating to EU Citizens and the declaration forms to convert their category from G to K is such a big subject that it would take a separate post. However looking at some of the reported letters and phone calls, it seems that a lot of wording has not distinguished between someone appearing on the combined register for elections in general and having had the specifics processed for European Parliament elections.

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.

Who can and can't vote for what?

There's been a lot of nonsense today about how various people are being "denied" [sic] or "given" the vote in the forthcoming European Union referendum and it's clear some of the complaints stem from mistaken belief about who can and can't currently vote. So here's a quick rundown.

British citizens over the age of 18 resident in the United Kingdom have the right to vote for the House of Commons, the devolved Parliaments (when they reside in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales), local councils and the European Parliament.

The only exceptions are:

• Members of the House of Lords (including, I think, those who've retired from it) who cannot vote for the House of Commons but can for devolved Parliaments (when they reside in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales), local councils and the European Parliament.
• Convicted prisoners who have no vote at all for the duration of their sentences
• Certified "lunatics" have no vote at all
• People who have not registered themselves to vote

Citizens of other Commonwealth countries plus citizens of the Republic of Ireland over the age of 18 resident in the United Kingdom can vote for the House of Commons, the devolved Parliaments (when they reside in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales), local councils and the European Parliament. Indeed on the register I have in front of me there's no distinction whatsoever.

British citizens over the age of 18 who reside abroad and who left the United Kingdom within the last fifteen years are entitled to vote for the House of Commons and the European Parliament, with their vote allocated to the constituency of their last UK address. They cannot vote for the devolved Parliaments (when they resided in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales) or local councils.

European Union citizens over the age of 18 resident in the United Kingdom are entitled to vote for the devolved Parliaments (when they reside in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales), local councils and the European Parliament. However to exercise their vote for the European Parliament they have to complete an additional form confirming they are exercising their vote in the UK and not in their country of citizenship. This is a bureaucratic European procedure that may be modified by 2019 regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

(This doesn't apply, as far as I know, to Cyprus, Malta and the Republic of Ireland. Their Commonwealth membership or the special UK legislation trumps their EU membership in this regard.)

Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory that is part of the European Union via the UK's membership. Citizens in Gibraltar over the age of 18 can vote for the European Parliament as part of the South West England constituency. They also have franchise rights in Gibraltar's own elections.

As you can see from this list there are actually a lot of different potential electorates (the register I have here has no less than six codes for different types of voter) and this can create myths about who can and can't vote already.

In terms of who gets to vote in referendums, this depends on the legislation for each individual vote. At some point it would be better if Parliament passed some standing legislation to set this down in advance rather than have these rows each time.

Most referendums since the late 1990s onwards have been about either devolution or aspects of local government and have used the local government franchise. The Scottish separation referendum had special provision for 16 and 17 year olds to vote.

The AV referendum was on the House of Commons franchise except that members of the House of Lords were also able to vote; overall this was because this was a decision with would otherwise have been taken by the Westminster Parliament.

The European Union membership referendum has similarly been announced as using the House of Commons franchise plus the House of Lords and also Gibraltar. In other words pretty much the people who would otherwise have elected or voted in the Parliament that would otherwise take the decision. Oddly I've seen almost no comment about Gibraltar compared to all the talk about European Union citizens or Commonwealth citizens.

And apart from one referendum in Scotland, 16 and 17 year olds have never had the vote.

So all this talk of "denying" and "disenfranchising" voters is nonsense. They don't have the relevant vote anyway.

Comments on ballot papers don't deliver a message

At some point I'll post my more general reflections on the council and European elections last week but for now I want to focus on one aspect that doesn't get much discussion - spoilt ballot papers at the count.

For those who've never been to an election count, one of the important later stages is the adjudication. This is when all ballot papers identified by the counting as "Doubtful" - i.e. those that don't seemingly express a clear & correct number of intentions - are ruled on by either the Returning Officer or a formally designated deputy. Candidates and/or their agents are entitled to attend to witness the rulings though challenges must be submitted through the legal process. Crucially it's often the case that not every candidate/party is represented at this but that's their own decision.

Coming late in the count and usually straight after a long and intense campaign, all the candidates and agents are invariably tired and focusing their remaining energies on spotting valid votes for their own side. The ballot papers also go by fairly fast, especially in a borough such as Newham, which has many doubtful votes.

Some votes are ruled as valid and returned to the pile. Others are ruled out for one of the following reasons:

• Want of an official mark
• Being unmarked or wholly void for uncertainty
• Voting for more candidates than voter was entitled to
• Writing or mark by which voter could be identified

The first is rare nowadays due to changes in the way ballot papers are designed, printed and issued. The fourth should be self-explanatory though it includes polling numbers as well as names. The third is also known as "Overvoting" and is particularly common when there are multiple ballot papers given out at the same time - in my opinion the vast majority of these that I saw last week were either people who read the instructions on one ballot paper and followed them on the other two or people who put both their first and second preference for Mayor in the same column.

The second is something of a catch-all category, including blank ballot papers, ticks and crosses in so awkward a place they couldn't be determined, various attempts to vote for "None" and a variety of comments.

Why people cast spoilt ballot papers is ultimately known only to them, though I suspect a lot of the blanks come from people being given three papers and mistakenly assuming they can only vote on one of them. I'd be interested to hear people's experience from other multiple election counts but I'm not persuaded they're a sign of a mass deliberate "Vote Blank" campaign.

The comments are usually clearer, expressing dissatisfaction with some or all of the candidates or the absence of a particular party. But frankly they don't make any impact beyond comedy and irritation - it's a common opinion at counts that nobody who has seen how this process works would bother trying to send politicians a message by the ballot paper. The official returns bundle them in with the blanks and mistakes. The agents are primarily concerned to a) save good votes and b) work out where their supporters made mistakes & how to get them to get it right next time. Nobody is transcribing messages. If the agents report any of the messages back to party activists it will be for a laugh rather than anything else.

So all the essays and brief comments scribbled on ballot papers are ultimately ineffective. If you wish to not vote or to cast a blank then you're perfectly entitled to. But if you want to send a message to politicians in general or in particular, this is not the way to do it. Try email or Twitter or even, to show how serious you are, snail mail.

"More money for electoral administration!" or "Fewer elections at the same time!"?

The Election Law Channel: It’s administrative blunders, not fraud, which should worry us most is right - no-one ever campaigns for the council on the first slogan above (well not successfully anyway). And I agree you have to have some sympathy with election officials at various levels who are asked to do a difficult job without adequate resources.

One of the big news stories about the election was the number of people who didn't get to vote despite queueing for a very long time, hours in some cases. Why this happened in some places and not others hasn't received so much attention but it seems clear to me this was a failing at the local level. Calling for the head of the chair of the Electoral Commission will achieve nothing here.

The basic problem seems to be rooted at the level of the polling stations, with failure to cope with higher than anticipated demand. But was it simply more voters than predicted or were the voters taking longer than expected?

Looking at the various lists of places where there were problems I wondered if it was connected to having local elections on the same day and whether or not this was the first time in a while. Taking The Election Law Channel's list of places, we find the following:

• Birmingham - Yes, first since 1979(?)
• Chester - No
• Hackney - Yes, first ever, also elected Mayor
• Islington - Yes, first ever
• Leeds - Yes, first since 1979(?)
• Lewisham - Yes, first ever, also elected Mayor
• Liverpool - Yes, first since 1979(?)
• Manchester - Yes, first since 1979
• Newcastle - Yes, first since 1979(?)
• Sheffield - Yes, first since 1979(?)
• Weybridge - Yes (local authority Elmbridge), first general/district since 1979(?)

Now okay Weybridge/Elmbridge had combined general and county elections in 1997, 2001 and 2005 whilst Chester is an anomaly. But in every other problem area it was the first time for at least thirty years that the general election took place on the same day as local elections. And I think this is what overwhelmed the stations.

A lot of voters will have arrived at the polling stations to be given two or even three ballot papers that included elections they’d heard very little about with voting instructions that can be different on each paper. In my home borough of Newham we have a directly elected Mayor and three members to elect in each council ward, the same set-up as in Hackney and Lewisham (both of which appear on the list above). A voter in any of these boroughs had to express a single choice on one paper, up to three simultaneous choices on a second, and two sequential preferences in different columns on a third.

Whilst Newham hasn’t appeared in reports it was clear from the counts that a huge number of voters got the voting systems muddled up with many people "over-voting" on the parliamentary election by using two or three crosses. Conversely in the council elections a lot of people used only one or two crosses (although these are still valid votes). It was also noticeable that voters were taking a good while at polling stations at times when there weren’t queues. Both of these point to a high level of voter confusion leading to many taking significantly longer than normal to cast their votes. To Newham's credit there was a campaign to emphasise the three different systems.

(As well as asking for help with understanding the ballot paper instructions, voters in some places might also have found themselves asking why they couldn’t vote for particular parties who didn’t have any candidates in some wards or boroughs. But I've not seen the indepth line-up in the areas effected.)

I suspect a lot of areas simply failed to take into account the increased requirements that stem from having multiple elections at once and this may go beyond returning officers to budgets. It’s not a case of simply shoving the usual general & local allocations together, subtracting one set of costs for polling station staff and facilities/equipment hire and adding a little to cover a) extra local ballot papers being printed to cope with the expected general turnout; and b) a bit more time for counting staff to cover separation. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some of that kind of back of beermat budgeting had been made.

The whole problem will need to be investigated in-depth and solutions found. Maybe more money and resources are needed for polling stations. Maybe there shouldn't be combined general and local elections, even if that would depress the latter's turnout. (Other countries do have them combined so the investigation should look at how they handle the problems this brings.) Maybe we shouldn't have so many different voting systems in operation at the same time (something that may get even worse if we change the system for the Commons). Or perhaps we should have a combined ballot paper and introduce a method that allows people to vote for all of a party's candidates at once if they wish. There are many possible ways to solve this but at least one is needed in time for the next elections.

The election outcome

And so the election is over. I'll post my full thoughts soon. At the moment I'm still tired - the count here in Newham for both parliament and the council took a very long time and I didn't get home until late in the evening yesterday so I'm currently catching up on things including sleep.

I was one of the Conservative candidates for the Stratford & New Town ward on Newham council. We didn't win but instead came second. My thanks to my running mates, Peter Fox and Armyn Hennessy, both of whom are delightful gentlemen, as well as to all the other Conservative campaigners and candidates, particularly our agents Graham and Barbara Postles and Neil Pearce. Thanks also to our parliamentary candidates Virginia Morris (West Ham) and Paul Shea (East Ham) and our Mayoral candidate Maria Allen. I am sure we will hear more from all of them before long.

I'd also like to congratulate the victorious Labour candidates in Stratford & New Town, Richard Crawford, Charlene McClean and Terry Paul. Having met all three of them either during the campaign or the count I've found them to be good friendly people and I hope they give the ward good service for the next four years.

As for the overall national picture I'll post again soon. All I will say now is that the news from the markets is seriously scary.

Sweet

The election result map, courtesy of ConservativeHome Tory Diary: Much more beautiful than Caroline Flint:
Yes, on Thursday the voters returned not a single Labour council.

Battle Royal (Docks)

Today I went for the umpteenth time to the other end of the borough to campaign in the Royal Docks council by-election. Whilst canvassing voters I was surprised to bump into Steve Phillpott, a fellow History student in my days at the University of Kent. (I won't reveal how he's voting though.)

For those unfamiliar with this part of London, the Royal Docks ward is the southernmost part of Newham, below the Royal Docks themselves and consisting of Silvertown and North Woolwich (or for those who use the tube map for geography it's served by the Woolwich Arsenal branch of the Docklands Light Railway between West Silvertown and King George V stations). Here's the best map I can find electronically (although the ward boundaries are not precise), click for a larger version:

The response has been good so far and I have also been amazed by the number of people we've had out. (See also ConservativeHome: Could Newham be poised for a Tory councillor?) Our candidate, Neil Pearce, has been campaigning not just since the by-election began but over the years for improvements to the ward, including a successful campaign to retain the North Woolwich police station, and against the expansion of flights at London City Airport to a level far beyond originally agreed for the airport, because of the air and noise pollution they bring.

One of the more interesting moments of the day was when I saw a Labour leaflet claiming that we are in favour of a second runway at the airport! Now even leaving aside that this is totally contrary to our candidate's record, it's also not physically possible. Take a look again at the map above. The airport's only runway is at the bit that says "LONDON CITY AIRPORT" between the Royal Albert and King George V docks. Exactly where on earth could a second runway go? The only way I could imagine one is if it's on Royal Albert Dock and used by seaplanes! And these are hardly the most compatible planes for the destination airports.

Polling day is on March 26th and all help is much appreciated. To get details please either join the Facebook group: Neil Pearce for Royal Docks or ring his agent Billy on 07717 752657.

Updated: Many thanks to the commenter below who has provided links to images from the Labour leaflets showing the lies here and here.

It wasn't just London that went blue...

In the aftermath of last week's local elections various vote tallying is still going on, but one interesting figure has emerged - the Conservatives won the most votes across Greater Manchester. (Manchester Evening News: Tories beat Labour in race for votes and David Ottewell's politics: Did your vote count?) The raw figures are Conservatives 211,818, Labour 210,130 and Lib Dems 153,533.

So all the talk of the Conservatives being only a party of the South, and particularly weak in Greater Manchester, seems rather wide of the mark.

Hat tip to Iain Lindley: Tories Beat Labour Across Greater Manchester

The elections

Due to a mixture of exhaustion and illness I decided against a live blog and instead just watched the results on the television last night. My thoughts in brief:

* A lot was made by both Labour & the Liberal Democrats and BBC commentators that once again the Conservatives failed to win seats in Manchester and Liverpool. Whilst this is true, it overlooks the fact that both these councils are comparatively small, focusing on the inner city urban area and there are Conservative councillors (I was very glad to see that Iain Lindley was re-elected in Salford - Cllr Iain Lindley: Thank you!) and even Conservative controlled councils within the metropolises. The Conservative success in Birmingham was built up over time by working inwards from the outer suburbs - but Birmingham is a council that covers both inner and outer suburbs.

* The Conservatives now control 20 councils in the North, more than Labour. Blackpool was a particularly astounding landslide. Let's here no more of this rubbish that the Liberal Democrats are the only challengers to Labour in the North!

* The Conservative gains in the Welsh Assembly were encouraging, although the inanity of the Additional Member System, whereby some of the constituency gains merely cancelled out top-up list members, makes me wonder whether this system really responds to voters. Similarly some of the Labour losses were compensated by the lists. We now have a situation where Wales can either have a Labour minority administration, a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition or a rainbow Plaid-Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. Much rests on what the Lib Dems decide, so it could come down to whether or not Michael German gets to be Deputy First Minister.

* Scotland looks scary - are we seeing the death knell for the Union? I hope that if the SNP form a government they will govern Scotland in its best interests and not run it into the ground just to stir up support for independence. But I'm sceptical.

* The huge number of spoilt ballot papers in Scotland is rightly concerning many. Having so many different voting systems at once, including some that are new to the voters, is a recipe for disaster. In 2004 London voters were given a first past the post ballot (for the constituency Assembly Member), an Additional Member System ballot (for the top-up list Assembly Members) which is not a second choice, a Supplementary Vote ballot paper (for the Mayor of London) which is a second choice and a party list ballot paper (for the Members of the European Parliament). I don't doubt many though the top-up list ballot was a "second choice", especially when they were given a second choice ballot at the same time. Similarly in Newham last year voters could easily have been confused by the council ballot paper (requiring up to three Xs) and the Mayor (requiring a 1 and a 2). Something needs to be done about the plethora of voting systems in this country, either by separating out elections or moving to using fewer systems. Would it be so wrong to scrap all the Additional Member System ballots and replace them with Single Transferable Vote?

* The English local council elections look encouraging. In my home borough of Epsom & Ewell the Labour Party have been finally wiped out of the council chamber, whilst across the country several friends have been successfully elected.

That's it for now but I'll comment again when the shape of the Scottish and Welsh Executives become clear.