title - electoral commission€¦ · web viewthe use of two electoral systems – supplementary...

2008 Local Elections Research Questionnaire: England & Wales

9

LONDON MAYOR & ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS 2008

SUMMARY REPORT

London Mayor & assembly elections 2008 – summary reportLondon Mayor & assembly elections 2008 – summary report

o 1. Table of Contents

2. Summary 3

3. Background information 4

4. Main report 5

4.1 Turnout and voting 5

4.2 Non voting 5

4.3 Voting priorities 6

4.4 Perceptions of polling stations and postal voting 7

4.4.1 Convenience 7

4.4.2 Safety from fraud and abuse 8

4.4.3 Voting in secret 9

4.4.4 Overall satisfaction with the voting method used 9

4.5 Electoral fraud 10

4.6 The ballot papers 11

4.7 The voting system for GLA elections 13

4.8 Polling place guidance 13

5. Marked up questionnaire 14

6. Technical detail 25

2


o 2. Summary

The GLA elections saw a turnout of 45%. This research estimates that the oldest age cohort were almost twice as likely (65%) to have voted as the youngest (34%), with relatively large increases in turnout observed between each jump in age up to the 55+ group.

59% of postal voters said postal voting encouraged them to vote. Half of them (46%) said they would not otherwise have voted).

Londoners considered the convenience of casting a vote to be a priority (79%). Overall, two in three (62%) Londoners consider postal voting to be convenient and 81% believe voting in a polling station to be convenient.

44% of all respondents considered postal voting to be safe from fraud and abuse while 56% thought it was unsafe from fraud or abuse. Safety from fraud and abuse for postal voting compares very unfavourably to voting in polling stations, with four in five (81%) in London believing that polling station voting is secure.

Exactly half (50%) of Londoners think the postal voting is good for secrecy, significantly lower than the 78% that polling station voting receives. This gap is smaller but still evident among users of the two methods, with 88% of postal voters and 95% of polling station voters believing their chosen method to be good for secrecy.

Voters are overwhelmingly satisfied with the method of voting they chose. There are few complaints among postal voters, or polling station voters about their method of casting a vote.

Only a quarter (26%) of respondents say they feel they understand a lot or a little about electoral fraud in the UK, with 65% saying they know hardly anything or nothing at all.

The use of two electoral systems – Supplementary Vote and Additional Member – created little in the way of practical difficulties for voters. Fewer people (21%) were confused by the systems used compared to 2004, and fewer still had problems with the ballot papers – nine in ten found the ballot form easy to complete.

Polling place guidance provided by the Commission and London Elects can be regarded as quite a success. More than half of visitors to a polling station observed the poster or stand, and of those, three-quarters read all or some of it. Nearly all those people who read it found it helpful.

3


3. Background Information

The third set of London Mayor and Assembly elections were held on May 1 st 2008, with voters on this occasion being asked to complete three ballot papers rather than two, as was the case in the 2000 and 2004 equivalent elections. The voting system and ballot paper used to elect the new Mayor remained the same – the Supplementary Vote, by which candidates received first and second preferences. Voters received one (pink) ballot form, and had to mark a cross for their first preference in one column, followed by a cross for their second preference in the second column.

The difference this time was in the provision of two ballot papers to elect members to the London Assembly. The Additional Member System required voters to indicate their preferred constituency level candidate’s name on (yellow) ballot paper 1, and to indicate their preference for a London-wide Assembly member on (peach coloured) form 2. Previously, a single ballot paper had combined the two votes. This matter was especially pertinent given the high incidence of spoilt papers in the GLA elections of 2000 and 2004 (and latterly, in Scotland in 2007). One function of this research was to establish the ease of understanding and use of the ballot forms among those who turned out to vote.

The Electoral Commission has published a separate report on the London elections, as well as the local authority elections across parts of England and all of Wales that took place on May 1st.

The research in this report is based on 844 face-to-face interviews with a sample of London voters (442) and non-voters (402), with interviews conducted within their own homes.

4


4. Main report

4.1 Turnout and votingTurnout in these election was 45%. This is 8-points higher than 2004 (37%) and 11-points higher than the first Mayoral elections (34%) held in 2000.

As we would expect, most turnout estimates reflect the long since accepted variations that consistently repeat themselves across elections such as the strong correlation observed between rising age and likelihood to turn out. As Table 1 reveals, the oldest age cohort are almost twice as likely (65%) to have voted as the youngest (34%), with relatively large increases in turnout observed between each jump in age up to the 55+ group.

Table 1. Turnout by ageBase: All respondents (844) Reported turnout

%18-24 34%25-34 43%35-54 57%55-64 63%65+ 65%

This election featured a high turnout among C2s, with 59% turning out compared to 43% among DEs. This is in contrast to the finding in the local authority elections held across England and Wales on the same day, where we found that DEs claimed the highest turnout.

Turnout was also rather low among black and minority ethnic groups, with 55% of white people contending they voted, compared to 44% across BME groups.

The polling station is still the voting method of choice for most electors, with four in five (80%) voters choosing to vote this way on May 1st. Those aged 65 and over were most likely to vote by post (26%) although non-postal voters 65 and over are generally more hostile to it than other age groups.

We asked postal voters if the availability of a postal vote had encouraged them to vote or not. 59% of postal voters said postal voting encouraged them to vote 46% of whom said they would not otherwise have voted.

4.2 Non-votingWe asked non-voters why they did not vote. First among the reasons given were the straight-forward ‘prevented by circumstance’ (16%) and those who ‘could not be bothered’ (16%). One in ten (10%) cite an apathy for politics in general, followed by lack of time (9%), absence on polling day (9%) and forgetfulness (8%).

5

Reasons for not voting

Q. People have given many different reasons for not voting in the London elections. Why did you not vote in the London elections on May 1st?

Base: All respondents who didn’t vote but were registered (328)

35

4

5

6

6

8

9

9

10

16

16

0 10 20 30 40

Others

Don't care about Mayor/Assembly

Politicians can't keep promises

Couldn't get to polling station

All parties the same

I forgot

Away on election day

Lack of time

Not interested in politics

Could not be bothered

Circumstances prevented me

%


4.3 Voting prioritiesWe asked respondents to indicate how important they found the following principles related to voting: convenience; safety from fraud and abuse; secrecy, and choice of voting methods. People tend to think that most of these aspects of voting are important, with Londoners attaching a higher level of importance on two of the four measures.

Table 2 How important was….Base: all respondents (844) %Voting is

easy/ convenient

for me

My vote is safe from fraud and

abuse

My vote is secret – that is without anyone else knowing how I voted

I have a choice of

methods to cast a vote

5 – Crucially important 53 54 52 474 25 20 18 233 12 13 14 142 3 4 7 71 - Not at all important 3 2 3 4NET: Important 79 74 71 71NET: Not important 6 6 10 11

Table 3 shows that the convenience is most likely to be identified as important to Londoners (79%). Only 6% do not believe it to be important. As we might expect, voters are very much more likely (92%) than non-voters (64%) to consider this to be the case. In fact, voters generally rate each of the variables higher than non-voters, with considered importance amongst them rising to 85% for safety from fraud and abuse, 79% for voting in secret, and 80% for having a choice of methods to cast a vote. In each case, young people are least likely to rate these variables highly – including convenience and choice.

6


Postal voters differ in their views to polling station voters in some notable ways. Having a choice of methods is more important to postal voters (85%) than their polling station equivalent (79%). Postal voters are also less concerned about fraud and abuse (81% vs 86% respectively). Somewhat counter-intuitively, however, postal voters are less likely to say that voting should be convenient for them (88%) than polling station voters (93%), even though this measure is top of the importance list for both groups.

Table 3 Level of importance of…….Base: all respondents (London: 844) %Voting is

easy/ convenient

for me

My vote is safe from fraud and

abuse

My vote is secret – that is without

anyone else knowing how I voted

I have a choice of methods to

cast a vote

Postal voters 88 81 83 85Polling station voters 93 86 79 79

4.4 Perceptions of polling stations and postal votingHaving asked respondents to prioritise issues related to voting, we moved on to rating voting at a polling station and postal voting in terms of the level of convenience, safety from fraudulent abuse, and the secrecy of casting a vote.

Table 4 summarises the scores for each form of voting at the top line level in London – among all members of the electorate irrespective of whether or not they voted, or how they voted. The sections following thereafter interpret each in turn.

Table 4 Level of ……. for postal and polling station voting in London. Base: All respondents (844)

Convenient%

Safe%

Secret%

Postal voting 62 44 50Polling station voting 81 81 78

4.4.1 ConvenienceOverall, two in three (62%) Londoners consider postal voting to be convenient. This rating improves significantly among London’s postal voters with 100% considering it convenient. This is more than the 98% of London polling station voters who thought the same of their preferred method, but it is fair to say that nearly every voter is satisfied with the method they themselves used.

Table 5. Perceived convenience of postal voting and polling station voting in May 2008 London – all people London -voters

Voting by post

Convenient%

Voting in a polling station

Convenient%

Voted by post

Convenient%

Voted in a polling station

Convenient%

Very 38 55 82 74Fairly 24 26 18 24

Neither 13 8 - 1Fairly (not) 2 3 - 1Very (not) 2 2 - -

NET: Very/fairly 62 81 100 98NET: Not very/fairly 4 5 0 1

7


Attitudes to polling stations in London compare favourably on convenience. Overall, four in five (81%) think that voting in a local polling station is convenient, a significant 19-points more than the postal vote equivalent score.

Postal voting in London throws up few demographic splits of note. There is a slight increase in the convenience score in the middle age groups, which tails off as people get older; and also a slight increase among C1s and C2s when compared with other social groups. None of these findings are, however, significantly different.

4.4.2 Safety from fraud and abuseWhen it comes to votes being safe from fraudulent activity, there is a difference between views on the ability of polling stations to protect votes from fraud and abuse, and the ability of postal voting to do the same. Table 6, below, sets out the results.

Only 44% of all respondents considered postal voting to be safe from fraud and abuse. This compares very unfavourably to voting in polling stations, with four in five (81%) in London believing that polling station voting is secure. However, given that only 21% of Londoners think they are unsafe, while 36% don’t know, there is no outright belief that postal votes are unsafe.

In the case of both polling stations and postal voting the respondents who voted using each method considered it safer than the results for the sample as whole – 84% in the case of postal voting and 94% in the case of polling stations. Whereas only 40% of London non-voters consider postal voting to be safe, while only 70% of them consider polling stations to be safe.

Table 6 Perceived safety from fraud and abuse of postal voting and polling station voting in May 2008 London – all people London -voters

Voting by post

Fraud & abuse%

Voting in a polling stationFraud & abuse

%

Voted by post

Fraud & abuse%


Fraud & abuse%

Very 20 51 36 66Fairly 24 29 48 28

Neither 13 7 9 3Fairly (not) 13 2 3 2Very (not) 8 1 1 *


So who does think that postal voting is unsafe? Voters (23%) are more likely to than non-voters (18%). Polling station voters (26%) are the most concerned about postal voting fraud, which may help to explain their trip to the polling station. Women (25%) are significantly more likely to think so than men (16%), while such feelings peak (28%) in the 55-64 age group.

4.4.3 Voting in secretThe third and final topic for respondents to rate is being able to vote in secret. On this, as we saw with the issue of safety from fraud and abuse, postal voting compares very unfavourably to polling station voting. Half of Londoners (50%) think that postal voting is good for secrecy, significantly lower than polling station voting (78%).

Eighty-eight per cent of postal voters believe that their method of voting is good for secrecy, with 78% of these voters feeling that voting at the polling station is good for secrecy. In contrast, 95% of

8


polling station voters believe their chosen method is good for secrecy, with only 51% of them thinking the same of postal voting.

Table 7. Perceived secrecy of postal voting and polling station voting in May 2008 London – all people London -voters

Voting by postVoting secrecy

%

Voting in a polling station

Voting secrecy %

Voted by post

Voting secrecy %


Voting secrecy %Very 26 49 59 67

Fairly 24 30 29 28Neither 17 9 12 3

Fairly (not) 8 1 - 1Very (not) 5 * - 0


Young people in London are particularly sceptical about postal vote secrecy, with only 47% of 18-24s rating it as good. DEs (72%) are least likely to think well of polling stations.

4.4.4 Overall satisfaction with the voting method usedWe have found that people are generally satisfied with the method of voting that they themselves choose. Overall, 96% of London postal voters were satisfied with the process with two in three London postal voters saying they were very (65%) as opposed to fairly (31%) satisfied. Hardly anybody (1%) was dissatisfied with it. At this level of satisfaction, there are few demographic diversions that warrant attention.

Satisfaction among polling station visitors is also high and consistent with nearly all (96%) satisfied, as the chart below conclusively establishes.

9


4.5 Electoral fraud We asked respondents about their understanding of the term electoral fraud, how much of a problem they believe it to be and how concerned they were about it at the GLA election. Only a quarter (26%) say they feel they understand a lot or a little about electoral fraud in the UK, with 65% saying they know hardly anything or nothing at all.

Voters (33%) are more likely than non-voters (18%) to say they understand a lot or a little. Between polling station and postal voters, there is hardly a difference in those claiming to have some understanding (34% and 35% respectively). Members of social grade AB were more likely to report an understanding of fraud (31%) than any other social group with DEs least likely (18%). The level of familiarity claimed also differs between Inner London (34%) and Outer London (20%).

We also asked respondents to indicate how much of a problem they believe electoral fraud to be in the UK. It is fair to say that, among Londoners, electoral fraud in the UK is not generally perceived to be a problem, with only 15% feeling it is a very or fairly big problem and a fall is observed compared to 2004, from 21% then to only 15% now. Part of the problem with analysis of this development is the level of ‘don’t knows’ in London on this matter (26%). This compares to only 14% in 2004, when a telephone methodology was employed1.

Table 8. How much of a problem do you think electoral fraud is in the UK?20042 2008

1 We suspect that this high level is likely to be a mode effect: that is, the result of the face-to-face interviewing method. Some people argue that others might be less inclined to express a view one way or the other when asked for their opinion on a general issue such as this, if talking to an interviewer in person.

10

Satisfaction with the voting method used

Q. Overall, how satisfied were you with the process of voting by post/at a polling station?

Base: All postal voters and all polling station voters

96 96

1 2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Voted by post -London

Voted in pollingstation - London

Dis-satisfied

Satisfied


% %Very/fairly big problem 21 15

Not a problem/not a problem at all 65 59Don’t know 14 26

Finally, on electoral fraud, we asked respondents how concerned they were with electoral fraud at the May 1st election. Only 3% indicated they were very concerned about fraud in the May 1st London elections and 9% fairly concerned (12% overall). Three-quarters (74%) were not very concerned or not concerned at all. Those who were concerned reveal many of the characteristics that we have seen elsewhere: a tendency to be voters (17%) rather than non-voters; polling station voters (18%) rather than postal voters (13%); and the old rather than the young.

Numerous reasons were presented as causes of concern. They included perceptions of a lack of transparency, recollections of past fraud, awareness of fraud in other arenas and concerns about specific aspects of the election-day process (e.g. no ID asked for at polling station, flimsy ballot box). A considerable proportion (17%) was unable to explain why they were concerned and answered ‘Don’t know’.

Table 9. Understanding and perceptions of fraud in London and EnglandLondon

%Understand fraud 26

Fraud a very/fairly big problem 15Very/fairly concerned 12

4.6 The ballot papersWe asked respondents how easy they found the Mayoral and Assembly ballot papers to complete and asked them to choose, from a given list, words they feel best describe the ballots. This report has already noted that the system for electing the London Mayor remained unchanged from 2004. This may have contributed to the finding that more than nine in ten (93%) voters said they had found the Mayoral ballot form very easy or fairly easy to fill in. On the measure of net ease (easy minus difficult), 25-34 year olds found it significantly easier (98%) than older age groups (35-54: 87%). Members of social grade AB and C1 were significantly more likely to find it very easy or fairly easy than those in grade DE (96%, 95% and 87% respectively).

2 2004 wording: ‘From what you know or have heard, how much of a problem, if at all, do you think electoral fraud or abuse was at the elections on 10th June?’

11

Mayoral Ballot paper ease of completion

Q20. How easy or difficult did you find it to fill in your ballot papers for the Mayor of London election?

Base: All London voters

9790

9596

9293

9198

92

9294

9294

DE

C2

C1

AB

65+

55-64

35-54

25-34

18-24

Women

Men

Postal voter

Polling station voter

% saying 'easyto fill in'


This finding is reflected in voters’ choice of words to describe the ballot paper. Negative responses were minimal, with only 5% saying it was confusing, 3% complicated and 2% hard to follow. The most popular description was ‘easy to complete’ (60%) and 47% said it was well laid-out. There are few significant differences across sub-groups with, for example, male and female voters who were very evenly-matched.

Similar to the Mayoral ballot paper, nine in ten voters (89%) found it very easy or fairly easy to fill in the ballot papers for the London Assembly election. This figure, while slightly lower than the number recorded for the Mayoral election, is encouragingly high, not least as two ballot papers were used for the first time in the London Assembly election.

Just as with the Mayoral elections, voters overwhelmingly chose positive words to describe the London Assembly ballot papers. Again, ‘easy to complete’ was the most popular response (58%), 44% found it well-laid out, while both ‘hard to follow’ and ‘complicated’ scored only 3%.

Table 10. Proportion of voters who felt that completing the ballot papers was very easy. % Very easy

Mayor 66Assembly 60

Data is consistent with the marked reduction in spoilt votes this year – not least on the Assembly vote where the two ballot papers were used this year rather than one as in 2000 & 2004. Rejected votes fell in the 2008 Mayoral election to 1.67% from 2.96% in 2004. For the Assembly constituency vote rejections fell from 6.17% in 2004 to 1.95% in 2008.

4.7 The voting system for GLA electionsOne in five (21%) found the use of two different voting systems, to elect the Mayor and the Assembly, to be confusing, with the majority (56%) appearing to have little trouble with them. There is, once again, a very high incidence of ‘don’t know’, nearly all of which is attributable to non-voters (47% of them could not express a view). Those non-voters who expressed a view did not find it much more confusing (22%) than voters (20%). Confusion is lower than the 27% observed in 2004.

12


Women (23%) were slightly more confused by the system than men (18%), while age does not appear to have been much of a factor given trend-less fluctuation across the age ranges.

We asked respondents to say if they agreed or disagreed with the statement “I would only give a second preference vote to a candidate who has a good chance of winning the election”. 40% agree (26% disagree, and 19% neither agree no disagree) while those who actually voted are, however, slightly clearer on this – 49% agree, 30% disagree, 17% neither. These findings tally with the fact that only 28% of second preferences were cast for the two main candidates.

4.8 Polling place guidance

Just over half (54%) of voters recall seeing the Electoral Commission/London Elects poster or stand in the polling station. Men are more likely than women to remember the poster (58% and 50% respectively). In terms of age, 35-54 year olds are the most likely to remember it (60%), followed by 18-24 year olds (56%). It is only among the oldest cohort, 65 and over that there are fewer people who remember it than who do not (43% remember, 51% do not). Those in social groups ABC1 are much more likely than those in C2DE to recall the poster.

Of those who recall the poster, three-quarters (74%) read all or some of the information, with the youngest and oldest age groups most likely to have read it (86% of those aged 18-24 year olds and 84% of 65+). Men and women are almost equally likely to have read the information.

Nearly all those who read it found it helpful (97%). On a measure of helpful minus not helpful, women are more likely than men to have found the poster helpful (99% compared to 91%). By the same standard, those aged 65 and over are least likely to have found it helpful (83%) compared to other age groups (25-34: 100%).

13


INTRODUCTION: Good morning/afternoon. I am from ICM, the independent opinion research company. We have been commissioned by the Electoral Commission to conduct a survey among London residents about their views on London Mayor and Assembly elections that were held on 1st May. Do you have about 10 minutes to answer a few simple questions?

IF RESPONDENT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WISH TO REFUSE ADD: The survey requires us to talk to a representative group of people across London– your views are very important to us and you have been selected purely at random.

TURNOUT AND VOTING

ASK ALLQ1 Many people we have spoken to have told us they didn’t manage to vote in the

London Mayor and Assembly elections on 1st May. How about you – did you manage to vote in that election?

CHECK QUOTASYes – voted 52%No – did not vote 48%

Don’t know -

ASK ALL VOTERSQ2 Did you vote…READ OUT

In person at a polling station 80%By post 16%

By proxy 1%Don’t know/can’t remember 3%

VOTERS NOW SKIP TO Q5

14


ASK ALL NON-VOTERSQ3 As far as you know, were you registered to vote in the London election or not?

Base (402)Yes – was registered 69% ASK Q4

No – not registered 18% SKIP TO Q5Don’t know 13% ASK Q4

Q4 People have given many different reasons for not voting in the London elections. Why did you not vote in the London elections on May 1st? (OPEN QUESTION) DO NOT PROMPT. CODE AS PER FRAME

Circumstances/administrationI really intended to vote but circumstances on the day prevented me 16%

I was away on 1st May 9%I forgot 8%

I am not registered to vote/not eligible to vote 1%I didn't receive a polling card/postal vote 3%Lack of time/too busy/I was busy at work 9%

I lost my postal ballot paper/spoilt it by mistake 1%I couldn’t get to the polling station/it was inconvenient 6%

Elections not importantThe elections (unspecified) weren’t important 3%

London elections/Mayor/Assembly elections aren’t important 2%There was no point in voting because the Mayor/London Assembly can't do very

much/can't change anything/has no power3%

Disinterest/no pointI couldn’t be bothered 16%

I'm just not interested in politics 10%I just don't care about the Mayor/London Assembly 4%

There was no point in voting because it was obvious who would win/my vote wouldn’t have made a difference to the outcome

3%

Parties/candidatesThere was no point in voting because all the parties are the same 6%I didn’t like the candidates/parties/they didn’t represent my views 3%

You just can't trust politicians to keep their promises 5%No information/indecision/complicated

I didn’t get any information 1%I didn’t know what the issues were 2%I didn’t know there were elections -

I didn’t know enough about the parties 1%I don’t know enough about the Mayor/London Assembly/what they have done 1%

I didn’t know enough about the elections in London *%I couldn't decide who to vote for 2%

Recently moved to the area/don’t know about local politics or issues 2%The ballot paper was too complicated/I didn’t understand the voting system -

Other 9%None of these/no reason *%

Don’t know 6%

VOTING PROCESSES

15


ASK ALLQ5 From what you have seen, heard or experienced, do you think that voting by post

was….READ OUT. CODE ONE

Very convenient 38%Fairly convenient 24%

Neither convenient nor inconvenient 13%Fairly inconvenient 2%Very inconvenient 2%

Don’t know 22%

Q6 And when it comes to being safe from fraud or abuse, would you say that voting by post was…READ OUT. CODE ONE

Very safe 20%Fairly safe 24%

Neither safe nor unsafe 13%Fairly unsafe 13%Very unsafe 8%Don’t know 23%

Q7 And how good or bad would you say that voting by post was in allowing people to vote in secret – that is, without anyone else knowing how they voted? Would you say… READ OUT. CODE ONE

Very good 26%Fairly good 24%

Neither good nor bad 17%Fairly bad 8%Very bad 5%

Don’t know 20%

ASK ALL WHO VOTED BY POST (OTHERS SKIP TO Q11)Q8 Overall, how satisfied were you with the process of voting by post? Would you

say…..READ OUT. CODE ONE.

Base (71)Very satisfied 65%

Fairly satisfied 31%Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2%

Fairly dissatisfied 1%Very dissatisfied -

Don’t know -

Q9a Did being able to vote in this way encourage you to vote, discourage you from voting, or did it not make much difference either way?

Base (71)Encouraged me to vote 59% Ask Q9b

Not much difference either way 40%GO TO Q10Discouraged -

16


Don’t know 1%

IF ENCOURAGED ME TO VOTEQ9b If you hadn’t been able to vote by post, do you think you would probably have still

voted anyway or do you think you would not have voted?

Base: (42)Probably would have voted anyway 48%

Would not have voted 46%Don’t know 6%

ASK ALL WHO VOTED BY POSTQ10 How easy or difficult was it to understand what you had to do in order to return the

ballot papers? Would you say….READ OUT. CODE ONE

Base: (71)Very easy 50%

Fairly easy 39%Neither easy nor difficult 2%

Fairly difficult 8%Very difficult -

Don’t know 1%

ASK ALLQ11 From what you have seen, heard or experienced, do you think that voting in person

at a polling station was….READ OUT. CODE ONE

Very convenient 55%Fairly convenient 26%

Neither convenient nor inconvenient 8%Fairly inconvenient 3%Very inconvenient 2%

Don’t know 7%

Q12 And when it comes to being safe from fraud or abuse, would you say that voting in person at a polling station was…READ OUT. CODE ONE

Very safe 51%Fairly safe 29%

Neither safe nor unsafe 7%Fairly unsafe 2%Very unsafe 1%Don’t know 8%

Q13 And how good or bad would you say that voting in person at a polling station was in allowing people to vote in secret – that is, without anyone else knowing how they voted? Would you say… READ OUT

Very good 49%Fairly good 30%

Neither good nor bad 9%Fairly bad 1%Very bad *%

17


Don’t know 11%

ASK ALL WHO VOTED IN PERSON AT A POLLING STATION (OTHERS SKIP TO Q15)Q14 Overall, how satisfied were you with the process of voting at a polling station?

Very satisfied 74%Fairly satisfied 22%

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1%Fairly dissatisfied 1%Very dissatisfied *%

Don’t know 1%

ASK ALL – SHOW CARD Q15Q15 For each of the following, how important do you think it is that….Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means it is crucially important and 1 means it is not

important at all. You can, of course, give me any score in between.

1 2 3 4 5 DKVoting is easy/convenient for me 53% 25% 12% 3% 3% 3%

My vote is safe from fraud or abuse 54% 20% 13% 4% 2% 7%My vote is secret – that is without anyone else

knowing how I voted52% 18% 14% 7% 3% 5%

I have a choice of methods to cast a vote (such as by post or in person at a polling station)

47% 23% 14% 7% 4% 4%

AWARENESS AND ELECTORAL FRAUD

ASK ALLQ16 As you may know, there are many types of fraud such as benefit fraud and insurance

fraud. From what you know or have heard, how much do you feel you understand about electoral fraud in the UK, that is fraud relating to elections and voting? Would you say….READ OUT. CODE ONE

A lot 5%A little 21%

Hardly anything at all 27%Nothing at all 37%

Don’t know 9%

18


Q17 How much of a problem do you think electoral fraud is in the UK? Would you say it is…READ OUT. CODE ONE

A very big problem 4%A fairly big problem 11%

Not much of a problem 34%No problem at all 25%

Don’t know 26%

Q18 How concerned, if at all, were you about electoral fraud or abuse in the London elections on 1st May? Would you say……READ OUT. CODE ONE

Very concerned 3%Fairly concerned 9%

Not very concerned 31%Not at all concerned 42%

Don’t know 14%

ASK ALL VERY/FAIRLY CONCERNEDQ19 Why were you concerned about fraud or abuse at the elections on 1st May? WRITE IN. DO NOT

PROMPT (Base: 104)

Voting should be fair/democratic 13%Personal details can be taken 9%It goes on all the time 9%Fraud can happen 9%Did not ask for id at polling station 8%Have been problems with postal voting 7%Has happened in the past 7%A lot rests on it 7%Difficult to judge what is going on 6%Read about it/seen it 5%It is not secret 4%Ballot box was flimsy 3%Problems with electoral list 1%

19


Other 4%DK 17%

VOTING IN LONDON

ASK ALL VOTERS (non voters skip to q24)READ OUT. As you may remember voters had three ballot papers to fill in on 1st May. One

for the Mayor of London election and two for the London Assembly election.

SHOW MAYORAL BALLOT PAPER only (reddish pink colour on left hand side of show card)

Q20 How easy or difficult did you find it to fill in your ballot paper for the Mayor of London election? Would you say……READ OUT. CODE ONE

Base: 442Very easy 66%

Fairly easy 27%Neither easy nor difficult 3%

Fairly difficult 2%Very difficult 1%

Don’t know 1%

SHOW CARD Q21/23Q21 Here are some words that other people have used to describe the ballot paper for

the London Mayoral election. Which would you choose – please select as many or as few as you want? READ OUT. MULITI CODE OK.

Base 442Confusing 5%

Well laid out 47%Easy to complete 60%

Complicated 3%Hard to follow 2%

Had clear instructions 20%None of them *

Don’t know 1%

SHOW ASSEMBLY BALLOT PAPERs (yellow, and light pink coloured ballot forms)Q22 How easy or difficult did you find it to fill in your ballot papers for the London

Assembly election? Would you say…… READ OUT. CODE ONE

Base: 442

20


Very easy 60%Fairly easy 29%

Neither easy nor difficult 6%Fairly difficult 3%Very difficult *%

Don’t know 2%

SHOW CARD Q21/23Q23 Here are some words that people have used to describe the ballot papers for the

London Assembly election. Which would you choose – please select as many or as few as you want? READ OUT. MULITI CODE OK.

Base 442Confusing 6%

Well laid out 44%Easy to complete 58%

Complicated 3%Hard to follow 3%

Had clear instructions 18%None of them *

Don’t know 2%

ASK ALL Q24 The London elections on May 1st used more than one voting system - one for the

London Mayoral election and another for the Greater London Assembly election. How confusing or otherwise did you find this? Would you say….READ OUT. CODE ONE

Very confusing 5%Fairly confusing 16%

Not very confusing 22%Not at all confusing 34%

Don’t know 23%

Q25 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “I would only give a second preference vote to a candidate who has a good chance of winning the election.” Would you say you…..READ OUT. CODE ONE

Strongly agree 14%Tend to agree 26%

Neither agree or disagree 19%Tend to disagree 12%

Strongly disagree 14%Don’t know 15%

21


POLLING PLACE GUIDANCE

ASK polling station voters. others skip to classification show polling station posterQ26 Do you remember seeing this poster or this stand in the polling station?

Base 353Yes 54% ASK Q27No 39% GO TO

CLASSIFICATIONDon’t know 7%

Q27 Did you read the information provided? READ OUT AS APPROPRIATE

Base: 191Yes, all of it 40% ASK Q28

Yes, some of it 35%No 26% GO TO

CLASSIFICATIONDon’t know *%

Q28 How helpful did you find the information provided? Would you say……READ OUT. CODE ONE

Base 141Very helpful 65%

Fairly helpful 32%Neither helpful nor unhelpful 1%

Not very helpful 2%Not at all helpful -

Don’t know -

22


CLASSIFICATIONSEX:

Male 48%Female 52%

AGE:18-24 13%25-34 23%35-44 21%45-54 15%55-64 125

65+ 16%TENURE:

Own outright 22%Own with mortgage 37%

Council rent 16%Private rent/other 35%

WORKING STATUS:Full time 46%Part time 10%

Not working 37%Unemployed 8%

SOCIAL CLASS:AB 32%C1 31%C2 15%DE 22%

ADULTS 18+ IN HOUSEHOLDOne 18%Two 49%

Three 18%Four 11%

Five + 2%AND WHICH OF THESE BEST DESCRIBES YOUR ETHNIC ORIGIN?

White 74%British 66%

Irish 1%Other white background 7%

Mixed 2%White & black Caribbean 1%

White & Black African *White & Asian *

Other mixed background 1%Asian or Asian British 11%

Indian 3%Pakistani 2%

Bangladeshi 3%Other Asian background 3%Black or Black British 10%

Caribbean 4%African 6%

Other black background *%Chinese or other ethnic group 1%

Chinese 1%Other background 1%

.

Technical details

23


The research is based on a random location methodology by which a total of 82 Output Areas across London were selected. Output Areas are the base level units of Census, about which full demographic information is known (and OA contains, on average, 150 households).

The sampling frame employed a stratified design that distributed interviews across London in proportion to the population distribution by borough. Within each borough, all Output Areas were identified and listed in descending order of size and then by ACORN type, placing the most affluent OA’s at the top of the list and the least affluent at the bottom. (ACORN is a standard classification of residential neighbourhood affluence - and for the purposes of this sampling frame, a true random variable).

The total number of electors in each OA were then cumulated down the list and using a random start, fixed sampling interval the required number of OA’s were selected. (A random starting point is identified, and then every fixed Nth OA selected). This process defines a random sample of OA’s within each borough with a probability of selection proportionate to size. The distribution of interviews is shown in the graphic below:

Table A: Fully representative sampling option

GLA constituency % of London population

Barnet & Camden 7.1%Bexley & Bromley 7.2%Brent & Harrow 6.6%City & East 8.5%Croydon & Sutton 7.1%Ealing & Hillingdon 7.6%Enfield & Haringey 6.8%Greenwich & Lewisham 6.5%Havering & Redbridge 6.5%Lambeth & Southwark 7.1%Merton & Wandsworth 6.3%Hackney, Islington & Waltham Forest (North East)

8.3%

Hounslow, Kingston & Richmond(South West)

7.4%

Hammersmith, Kensington & Westminster (West Central)

7.0%

Quotas were imposed on basic demographics, and in line with previous research, on the number of voters and non-voters who participated on the survey. Interviewers were asked to complete 8 out of their first 10 interviews in a purely representative way in line with demographic quotas, and to equalise the number of voters and non-voters, if necessary, with the final two interviews.

The purpose of this equalisation process was to ensure robustness at voter/non-voter sub-level. However, it is important to point out that a survey which seeks a representative (demographic) sample on one hand is theoretically compromised by seeking to equal the numbers of voters and non-voters on the other. Even though turnout was less than 50% (45%) it is always the case that opinion research among the electorate is able to achieve interviews with voters more easily. Given this, the final part of the fieldwork period was to complete the non-voter target - but we should point

24


out that only minimal corrective balancing was actually required on this occasion with only 52 non-voter interviews required for balance. Even so, the final interviews with non-voters were weighted in line with the demographic profile of the initial non-voters who were selected in the random, representative way. While this weighting scheme seeks to re-balance the data to make it representative, the reader should be aware, when it comes to measures such as reported turnout among sub-groups that this caveat should be taken into account.

Interviews were conducted on 2nd-15th May 2008.

Sampling tolerancesIt should be remembered at all times that a sample and not the entire population has been interviewed. Consequently, all results are subject to sampling tolerances, which mean that not all differences are statistically significant.

We can, however, predict the variation between the sample results and the ‘true’ values (if everyone in the population had been interviewed) from knowledge of the size of the samples on which the results are based and the number of times answers are given. The confidence with which we can make this prediction is usually chosen to be 95% - that is, the chances are 95 times out of 100 that the ‘true’ value will fall within a specified range. The table below illustrates the predicted ranges for different sample sizes and the percentage results at the 95% confidence level.

Table 2 Sampling tolerancesSAMPLE SIZE SAMPLING TOLERENCES APPLICABLE TO %’S AT OR

NEAR10% OR 90%

+ / -30% OR 70%

+ / -50%+ / -

100 interviews 5.88% 8.98% 9.80%500 interviews 2.63% 4.02% 4.38%844 interviews 2.02% 3.09% 3.37%

For example, with a sample size of 844 interviews where 50% (the worst case scenario as far as tolerances are concerned) give a particular answer, we can be 95% certain that the ‘true’ value will fall within the range of 3.37% from the sample result.

When results are compared between separate groups within a sample (say, between men and women), different results may be obtained. The difference may be ‘real’ or it may occur by chance (because a sample rather than the entire population has been interviewed). To test if the difference is a real one, i.e. if it is ‘statistically significant’, we again have to know the size of the samples, the % giving a certain answer and the degree of confidence chosen. If we assume the 95% confidence level again, the differences between the results of two separate groups must be greater than the values given in the table below:

Table 3 Tests for statistical significanceSAMPLE SIZES TO BE COMPARED

DIFFERENCES REQUIRED TO BE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AT OR NEAR

10% OR 90%+ / -

30% OR 70%+ / -

50%+ / -

25


100 and 100 8.3% 12.7% 13.9%200 and 200 5.9% 8.9% 9.8%500 and 500 3.7% 5.7% 6.2%1000 and 1000 2.6% 4.0% 4.4%

Social class definitionsMost market research projects classify the population into social grades, usually on the basis of the Market Research Society occupational groupings (MRS, 1991).

Table 4 social class definitions

A.

Professionals such as doctors, solicitors or dentists, chartered people like architects; fully qualified people with a large degree of responsibility such as senior civil servants, senior business executives and high ranking grades within the armed forces. Retired people, previously grade A, and their widows.

B.People with very senior jobs such as university lecturers, heads of local government departments, middle management in business organizations, bank mangers, police inspectors, and upper grades in the armed forces.

C1.All others doing non-manual jobs, including nurses, technicians, pharmacists, salesmen, publicans, clerical workers, police sergeants and middle ranks of the armed forces.

C2.Skilled manual workers, foremen, manual workers with special qualifications such as lorry drivers, security officers and lower grades of the armed forces.

D.Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, including laborers and those serving apprenticeships. Machine minders, farm laborers, lab assistants and postmen.

E.Those on the lowest levels of subsistence including all those dependent upon the state long-term. Casual workers, and those without a regular income.

26

title - electoral commission€¦ · web viewthe use of two electoral systems – supplementary...

Documents