The Electoral Commission gets it wrong on turnout

Here’s the email I’ve sent to Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral Commission:

Dear Jenny Watson,

I was rather surprised at the introduction to your speech earlier today to the UCL Constitution Unit where you painted what seems to me a very misleading picture of what is happening to turnout in British elections.

I appreciate that is a fairly strong criticism, so I hope you won’t mind me justifying it by taking parts of your speech and commenting on them in detail.

After talking about recent political scandals, you said:

One of the immediate measures of the impact of these events is turnout at the recent elections. Turnout for the European elections across the UK was just 34 per cent, against a European average of 43 per cent.

However, turnout in the UK has been lower than the European average in every European election since and including the first one in 1979. The mere fact of it being lower again does not tell us about the “impact of these events”.

The one piece of evidence you present on that is wrong, for you say:

In Wales it was down to 30 per cent, an all-time low.

In 2004 the European elections coincided with local elections across all of Wales. In 2009 they did not. Given that combining local and European elections on the same day consistently raises European election turnout, saying turnout fell between 2004 and 2009 is not making a like-for-like comparison. It is simply a reflection of the change in electoral rules.

Moreover, turnout was not “an all time-low”. As the House of Commons Library reports, turnout in Wales in 1999 – the last time European and local elections didn’t coincide in Wales – was 28%. If any long term trend can be drawn, it is that turnout in Wales is on the up, not “at an all-time low”.

You went on to say that:

County council elections tell a similar story. Few seats in the shires polled above 40 per cent, compared to 60 or even 70 per cent last time.

Whilst true, that is a highly misleading comparison. Last time the county elections were on the same day as a general election, and again it is a well established pattern that having both elections on the same day pulls up turnout in local elections. All those figures reflect is a change in how the elections are structured. It doesn’t tell us that the public are becoming more or less willing to vote in local elections.

Because of the changing rules around European elections, it is hard to find solid like-for-like comparisons to make. But I would give you the example of London in 2009 and in 1999. In both years, there was no all-postal voting and nor were there other elections on the same day (as was the case in 2004). What happened to turnout? It soared by 10.3%.

So not only did your speech present information in a misleadingly gloomy way, genuine ‘good news’ was also left out.

Does this matter? I believe it does, not only because of the principle – the chair of the Electoral Commission should get electoral facts right – but also because of the impact. Painting inaccurate pictures of people’s unwillingness to vote will, if it has any impact, simply discourage people from voting.

I appreciate that these points in your speech may well have been researched for you by someone else and that you may have been repeating the information in good faith.

I hope that you will therefore carefully reconsider the evidence as to what happened to turnout in June and present a more accurate – and indeed thereby more hopeful – picture in future.

Yours sincerely

Mark Pack

UPDATE: Jenny Watson has responded to this post.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

12 Comments

  • I’d be interested to read the response….

  • Depressin’ ain’t it (as Peter Wimsey might put it) that the boss of elections can’t work out stuff like this!

  • Thanks Mark for doing that. I always wondered about the competence of these folk.

  • What were her qualifications for being appointed?

  • The qualifications for the electoral commission are no understanding of politics or campaigning. It helps if you have an almost comic fantasy view of how parties work “on the ground”.

    The speach by Jenny Watson is totally awful.
    the whole electoral commission is a watse of time and money. Is is also another example of how “transparency” is not a panacea. So for example, jsut because a massive donation is tarnsparently declared, it doesn’t make it healthy for democracy.

  • Mark, I think you missed the point. Apart from the mistakes the speach is full of vacuous phrases. “we all have work to do” “it can’t happen over night” “It can’t continue like this” “We cannot underestimate the damage … MPs expenses ..”

    I presume even Jenny Watson didn’t read her speach as a few lines after bemoaning low turnout, it mentions turnout was was 24% in 1999.

    How will individual registration boost the electoral register? It won’t, it makes registration harder.

    Have any of the people advocating it actually pounded the streets to register people under the existing system? I doubt it.

  • Has she replied?

  • The Electoral Commission reminds me of the RSPB.

    Both organisations benefit from “bad news stories” [turnouts are down – yellowhammers are in decline] and choose to ignore “good news stories” [turnouts are up – buzzards are booming].

    The RSPB needs bad news to get money from people; the EC needs bad news to justify its existence.

  • Tony Greaves 1st Jul '09 - 8:59pm

    Why is this worth a comment? The Electoral Commission is a huge waste of money and largely exists to justify its own existence and the jobs of the people who run it.

    Before it was set up the overseeing of elections was done by about three people in the Home Office (I do not exaggerate). No doubt a bit more than that is needed but it would help if they were people with some knowledge and understanding of the electoral and political process.

    By the way the County Council turnout in Pendle was around 45% and not more than 3% or 4% of those would be bogus.

    Tony Greaves
    Tony Greaves

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Paul Barker
    On The Polls again - The Tory lead at the last Election was 12%, that went up to around 20% (The Brexit bounce) faded away to virtually nothing & then rose...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Martin, "These are votes more easily lost (particularly if the outcome is successful for us) than gained. " I don't understand what this mean...
  • Mark ValladaresMark Valladares
    @ Laurence, I’m going to do something unexpected, in that I agree with Brad. If the Scots want to do this, they should have the right to and the obligation...
  • Mark ValladaresMark Valladares
    @ Paul, I may cover it later but we always (within reason) welcome contributions…...
  • Laurence Cox
    @Brad Barrows I don't suppose that you even think about the consequences of what you write. I really should not have to remind you that for over 50 years ...