 |
answer text |
<p>Requiring some form of identification to vote was successfully tested at the local
elections on 3 May by five local authorities: Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Watford and
Woking. The overwhelming majority of people cast their vote without a problem and
the success of the pilots proves that this is a reasonable and proportionate measure
to take, and there was no notable adverse effect on turnout.</p><p>The estimate by
the political lobby group the Electoral Reform Society is exaggerated and inaccurate.
Data from Returning Officers across all five participating local authorities shows
that there were 340 electors asked to return to the polling station with the correct
identification who did not subsequently return. This represents 0.16% of the votes
cast.</p><p>This reflects that such identification was a brand new requirement, and
a few electors may not have read the publicity that they were sent about the pilots.</p><p><ins
class="ministerial">However, the experience of Northern Ireland, where paper ID has
been required since 1985 and photo ID since 2003, illustrates that there should be
no issue with voters not knowing - once the requirement has become established.</ins></p><p><ins
class="ministerial">The Electoral Commission is responsible for carrying out an independent,
statutory evaluation of the pilot schemes and will publish its findings in the summer
of 2018; this will be an opportunity to review how the publicity arrangements operated
and could be improved. This is one of the benefits of piloting the policy.</ins></p><p>
</p><p>Requiring some form of identification to vote was successfully tested at the
local elections on 3 May by five local authorities: Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Watford
and Woking. The overwhelming majority of people cast their vote without a problem
and the success of the pilots proves that this is a reasonable and proportionate measure
to take, and there was no notable adverse effect on turnout.</p><p>The estimate by
the political lobby group the Electoral Reform Society is exaggerated and inaccurate.
Data from Returning Officers across all five participating local authorities shows
that there were 340 electors asked to return to the polling station with the correct
identification who did not subsequently return. This represents 0.14% of the votes
cast.</p><p>This reflects that such identification was a brand new requirement, and
a few electors may not have read the publicity that they were sent about the pilots.</p><p>
</p><p>However, the experience of Northern Ireland, where paper ID has been required
since 1985 and photo ID since 2003, illustrates that there should be no issue with
voters not knowing - once the requirement has become established.</p><p>The Electoral
Commission is responsible for carrying out an independent, statutory evaluation of
the pilot schemes and will publish its findings in the summer of 2018; this will be
an opportunity to review how the publicity arrangements operated and could be improved.
This is one of the benefits of piloting the policy.</p><p> </p><p>There was an error
in the data previously presented. Whilst the individual totals of votes cast in each
local authority were correct, the overall total was incorrectly summed. The previously
quoted total of votes cast of 206,741 should have been 234,506. As a result, the percentage
of people who did not return as a proportion of number of votes cast was overstated,
incorrectly given as 0.16%. The correct figure is 0.14%. The attached table contains
the correct data.</p><p> </p><p>As part of its planned evaluation, the Electoral Commission
will continue to collect and analyse a wide range of data and information about the
pilots, including public opinion surveys, data from polling stations, turnout and
postal voting data, and polling station staff surveys. We will continue to work with
the Electoral Commission and other partners to ensure that the emerging data gives
an accurate picture of how ID pilots were delivered.</p><p> </p>
|
|
