HL Deb 05 July 2000 vol 614 cc139-40WA
Lord Lipsey

asked Her Majesty's Government:

  1. (a) what percentage of ballot papers in the London elections this May were not fully completed; and
  2. (b) of those not fully completed, what percentage were not complete because no votes were cast for Assembly members, and what percentage were spoiled. [HL3067]

Lord Whitty

The Greater London Authority Elections (No 2) Rules 2000 required returning officers to classify ballot papers which must be rejected under one of the following heads:

  1. (a) voter identifiable,
  2. (b) more than one vote cast, and
  3. (c) vote unmarked or void for uncertainty.

Amongst the rejected ballot papers in the three elections, the following percentages were categorised as voter identity identifiable, voting for more than one candidate and void for uncertainty or blank:

(a) (b) (c)
voter identifiable multi-vote Uncertain or unmarked
Mayor first preference: 0.04% 1.4% 0.7%
Mayor second preference 0.04% 0.06% 17.0%
London Member election 0.03% 0.8% 4.2%
Constituency Member election 0.03% 0.2% 9.0%

Ballot papers which were unmarked or "not fully completed" would be included in those under head (c) as 'uncertain or unmarked'. Ballot papers with a mark on them, but where the voters' intentions were uncertain, were adjudicated by returning officers and also categorised as 'uncertain or unmarked'. Whilst under the Election Rules, both types of ballot paper are aggregated together as one category, it is clear from the returning officers' observations that a high proportion of the papers categorised as "uncertain or unmarked" were in fact blank.