|
|
<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> |