Public user testing of instructions for SV ballot papers: Summary and Recommendations

Transcription

1 Public user testing of instructions for SV ballot papers: Summary and Recommendations Background Past research indicated that voters are statistically more likely to commit errors when casting their vote using a Supplementary Vote (SV) ballot paper compared with a First Past The Post (FPTP) ballot paper. In 2016 there will be elections for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) across England and Wales, as well as directly elected English Mayors, including the London Mayor, which will all be run using the SV system. The Commission made a commitment in its report on the PCC elections to undertake our own design and research with voters on ballot paper designs for elections using the SV system, in order to reduce the risk of ballot papers not being counted because they have been incorrectly completed. Any revisions to the ballot paper instructions that we recommend as a result of this work would require legislative change to be enacted. The Electoral Commission commissioned GfK NOP to undertake qualitative research with members of the public to explore how easy or difficult participants found the instructions on the SV ballot paper to understand and the reasons for this. The research suggested improvements to the instructions on an SV ballot paper to make it easier for voters to understand how to mark their ballot paper in the way they intend to. It also identified a number of information needs that would help participants feel informed about SV, and reassured that they could complete their ballot paper correctly. Summary 1.6 The research was conducted in two stages. The preliminary stage involved 6 mini-focus groups containing up to 6 participants in each and the second stage involved 84 mini-depth interviews. All participants were asked to complete an SV ballot paper, and half of the mini-depth sample also completed a FPTP paper 1. This was to reflect a realistic voting situation and to aid discussion in the interviews. 1 Those in Wales also completed a Regional ballot paper which uses the AMS system.

2 1.7 Research was carried out amongst the general public living in Bristol, Cardiff, Manchester, Merthyr Tydfil, Newcastle and London. The locations were chosen to ensure inclusion of a broad range of demographic characteristics, voting behaviour and experience of voting in a SV election Knowledge and understanding of SV was low, even amongst those with previous experience of voting in SV elections. For some, there was resistance to the idea of making two choices on the ballot paper, as this seemed at odds with their concept of voting in an election. The research suggests that voters strongly associate voting with a First Past the Post (FPTP) ballot paper and that this guides their assumptions when approaching the SV ballot paper. Participants completed an SV voting task at the start of each group and interview. In general, people completed this task with confidence. Despite this, a variety of errors were made, with very few patterns emerging in the types of errors made. The findings suggest that most errors did not result from misunderstanding of the instructions. The total number of errors made was small (14), making it difficult to generalise about who was more likely to make an error. However, those who made errors were predominantly those who dislike form filling or have impairments or barriers that make it more difficult for them to complete forms. Those who had not read the instructions on the ballot paper also made errors. Feedback from electoral administrators on the reasons for rejection of SV ballot papers at the first preference stage indicates that some voters only make a mark in the second preference column and not in the first preference column. A possible explanation for this could be that they mark their ballot paper in the right-hand column as they would do for a FPTP election. This type of error was not picked up in our research. Respondents were shown a series of information materials relating to SV during the groups and interviews. Bilingual versions were shown to those in Wales. This included the ballot paper instructions, a polling booth poster, polling station poster and further information describing SV. For most, the ballot paper instructions were clear and easy to understand and aided them in completing their ballot paper correctly. A minority made some suggestions on how to make the instructions on the ballot paper clearer including; making the instructions more prominent, underlining key words ( and and once ) and amending the wording in the instruction box. Most felt that the polling booth poster coupled with the ballot paper instructions provided enough information to inform voters how to mark the ballot paper correctly. When provided with general information about SV, participants were less interested in how the votes were counted and the

3 outcome determined. The information that was considered to be most important was that voters cannot vote twice for the same candidate, and that voters do not need to make a second choice if they do not wish to. On consideration however, we felt that to tell voters that they did not have to make a second choice might discourage them from using it. We have taken a decision not to include this information for that reason The findings from Welsh language research broadly reflected the findings in other locations. For those commenting on issues specific to the Welsh language, some felt that the materials looked crowded. However, this did not affect their understanding of the instructions. There were several themes contained in participants suggestions regarding helpful communications about how to complete an SV ballot paper correctly. These were: communications to help highlight that SV is different from FPTP; communications that help to support voters with completing the ballot paper correctly; and communications highlighting key facts about SV. Timing was felt to be crucial in determining the likely success of communications. People felt that it was unlikely that they would pay attention to communications at the wrong time. Voters felt that they would be receptive to communications as part of the run-up to the election; as part of the postal voting pack or the poll card mailing; and in the polling booth itself. Preferred channels and formats included mass media, social media, inserts along with the poll cards and postal voting packs, and posters in the polling booth itself. The research report is published on our website Recommendations GfK NOP made a series of recommendations about the instructions on the ballot paper, voter materials and the channel and format of voter information based on the research. These are set out below. Instructions on the ballot paper 1.19 We have redrafted the instructions on the SV ballot paper to reflect the conclusions from our voter research. Our recommended re-drafting suggest the following changes: Instructions should draw voter s attention to key words. Re- label Column 1 (first choice) and Column 2 (second choice) as Column A (first choice) and Column B (second choice) to avoid confusion. Figures 1 and 2 shows the current PCC and London Mayor ballot papers and Figures 3 and 4 what the PCC ballot paper would look like if the UK Government

4 accept our recommendations. Figure 1: The ballot paper used at the PCC elections in 2012

5 Figure 2: The current London mayoral ballot paper 2 2 As revised by the Draft GLA Election Rules 2015

6 Figure 3: Our suggested amendment to the PCC ballot paper

7 Figure 4: Our suggested ammendment to the mayoral ballot paper

8 Recommendation 1: Instructions should draw voter s attention to key words to emphasise how voters should complete their ballot paper. Participants in the research suggested: Emboldening key words such as and, and or. Making the words once and and should be more prominent. emboldening the word once would help clarify that only one mark should be made in each column. emboldening the word and would help clarify that one mark needs to be made in both columns, as well as ensuring voters did not confuse and with or, which they could read to mean make one mark in either column 1 or 2. Recommendation 2: Re- label Column 1 and Column 2 as Column A and Column B to avoid confusion. Some participants felt that the use of the words once, column one and first on the ballot paper were confusing because they all had similar meanings. Voter information needs 1.20 Our research identified the ideal content, format, timing and channels for future communications to help voters accurately complete an SV ballot paper. These are described below. Voter information - content Recommendation 3: Information should be prominent on all voter materials to guide, support and reassure voters in completing their ballot paper. It should: Provide information to highlight voters are voting in an election which is different from an FPTP election; i.e. a different voting method. Provide key information about how to complete a SV ballot paper in particular: that the voter should select two candidates, a first and a second choice. that they cannot vote for the same candidate twice (this was a mistake that participants felt was a high risk and that this should be made very clear in the instructions).

9 Voter information format Recommendation 4: Voter information should follow the example of the polling booth poster. The existing polling booth poster was thought to be an excellent guide, as it provides a template for an easy step-by-step guide to completing a SV ballot paper with prominence to key information. Voter information timing and channel 1.21 Timing was thought to be crucial in determining the likely success of any communications.. Recommendation 5: information about voting in an SV election should be sent out a month before polling day Participants said that if they received the information too early they would be unlikely to engage with it. They considered the month before polling day to be the time when they would be most receptive to receiving information about the voting system and instructions on filling in the ballot paper. Recommendation 6: Information should be delivered with the poll cards and postal ballot packs Information should be sent out with the Poll card, and stapled to the front of it to ensure voters don t ignore it. Information should be included in the postal voting pack. This is particularly important for PCC elections, as in the Mayoral election a candidate booklet is distributed which contains information on how to vote. Recommendation 7: Social media should be used alongside traditional media to communicate information about SV While traditional media was seen as the most appropriate channel for communication on SV, participants suggested that links to information about SV were available on YouTube, information about SV elections posted on Facebook, or that Facebook or Twitter could provide a link to a video demonstrating how to complete their ballot paper, or information on how to do so.