CHAPTER 3
Case studies of local authority practices and initiatives on electoral registration and participation
PURPOSE OF THE CASE STUDIES
The purpose of the case studies was to gain more in-depth information than was possible through the Stage 1 postal survey. They were used to build up a picture of the culture of each authority and its local area and to explore with respondents reasons for the prevailing levels of turnout. Respondents were also asked more detailed questions than in the survey about the use of innovative electoral registration and turnout practices and their impact on public participation. In addition, the case studies were used to try to identify any local effects which might help further to refine the model of turnout described at Stage 2.
SELECTION OF CASE STUDY AUTHORITIES
Eight local authorities were selected for more intensive case studies. They were identified following the initial statistical analysis of the relationship between political, structural and socio-economic variables and turnout during the period 1973-99 (Stage 2). Pairs of authorities in each of four types of English local government were chosen, based on their having turnout levels significantly above or below that predicted by the preliminary econometric modelling. Many local authorities experience peaks and troughs in turnout, often reflecting the salience of one-off local issues or political controversies, but our concern was with those whose turnout over a long period of time appeared to be statistically deviant. The councils chosen were:
London Boroughs: Hillingdon LBC; Newham LBC Metropolitan Boroughs: Sandwell MBC; Walsall MBC Shire Districts (annual elections): Eastbourne BC; Hastings BC Shire Districts (4 yearly elections): Derbyshire Dales DC; Richmondshire DC The reference to councils being 'high' or 'low' refers to their turnout being above or below the statistical estimates and is not necessarily a reflection of the actual level of their turnout.
METHOD
In each case interviews were conducted with council officers (usually including the Chief Executive and always the Electoral Administrator) and councillors. Where appropriate, or available, interviews were also conducted with a representative of the local press. Interviews were relatively unstructured, but a list of indicative questions was drawn up for each category of respondent (Chief Executive, councillor etc) and a check made that all relevant issues were covered.
In this chapter we examine what each pair of cases have in common, how they differ, and how it might be possible to explain differences in their turnout record. A final commentary teases out issues and characteristics thrown up by the case studies which seem relevant to explaining levels of turnout, but which are less amenable to traditional statistical analysis - e.g. the intensity and breadth of party political activity; the type and role of local news media; and the impact of strong local identities.
SHIRE DISTRICT COUNCILS IN RURAL AREAS WITH ALL-OUT ELECTIONS
Derbyshire Dales DC - 'high'; Richmondshire DC - 'low'
At first sight there appear to be few substantive differences between these two rural authorities situated in sparsely populated areas covering parts of the Peak District National Park and the North Yorkshire Dales and Moors.Both report high registration rates, a stable population with an above average age profile, and a preponderance of one member wards based on defined communities. Richmondshire does its registration canvass entirely by mail whilst Derbyshire Dales uses a mix of post, personal visits and the telephone to chase up non-respondents. Both councils report being content with their system and believe their registration processes compare with the best.
Neither council has made radical changes to the electoral process - e.g. design and delivery of poll cards - but both note the difficulty of finding suitable sites for polling places with disabled access.
Both authorities support the introduction of universal postal voting or, at least, a relaxation in the rules for absent voting. They report being keen to trial electronic voting, but are aware of the infrastructural and logistical difficulties. They believe there is less scope in rural areas - for practical reasons - to introduce extensions to the hours of polling; polling in supermarkets etc. Both strongly favour the continuation of 4 yearly 'all-out' elections as providing a clear and simple choice for the electorate and stability in council decision-making.
Both authorities have introduced a number of initiatives to improve communication between the council and citizens and to offer wider opportunities for public participation. Derbyshire Dales was keen to emphasise its close links with its 72 parishes and how it uses them as a conduit for information and consultation. However, it is believed that these will impact on levels of turnout only over the long term. There is a clear awareness of the need, in particular, to increase young people's participation in the democratic process.
Despite these similarities, there are aspects of the 'culture' of each authority which may help to explain the statistically identified differences in their turnout levels.
Richmondshire contains the Catterick army camp. The council has tried hard to overcome the difficulties for electoral registration posed by a large, mobile population with little investment - 'social capital' - in the area and although many soldiers and their families can be persuaded to register, it is far more difficult to actually get them to vote - one ward adjacent to the camp, Hipswell, regularly records among the lowest turnouts in England. This is a phenomenon noted elsewhere in the country - e.g. the Queen's ward of Rushmoor DC based in Aldershot. As such, Richmondshire believed that much of the responsibility for encouraging increased turnout rested with the armed services themselves.
The types of local media, especially newspapers are very different in the two areas. In Derbyshire Dales there are a number of local newspapers appealing to a readership in a limited geographical area, which contain significant coverage of local affairs - including elections. In Richmondshire, however, there is only one local newspaper, the Darlington and Stockton Times, which covers a wide area. The number of 'local' editions of this paper has decreased in recent years and there is little detailed coverage of elections/candidates etc.
Party politics in Derbyshire Dales is more competitive than in Richmondshire. In 1999, all wards in Derbyshire Dales were contested by at least two of the major political parties; in Richmondshire elections were needed in only 13 of the 26 wards with only 9 of those contests involving more than one political party.
It seems likely that these differences account for a good deal of the differences between the two authorities in terms of actual and expected levels of turnout.
METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS
Walsall MBC - 'high'; Sandwell MBC - 'low'
These neighbouring boroughs in the West Midlands reflect many of the difficulties of encouraging electoral registration and turnout in urban areas.Both councils report considerable variation between areas in the return of Form A. Both use personal canvassing - including in Walsall initial personal delivery and pick up. However, Sandwell has difficulty in recruiting canvassers prepared to do house-to-house calls in one disadvantaged area and both believe that the availability of council tax reductions to single person households has an impact on registration. In one polling district in Sandwell there are 711 people registered in 702 properties. Sandwell used to include absent vote information solely on Form A, but this has now been supplemented by including it on poll cards as well. Walsall included absent voting information on Form A for the first time in 1998 and reports an increase in take up.
Sandwell conducted a campaign to boost turnout in 1998, including a £5,000 advertising campaign and in 1999, a polling station located at a supermarket. It was felt that the advertising made no difference and hence has not been repeated although the supermarket polling station will be retained. A council survey showed that it was not technical issues about elections that dissuaded people from voting, but a lack of interest in local government/lack of belief that voting made a difference. The council produces a Teachers' Pack on registration sent to all local schools. Walsall felt their turnout to be quite good by metropolitan borough standards, but below that in adjacent shire districts. They have had no budget for campaigns, outreach work etc.
Both councils reported that turnout was worse in poorer areas; that investment of public money in areas (Single Regeneration Budget, City Challenge) did not increase electoral participation; and that ethnic minority groups (mainly of Asian rather than Afro-Caribbean origin in both boroughs) felt that voting in local elections was more important than did whites. It is interesting to note that the ward in Sandwell with the smallest non-white population, Princes End, regularly records the lowest turnout, whereas the ward in Walsall with the highest proportion of non-whites, Palfrey, is among the borough's best performers.
In both boroughs local media coverage of the council was perceived to be patchy, often negative, and with no real attention paid to elections. The political parties were felt by themselves (and the council) to have a considerable responsibility for turnout levels. All parties reported targeting particular areas and effectively ignoring others. In Sandwell any role for the council in increasing turnout was seen as controversial/'political'.
The two councils had each adopted local committees that reflected their individual approach to local government and Sandwell, had established a Residents' Panel. These were perceived as successful, but with little spin off to increased electoral participation at annual local elections. However, Walsall did note that postal voting by 'patch' (an area of about 100 households) to elect neighbourhood committees consistently attracted a higher response than in the May elections. The same council had also conducted a local committee vote by telephone and would like to do the same for a council contest. The turnout was comparable to that in the local election in the area although on the other hand, when electors have been consulted on a matter of direct and intimate concern - namely ballots on the transfer of the housing stock - very high turnouts have been recorded in both boroughs.
Walsall's experience of telephone voting has led it to support a similar experiment for local elections. The council believe it to be cheaper than either the present system, or universal postal voting, although it was recognised that safeguards for non-telephone owners were essential. Sandwell similarly supports electronic voting and a liberalisation of absent voting rules, but felt that it was important to retain the option to vote in person.
Although Sandwell and Walsall are geographically adjacent and socio-economically not dissimilar, Walsall has tended to display higher levels of turnout at local elections. Two factors, in particular, may help to account for this:
Sandwell has few marginal seats and therefore infrequent changes in control and so less incentive for voters to participate. In Walsall, political control has been more marginal and there has been local controversy within the Labour party in recent years, which has increased voter attention.
There was a strong belief in Sandwell that voting at local elections is negatively influenced by the borough's history. It was created in 1974 following the amalgamation of two county boroughs which were themselves aggregations of previous authorities. There is no such place as Sandwell, and therefore people find it difficult to identify with the council and there is little community of interest across the various towns and areas. All this acts as a disincentive to participation, whereas Walsall on the other hand, benefits from being more of a definable entity.
LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS
Hillingdon LBC - 'high'; Newham LBC - 'low'
These are two boroughs from contrasting areas of London. Hillingdon in the extreme west, has a mixed population with a highly competitive political system. Newham, encompassing part of the traditional east end, is dominated by one political party, has a majority non-white population and has areas of extreme socio-economic deprivation. Even having taken account of such factors in the Stage 2 statistical modelling of turnout, the boroughs emerged as having significantly higher and lower turnouts than expected.Hillingdon considered themselves to be up to speed as regards electoral registration and liaise with other boroughs on the newest initiatives and their impact. A borough survey on how to apply for an absent vote, which showed low awareness by the electorate, led to a redesign of forms and the inclusion of a flyer about the procedure with Form A. A door-to-door canvass was reintroduced in 1993 after a 3-year gap and there is clear evidence that this has had a favourable impact on registration levels. The council would like to do more to encourage young people to register, but reports no increase in the number of local schools taking up the offer of talks and 'road shows'.
Newham had the lowest Form A return of any case study authority, although for the past few years personal canvassing has been conducted in all areas of the borough. Some initiatives had been introduced including a prize draw in 1999. Future ideas include a project for schools and liaising with 'Rock the Vote'. The council is also considering whether to institute prosecutions for those who wilfully fail to return Form A. It was accepted that registration was not a priority for many people, and some doubt was cast (by one officer) on the higher rates of registration reported by other London boroughs.
Turnout in Hillingdon was believed to be above average. This was attributed to high status areas in the borough where voting is seen as a 'civic duty', together with the level of competition between parties. There was nervousness about the council doing more than telling people an election was to take place, but it was believed that four yearly elections boosted turnout by galvanising activity and offering the electorate a direct influence on the council composition. The council had recently undertaken a survey of residents' views on voting in local elections.
Newham has actively pursued the development of new, extra-electoral participation forums but, despite the fact that turnout was known to be poor, attention has been paid to electoral participation only relatively recently. Previously, turnout was not considered the council's responsibility and 'too political' and therefore no work has been conducted on why people do not vote. The new Elections Services Manager has a remit which covers turnout as well as registration and initiatives planned for the 2002 elections include two poll cards - one in time for absent vote applications; another close to polling day as a reminder - and continued liaison with groups like Operation Black Vote. Some ethnic minority groups (mainly Asians) have high participation rates although among others (mainly Afro-Caribbeans) it is very low. The borough argues that legislation restricting official electoral material to the English and Welsh languages only may depress turnout. It was noted that responses to a survey on council services included with Form A were higher than local election turnout itself.
The local media were not considered to play a hugely important role in electoral issues in either borough, although the Newham Recorder was happy to publish council press releases and was perceived as helping to counter national negative publicity about borough. Party campaigning is important in the marginal Hillingdon, with several wards receiving close attention from some or all the parties. It was estimated that this activity can add up to 10% to turnout levels - a figure supported by an examination of ward election results in Hillingdon in 1998. It was reported that voters even complained to the council when they were not canvassed. In one-party Newham there is almost no party activity. Labour has no election meetings or manifesto, whilst the opposition parties are almost invisible except for the BNP and a number of local Independents.
Although one officer in Newham was sceptical of the impact of reforms such as universal postal voting and mobile polling stations, both councils were in principle, keen on piloting these as long as financing was available.
Many of the differences in turnout levels between the two boroughs can be accounted for by the variables analysed at Stage 2. However the explanation for Hillingdon and Newham continuing to appear to be 'outliers' from this model probably centres on:
Newham appears to have many inbuilt disadvantages in terms of encouraging registration and turnout, but has done little until very recently to address these. Hillingdon has been more aware of developing best practice and has adapted to it.
In both boroughs the situation has been reinforced by the dramatically different nature of party political competition. Hillingdon has often been a key Conservative/Labour battleground whilst in Newham, Labour, with the single exception of 1968, has never controlled fewer than 85% of the seats on the council.
SHIRE DISTRICT COUNCILS IN URBAN AREAS WITH ANNUAL ELECTIONS
Eastbourne BC - 'high'; Hastings BC - 'low'
These are two urban district councils, both located on the English channel coast in East Sussex and with boundaries less than 20 miles apart. Outside observers often see them as 'twins', though Eastbourne has a higher proportion of elderly citizens, more owner-occupiers and less unemployment.Both councils use similar methods and achieve comparable results in terms of electoral registration where extensive use is made of personal canvassers who visit a non-returning property up to 3 times. The canvassers are paid by results. In both cases an increased number of properties are in multiple occupancy (HMOs) and these can be difficult to canvass and register effectively. Eastbourne has used a pre-printed, colour- and bar-coded Form A for 10 years. Hastings introduced one in 1997 and claims to have received positive feedback from residents. Eastbourne explicitly recognised the value of learning about and from initiatives in other authorities.
Both authorities noted sharp declines in local election turnout in recent years. Although turnout was slightly higher in 1999 than in 1998 - as it was throughout England, compared to the comparable set of contests in 1995 - Eastbourne's turnout was down by 7.5% and Hastings' by 10.9%. The average decrease in shire districts with annual elections between 1995 and 1999 was 6.7%. Much of this was put down to a decline in 'civic duty' (Eastbourne) and to 'an archaic process that is not very user friendly' (Hastings).
Both councils had contributed £200 to an area-wide commercial radio 'use your vote' campaign, but Hastings had in addition spent £14,000 on a local campaign aimed especially at young people. An experiment of putting a polling booth in a supermarket was deemed unsuccessful, as electors from outside the ward were disappointed not to be able to vote. Poll cards in Eastbourne are delivered 14 days before the election - too late to apply for an absent vote - but in Hastings, they are sent some 20-25 days before the election - sufficient time to apply. In both authorities concern was expressed that the poor siting and access of polling stations in some wards contributed to low turnout.
It appeared that coverage of council affairs and elections featured more prominently in the local press in Eastbourne, than in Hastings - though not always flatteringly from the council's point of view.
It was reported that the level of political activity in between elections was down to individual councillors, and that the parties themselves tended to concentrate on those few wards which were genuinely marginal. (The parties claimed that such a strategy was forced on them by a decline in their own activists.) Electors in other wards might be hard pressed to know an election was taking place. In Eastbourne this was expressed as voters feeling that 'if parties can't be bothered to contact me, why should I go to vote'.
The trend appears to be compounded in Hastings by the electoral system. There are 16 two-member wards, of which only 10 or 11 hold elections each year. In Eastbourne the entire electorate is able to vote annually to select a councillor in one of 12 three-member wards. Eastbourne was agnostic about annual, as opposed to all-out elections, whilst in Hastings there was a measure of support for a move towards electing half the council every two years. It was believed this might help eliminate elector confusion and fatigue and allow for the possibility of more decisive election results.
Both councils had conducted surveys of service satisfaction and had put in place (Hastings) or were considering (Eastbourne) citizens' panels. Both have adopted Cabinet structures with increased scrutiny. However, Eastbourne expressed scepticism that such changes would have much impact on participation. 'So far what the council has done to encourage involvement consultation has had no impact...have to ask is it cost effective?' In both cases there was an awareness that the current voting procedures must change to keep pace with society. As such, there was interest in weekend voting, electronic voting, an extended time period and being able to vote at any polling station, although there was concern that some voters (especially the elderly) would distrust the certainty and confidentiality of universal postal voting. Eastbourne was keen to pilot; Hastings felt they hadn't the resources to do so at present.
These two boroughs appear to encapsulate some of the problems which have hit local election turnout in recent years.
Although Eastbourne's turnout has been historically high (even having taken account of its large elderly population), recent social change - much of it post-dating the 1991 census - had meant an influx of new voters with little identity with the area and with little interest in voting. Hastings believed it had a more unstable and deprived population than Eastbourne and that these factors contributed to its lower turnout.
In such an environment voters can be put off by the slightest confusion and inconvenience. The system of irregular elections in Hastings, whereby the entire borough never votes on a single occasion, coupled with some perception of the small likelihood of such elections changing the council's political control has probably depressed turnout.
CONCLUSIONS
In several respects the case studies provide more detailed evidence of some of the trends noted in the analysis of responses to the Stage 1 postal survey. In particular they confirm:
Most authorities have taken action to get their registration processes in good order with many significant initiatives coming in recent years.
Whilst it is accepted that registration is a clear (and auditable) task for local authorities, there is more uncertainty about their role in encouraging higher turnout. Both officers and (some) councillors worry that this will lead them into 'political' territory.
Authorities are at different stages in terms of developing their response to the modernising local government programme. Most have now begun to introduce some initiatives aimed at widening public participation and increasing consultation opportunities (see DETR report on Enhancing Public Participation 1998). There is, however, a consensus that such initiatives will feed through to local election turnout only very slowly, if at all, and no authority claims to see any sign of it happening so far.
All authorities support initiatives to modernise the electoral process and most are keen to pilot certain reforms. Liberalising the qualifications for absent voting receives universal assent, and there is strong support for piloting universal postal voting/electronic voting/early voting and mobile or 'universal' polling stations. The enthusiasm displayed by individual authorities for these reforms is partially influenced by their own geographic location.
The case study authorities were chosen as examples of those displaying turnouts higher or lower than expected within their tier of local government. This calculation was made following the application of an econometric model taking into account a range of political, socio-economic and structural factors measured at ward and authority level - see Stage 2. The case studies suggest that the following types of variable may usefully be operationalised and added to a model of turnout further to increase the proportion of variance between authorities that can be explained.
Local authority initiatives. Although no authority believed that recent initiatives had yet had the opportunity to feed through into election turnout, it seems likely that the, until recently, rather complacent response to levels of turnout in Newham became something of a vicious circle. In Sandwell, too, the council had been reluctant to address its acknowledged poor turnout for fear of acting 'politically'. It could be that local authority initiatives will have a more powerful impact within a model of election turnout in years to come.
Activity by political parties. It was agreed in most authorities that political parties had a crucial role to play in increasing turnout. Where parties are active at election time, they appear to have a positive impact on turnout cf. Derbyshire Dales and Richmondshire, and Hillingdon and Newham. The trend for parties to target their campaigning effort on a few pivotal wards has led to less incentive for those who feel 'ignored' by the parties to participate e.g. comments made in Eastbourne and in Hillingdon.
Presence of local media. It was agreed that the local media now gave less attention to local government and its politics than previously. In some case study authorities the continued existence of a well-read, community based local paper which gave coverage to local issues and to elections was felt to boost public interest and participation e.g. Derbyshire Dales and Eastbourne.
Local identity. Two authorities - Hillingdon and Sandwell - felt that they were artificial entities created by earlier reorganisations of local government. This concern seemed particularly pertinent in Sandwell where many people apparently retain identities with individual towns, rather than with the area and name of the borough. In Eastbourne it was suggested that population growth based on in-migration to new housing estates on the edge of the town was leading to a similar decline in civic identity. Population stability, as noted in Stage 2, is positively correlated with higher turnout.
Exceptional socio-geographic circumstances. It is rare that a local authority's overall performance can be affected by these, but the presence of the army in Richmondshire does seem of significance. Levels of registration and, especially, turnout within the camp depress the authority's overall record. It could be argued that this highlights an issue of wider concern, namely the need for a re-think of how votes for the armed services are provided and encouraged.
It is, by definition, difficult to draw broad conclusions from a set of individual case studies. Our purpose instead has been to highlight a range of issues that might help to account for the statistically observed differences between our case study authorities. In some cases relevant factors readily suggest themselves; in others it seems rather difficult to understand why there should be such distinguishable differences in behaviour. Some variables, for example party political activity, could perhaps be operationalised in a later study; others, such as levels of civic identity, are likely to remain more nebulous. The relevance of each of these factors for the various local authorities is also subject to change and that may lead them to have very different turnout profiles over time. Nonetheless, we believe that these case studies make a valuable contribution to the overall report, precisely because they demonstrate the continuing importance of place in understanding the behaviour of local authorities and their electorates.
Published 3 May 2000
Return to Local and Regional Government Index
Return to Homepage
Web site terms