The postal fiasco

 

At this latter level, of the administration of the postal ballot, there are several more points to make. The first is that this year was a nonsense from the start. Local town halls, in fairness to them, were not ready, because the Lords hadn't approved the scheme until literally almost too late. Councils in Manchester and Trafford were unable to give out information to political parties and did not know what to do if they suddenly found themselves having to shut libraries and schools in order to put polling stations there. the school timetables had all been worked out on the basis of postal voting.

 

Having said this (the one defence local authorities could have) the process adopted and the practical implementation were both a farce. and the cost will be felt by council tax payers across the northern boroughs (yet to be quantified, though some sensible parliamentary questions would not go amiss - or even some sensible local councillor questions). It has been such a farce that most people who have been opinion-polled so far (however unscientifically) agree that it shouldn't be the way to proceed. The initial explanatory leaflets were not easy to read and had little evidence of help for those who don't have English as their first language. The follow-up voting package made an ikea assembly instruction leaflet look like it could actually produce a set of shelves.

 

People genuinely could not work out which ballot paper to put in which envelope, which envelope had to go in which other envelope, and which bit to leave showing through the window. Instructions to make the "barcode" visible did not assist people who did not know what a "barcode" was. It is impossible (see my anti-prediction prediction for more on this) to generalise what effect this had. Did it increase spoilt returns or just deter returns? Did the combination of euro and local increase the voting or did the absence of information that you could just fill in one form and ignore the other actually decrease the overall level? Whatever the truth of this, the anticipated doubling of voting (that postal systems were supposed to produce) did not deliver. The overall quoted increase of about 13% is not comparing like with like - the euro turnout last time was abysmal, so its not a real comparison on that, and the local turnouts varied (and you would need council by council figures to work out something sensible here). What we do know is that trafford council had a postal ballot at the last local election and scored the "massive" 50% (yes, that's just half the population). This time they got just 40%. So much for increased voting as a justification.

 

But the most significant allegations are about coercion. The requirement was for a "witness" to sign the (to be separated) part of the ballot paper. now in general understanding in this country, getting a witness (for say a passport) involves someone you dont know too well or who is a responsible member of the community (like a judge!). There was limited explanation that the witness for voting could be anyone. Yes, thats anyone. having said that, there was also the problem that the witness had to put their own name and address down on the form. People not registered at a particular address (or still preferring agencies such as the council tax office not to know what their address is) would prefer not to declare this. Whatever the rights and wrongs or logic of this requirement, the reality is that established local figures (such as MPs, councillors, and community leaders - supporting particular MPs and councillors) were able to sign loads of forms on people's behalf. Don't tell me they didn't influence the way the people voted. Its like giving someone a lift to the polls (remember that way of working?). You could give someone a lift who then, perversely, told you they had voted for the other lot. but you didn't generally find that was the result.