Some implications of postal voting
John Nicholson, RESPECT national Exec.
We in RESPECT need to consider something extra,
within our overall national co-ordinating approach to the Euro
elections. This is not only about recognising the differences between
individual regions (which is an issue in its own right, in terms of
emphasis and resourcing between these - especially where more
could/should be put because there is more likelihood of success). It is
also about the practical administrative issues raised by the compulsory
postal vote for the north (4 regions) as opposed to the south.
I am only just beginning to realise the possible importance of this
point. But,
if I understand it right (and the election offices for the northern
regions, if my discussions with the north west office is anything to go
by, are still trying to understand it for themselves!), the postal
ballots will be sent out some time in late May. It appears to be
generally believed that people will either fill in postal ballot papers
within the next day or so after delivery, or not fill them in at all
(with some exceptions, but not enough to be statistically worth keeping
electioneering momentum up, in terms of the simple act of people
voting).
This reduces the effectiveness of a region-wide leaflet, courtesy of the
post
office, more particularly in the northern regions, since the post office
will be under pressure to deliver all parties' envelopes, all marked
"election communication" on the outside, without any indication of whose
party they are, in the few days before the postal ballot papers are
delivered. Even if I thought that the post office would do this
successfully or comprehensively or on time (and the evidence of the last
Westminster general election suggests otherwise) I seriously doubt the
effectiveness of one envelope from us
amidst a number from other parties all arriving at the same time just
before (or if we are even less lucky, some time after) the postal ballot
itself. The time from delivery to waste paper bin will not be
substantial.
Taking the longer term view, as George raised at the February Exec,
which is about concentrating our energies on those areas where elections
should be fought in the next Westminster general election, I suggest
that it would be more appropriate, in those northern regions that felt
this to be effective, for resources to be spent on target (Westminster)
constituencies / council wards / towns and cities, rather than for all
the funds to be deployed in one possibly abortive leaflet drop across
the whole region, regardless of the post office facility that is made
available by this.
In other words, I am suggesting a national strategy that recognises the
difference between the postal vote / non-postal vote regions and
considers a targeted approach within those regions where it may be more
effective. I do not believe that a national strategy has to mean doing
the same thing everywhere, nationally, and in terms of funds available,
it makes more sense to maximise resources where they would be most
effective, both within and
between regions, and not necessarily spending money on the same leaflet
through every letter box everywhere.
What do you think? Comments would be appreciated - especially from the
northern regions.
April 2004