Public user testing of instructions for SV
ballot papers: Summary and
Recommendations
Background
1.1
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.
1.2
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.
1.3
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.
1.4
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.
1.5
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
1
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 paper1. This was to reflect a realistic voting situation and
to aid discussion in the interviews.
Those in Wales also completed a Regional ballot paper which uses the AMS system.
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.
1.8
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.
1.9
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.
1.10
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.
1.11
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.
1.12
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.
1.13
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
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.
1.14
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.
1.15
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.
1.16
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.
1.17
The research report is published on our website.
Recommendations
1.18
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
accept our recommendations.
Figure 1: The ballot paper used at the PCC elections in 2012
Figure 2: The current London mayoral ballot paper2
2
As revised by the Draft GLA Election Rules 2015
Figure 3: Our suggested amendment to the PCC ballot paper
Figure 4: Our suggested ammendment to the mayoral ballot paper
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).
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.