Report on the May 2023 local elections in Northern Ireland

People had high levels of satisfaction with the process of registering to vote and voting. Our research shows that:

• 86% of people were satisfied with the process of registering to vote – this is consistent with the levels of satisfaction reported by people after the 2019 local council elections (84%)
• 97% of voters were satisfied with the process of voting – this is broadly consistent with the 2019 local council elections (95%)
• 93% of people report being able to vote using their preferred method of voting – this is consistent with the 2022 Assembly elections (91%) 

When asked, four-in-five (80%) said they were confident that the elections were well-run. This is broadly consistent with the 2019 local council elections (75%).

The most chosen reasons for being confident were:

• it was quick and easy to vote (67%)
• the polling station was accessible and easy to get to (65%)
• a lack of negative experiences when taking part in the election (57%)

Only 8% said they were not confident that the elections were well-run and when we asked people why they were not confident, it was because of issues accessing information.

The most chosen reasons for not being confident were:

• a lack of information about the elections or candidates (28%)
• media, TV and press coverage was biased (27%)
• campaigns were based on incorrect or untrue claims (22%)

Confidence that the election was well run was lower amongst those limited a lot by a disability or health condition, with 72% saying they were confident the elections were well-run.  

Most people think voting is safe from fraud and abuse. Views about the safety of voting and whether electoral fraud is a problem were consistent with the 2022 Assembly election, with 84% of people saying they thought voting was safe from fraud and abuse. This was an improvement when compared with the last local council elections in 2019 where 77% of people said they thought voting was safe from fraud. 

When asked if they thought electoral fraud was a problem in Northern Ireland, 14% of people said they thought it was, which is a significant reduction from 35% at the last local council elections and 20% at the 2022 Assembly election.

The main reasons given by people who thought fraud had taken place was that they believed postal or proxy voting was not secure or that they had a general impression that fraud was a problem. 

The PSNI provide us with data on alleged cases of electoral fraud relating to offences under the Representation of the People Act. It has confirmed they have one allegation relating to irregularities on a nomination form that is under investigation. 

Overall turnout at the election was 54.7%, an increase of two percentage points on the last local council elections in 2019 (52.7%). 

The most common reasons given by people who told us they didn’t vote were:

• a lack of time or being too busy at work (15%)
• a lack of interest in, or being fed up with, politics (14%)
• being away on polling day (12%)
• medical reasons unrelated to Covid (11%)
   

At the 2023 Northern Ireland local council elections we ran a targeted campaign to raise awareness of the DRN, alongside our large-scale voter registration campaign, ‘Got 5?’. This campaign targeted those groups we knew were more likely to need a postal or proxy vote. The campaign directed voters to the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland’s website where they could request their DRN. It was supported by both partnership and public relations activity. 

Despite this campaign, awareness levels are low:

• 43% of people who registered online say they can’t remember receiving a DRN
• 56% of people would not be confident accessing their DRN  

In total there were 14,286 postal and proxy vote applications approved for the 2023 local council elections, with 7014 applications rejected. Of those rejected applications, 5,118 (73%) were rejected because there was no DRN. This is a significant increase from the 2022 Assembly election in which 3,636 applications were rejected because there was no DRN, which equated to 60% of all rejected applications.      

The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland received 8,700 requests for a DRN in the run up to the election, with 53% of those requests made in the last week before the absent vote deadline on 26 April 2023. This put a considerable administrative burden on the Electoral Office and created a significant challenge for staff to respond to requests for DRN in a timely manner.

It is clear from the rejection rates and low awareness levels that the DRN is acting as a barrier to voters, a view that has also been explicitly expressed to us by candidates, political parties, and electoral administrators.  

It is also unclear if the DRN is achieving its intended purpose as a security measure against potential fraud. The personal identifiers required to request your DRN are the same as those needed to apply for a postal or proxy vote, which in effect means voters are being asked to supply the same information twice. The DRN is not a requirement elsewhere in the UK. Even when changes to absent voting rules are introduced in Great Britain later this year to enhance the security of the process there, a DRN will not be used but instead voters will be asked to provide their National Insurance number to confirm their identity and protect against voter fraud. 

The Electoral Office has advised that it is reviewing its processes relating to the administration of the DRN and has run workshops with political parties to collect their views on how the process could be improved. While this is welcome it is unlikely that this alone will address the fundamental issues that the DRN causes for voters and the Electoral Office. Ultimately, only legislative change would be able to remove this barrier to voting. 

We published guidance for Returning Officers (ROs) to support them to implement the new accessibility arrangements, which ROs across the UK are required to consider. We consulted extensively on this guidance to ensure we could get wide input to help identify the measures that would help to improve the accessibility of polling stations.

The Chief Electoral Officer put in place a number of new initiatives to improve the accessibility of voting at the local council elections. These included making hearing loops available at polling stations and an online application process on the Electoral Office website where voters could make a request for additional adjustments or support to be put in place at their polling station. The Electoral Office once again ran a telephone service, in partnership with the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), to provide an audio solution for voters with visual impairments.  

Almost all adults who voted in person and told us that they have a disability or long-term health condition (94%) said that, once they arrived at their polling station, it was easy to get inside the building to vote.

Only a small proportion (2%) of in-person voters said that they had help filling in their ballot paper in the polling booth. Voters with a disability or long-term health condition were more likely to report needing help to vote, with most people getting help from their spouse/partner. 4% of in-person voters with a disability or long-term health condition said that they needed additional assistance or equipment to allow them to cast their vote independently and in secret. 

We asked those who have a disability or long-term health condition for their views on the experience of voting. 

• 49% agreed that they received the equipment, information and support that they need in order to vote (5% disagreed)
• 61% felt that staff at polling stations are properly trained to assist them with voting (9% disagreed)
• 60% disagreed with the fact that the way elections are run at present prevents them from voting in person, with 8% agreeing   

It is clear from feedback from the Chief Electoral Officer that awareness of the support available was low. This is supported by the fact that no requests were received through the new online application process where voters could request additional adjustments at polling stations. 

We will continue to work with the Chief Electoral Officer and civil society organisations to ensure disabled voters are aware of, and receive, the support they need to vote.  

When asked about how much of a problem candidates had with harassment, intimidation, or threats in this election, 50% of those who responded to our survey said they had a problem, with 6% reporting having a serious problem. 50% of candidates reported having no problem with harassment, intimidation or threats. 

The types of harassment most frequently experienced included:

• having campaign assets (such as posters) removed or destroyed (74%) or defaced (65%)
• someone intimidating or intentionally making you feel unsafe (41%)
• abuse posted on social media (26%) 

Women were more likely than men to have experienced harassment.   

The harassment most frequently came from members of the public (57%) and anonymous/unknown sources (40%). 17% was received from campaigners/volunteers and 13% from other candidates. 

When asked if they had avoided doing something as part of their campaign to keep themselves safe, 39% of respondents said that they avoided campaigning on their own and 19% avoided campaigning on social media. 

Almost 200 incidents were reported to the police relating to the elections. The vast majority of these (168) related to the theft, removal or damage of election posters. Other incidents reported related to intimidation, harassment or assault linked to campaigning.

Despite the significant number of reported incidents, it appears many more go unreported, with only 25% of candidates telling us they reported incidents that happened to them or they witnessed happening to others.

The Elections Act 2022 introduces a new electoral sanction for those found guilty of intimidating candidates, campaigners and elected representatives. This will come into force from 1 November 2023. This should strengthen the deterrent against intimidating behaviour by enabling someone to be banned from standing for elected office, as well as imposing criminal sanctions, such as a prison sentence or fine.

The UK Government has also recently committed to explicitly exempt reasonable security expenses from contributing to spending limits for parties and candidates at certain elections, to ensure that these limits are not a barrier to providing adequate security during election campaigns. 
 

A small number of complaints were received relating to the behaviour of campaigners in the vicinity of polling stations. 

Candidates responding to our survey said: 

The guidance to stay a distance from polling stations and not hand out sample ballots is widely ignored by some parties.

…area in which candidates and supporters are able to hand out leaflets at the polling station seems to change from election to election...

Campaigners are an essential element of a healthy democracy, and their right to put their arguments to voters should be supported and protected. It is equally important, however, that the activities of campaigners do not bring into question the integrity of the electoral process.

All political parties have agreed to a Code of Conduct for canvassing in the vicinity of polling stations, which provides a guide on what is considered acceptable behaviour. However, it has been some time since this Code was reviewed. Also, its scope is limited to campaigning in the vicinity of polling stations. Elsewhere in the UK, political parties have agreed to a code that also covers campaigning in the community in the run up to polling day. Upcoming Elections Act changes to the rules on postal and proxy voting provide an opportune time to review the scope of the Code in Northern Ireland. 

Single Transferable Vote (STV) election counts are historically long events, with most taking two days to complete, subject to how the votes fall.1 Improvements introduced to the verification and primary sort stages in 2016 and 2017 have supported the effective management of the early parts of the count. However, it is clear that improvements could be made to the latter stages of the count which could improve the efficiency of the process as a whole. The management of the adjudication of doubtful ballots and the decision making on the transfer and exclusion of ballot papers in some instances took a considerable time. 

In one instance, in the Waterside DEA of Derry and Strabane City Council, there was an error at the final stage of the count, which was confirmed by an election petition. The high court ordered a continuation of the count, with the redistribution of surplus votes from elected candidates. The continuation of the count took place on 9 August with the initial result remaining unchanged. 

Positive steps were taken to improve oversight of the count process, including through the establishment of a central hub by the Electoral Office, to which all 11 councils shared their count sheets digitally. This allowed the Chief Electoral Officer to see in real time what was happening and help identify any potential discrepancies. Nevertheless, the hub’s ability to provide oversight was limited by its reliance on a small number of people checking a selection of stages of the count across 11 councils. 

An increased use of technology could play an important role in improving efficiencies at the count and supporting the further development of an oversight mechanism for the Chief Electoral Officer. It could also mitigate against the risk of human error and potentially, in time, provide cost savings in the delivery of elections.