Electoral registration in Great Britain in 2023

In 2023, we published our most recent accuracy and completeness study, which measures the quality of electoral registers across the UK. We found that in Great Britain, accuracy and completeness are both largely stable. The results of our previous studies are available here.

Our analysis of the 2023 annual canvass data supports these findings. The figures remain in line with what we have recorded in previous years, with clear patterns emerging:

• The approach to contacting some households is undermined by imperfections in the data matching process and/or the lag between matching and canvassing. Over a tenth of responses from households, where the data matching process suggested there had been no change in household composition, reported significant changes to electors’ details.
• Some canvass response rates suggests that necessary changes to electors’ details may not be reflected on the registers. One third of households (~2.5 million), where the data matching process suggested there had been a change in the household composition, did not respond to the canvass.

However, there was a change in the number of registered attainers, which increased compared to 2022 (3.23%): the first year-on-year increase since 2014. However, this is still far below the number of registered attainers in 2014 which began to decline after  the introduction of individual electoral registration (IER).

While we know that new registration applications are most readily driven by large scale electoral events, it is nevertheless important that the canvass and other registration activity during the year supports accurate and complete registers. This can help to reduce the large volumes of registration applications received immediately in advance of major polls, when EROs’ staff capacity is already stretched.

In 2020, new processes were introduced to make the annual canvass more efficient (see Background section for more detail on canvass processes). These processes involve comparing the electoral registers with other public datasets so that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) can identify households where residents’ details are most likely to have changed. EROs can then target their resources at these households (by assigning them to different ‘routes’ for follow up contacts). The 2023 canvass was the fourth using this approach. We continue to see no evidence of any significant negative impact on the quality of the registers as a result of these changes but, as we found in our accuracy and completeness research, there has also been no significant improvement.

To help ensure that all eligible voters can have their say at elections, the electoral registration system in Great Britain should be further modernised. This modernisation should involve making better use of public data, including recent transactional  data from other government services, so that registration is as easy as possible for voters.

Over 2024, we will continue to use the ERO performance standards framework to build on the work we have carried out with EROs in the past two years. We will support EROs to further develop and use key performance indicators to help them better understand and report on the impact of their activity. We will also once again ask EROs to complete a survey during the 2024 canvass, to help us build a picture of how the canvass is progressing, as well as supporting our engagement with individual EROs and their teams.

The reformed annual canvass may have exacerbated the decline in attainers seen from 2014 onwards, as the need to add an attainer to the register will not be identified through the data matching process. For example, many will have potential attainers but now receive fewer communications from EROs to encourage them to become registered. The different pattern in Scotland and Wales is likely to be connected to the extension of the devolved elections’ franchise to 16 and 17 year olds (and associated increased registration activity). This seems to be offsetting a systematic problem with the registration of attainers evident in England.  

Our latest accuracy and completeness study found that completeness remains lowest for attainers out of all of the age groups, and is continuing to decline. In Great Britain completeness for 16–17-year-olds has dropped from 45% in 2015, to 25% in 2018, to 16% in 2022.

Our engagement with EROs indicates that they recognise that their attainer numbers are falling, despite continued efforts to engage widely with education institutions and use education data to support this work. However, overall, a lack of staff capacity to support this work and issues with the accuracy of education data were common reasons given for not being able to do more in this area.

Despite the small increase in 2023, attainer registration is unlikely to significantly increase through the existing registration and canvass processes alone. This is an area where an assisted registration process could be beneficial. For example, data from the education sector could help EROs identify and target attainers and other young people. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) data could also potentially be used by EROs to assist young people to register to vote when they are allocated their National Insurance number ahead of their 16th birthday. HMRC does not hold all the data needed to register attainers, for example it does not hold nationality data. Nonetheless, HMRC data could be transferred to EROs who would then send invitations to register to attainers asking for the missing information needed to complete registration applications.  A detailed explanation of how National Insurance data could improve the registration of attainers can be found in our accuracy and completeness report.

Major and minor changes per route

The nature of the responses received can also give an indication of the efficacy of the reformed canvass process. Responding households can record a major change (e.g. reporting that a potential new elector is resident), a minor change (e.g. amending the name of an existing elector) or no change (i.e. confirming the existing details of household members). Understanding the distribution of these changes can tell us about the accuracy of the data matching process.

Of the 10.3 million responses received across all routes, 2.6 million households reported a major change. Table 11 describes how these major changes were distributed across the three routes. 

The pattern is broadly in line with 2020-2022, where approximately two thirds of major changes were reported by Route 2 households – i.e., where one would expect changes to be reported. As in previous years, a third (33.6%) of major changes relate to Route 1 households, where DWP and/or local data had indicated there should be no change needed.

As in the previous two years, of the 22.1 million households allocated to Route 1 (including those who did not respond to the canvass), the percentage reporting a major change (4.0%) is small. However, as Figure 3 shows, over a tenth (16.6%) of those Route 1 households who responded to the canvass reported a major change. Importantly for the quality of the registers, it is also unlikely that all the Route 1 households that needed to report a major change have done so – particularly as they would have received limited contact from the ERO. 

We do not have comparative data on the volume of major changes reported by households during the canvasses preceding the reforms. However, our accuracy and completeness results suggest that the 2020-23 canvasses are not out of line with historic figures.

This data suggests that either the data matching process does not accurately identify all properties where changes will be needed and/or there is an impact from the lag time between the matching and the canvassing taking place.
 

Canvassing households does not directly result in new registrations. When a household reports that a potential new elector is resident, that individual still needs to submit an application to be added to the register. Where a household reports that electors need to be removed from the registers, a second piece of evidence (e.g. locally held data) is needed before the ERO can confirm the deletion.

Entries need to be added to, and deleted from, the registers for several reasons including migration, home movement and deaths. The level of these additions and deletions provides insight into whether registration activity is keeping pace with population change. As population mobility varies across the country, so does the scale of the challenge faced by EROs.

As in 2020-22, Route 2 households account for the largest proportion of additions and deletions (see Table 12). However, a sizeable proportion (around 40%) of additions and deletions came from Route 1 households, whose composition was presumed to be unchanged. Again, this suggests either a degree of inaccuracy in the allocation of households to routes or an impact from population movement between matching and canvassing.

There is at least some population change not being picked up on the registers. Our accuracy and completeness research did not find evidence that the quality of the registers has declined since 2018 before the canvass was reformed, however as it also has not caused significant improvement, this is an area for attention.

Table 13 shows the levels of additions and deletions in recent years across the whole year, not just the canvass period. The percentage of additions and deletions in 2023 are stable compared to 2021 and 2022, which have been slightly lower than previous years. However, it usual to see more change in years with significant UK-wide electoral events, such as a general election or referendum (e.g. 2015 or 2019).

As set out in Table 14, we also expect to see a higher proportion of additions and deletions during the canvass period than outside in years where there is no UK-wide electoral event. This trend continued in 2023.

Table 15 below shows the proportion of additions and deletion recorded during the canvass period across the three nations of Great Britain. The proportion of additions and deletions during the canvass were highest in Wales (65.1% and 70.6% respectively), where there were no elections during the year. Additions were lowest in Scotland (61.2%) while deletions were lowest in England (65.2%).

Our analysis of the 2023 annual canvass data also shows that many households continue not to respond to the canvass, including where the data matching step has indicated that changes may be needed. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of different approaches to canvassing properties, including the design and messaging of canvass communications, to establish whether changes could be made that would likely improve response rates.

We will carry out further analysis of this data to better understand what factors may have the most significant impact on responses to canvass communications, particularly for those properties where data matching suggests that changes might need to be made. We will identify areas that appear to be outliers in terms of response rates, and use that information to prioritise our engagement with EROs and their teams ahead of the 2024 canvass. This will help us to identity further evidence about the impact of different approaches to contacting properties during the canvass. We will also consider whether changes may be needed to improve the design and usability of canvass communications, to help improve response rates. 

Electoral registration reform

While our most recent accuracy and completeness study did not find that there had been a decline in the quality of the registers, it also did not find evidence of improvement. The results of successive canvasses suggest that the accuracy and completeness of the registers are not likely to improve significantly without major changes to the current electoral registration system. 

We continue to recommend that governments should further reform electoral registration so that registering and updating address details is as easy as possible for people who aren’t correctly registered to vote, and managing electoral registration is more efficient for EROs. We highlighted in our accuracy and completeness report several innovations which could be delivered in practice within the current system of electoral registration in the UK:

Automatic registration would involve a data source organisation (DSO), such as a government department or a public sector organisation, providing EROs with recently updated data on the names and addresses of people who are eligible to register to vote. In cases where the DSO has all the data needed for a registration application and has verified a person’s identity, the ERO could add the individual to the register without that person needing to take any action. For example, HM Passport Office could share the data of those applying for passports whose identities it had verified. EROs would write to those individuals explaining that they are going to be placed on the register and give them the option of being registered as an anonymous elector if they have safety concerns about being registered as an ordinary elector.

Integrated registration would involve electoral registration being integrated within another public service transaction. At the end of a transaction, people would be asked whether they also want to register to vote. If they confirm that they do, relevant data would be transferred to a registration application. The individual would be provided with information about eligibility to vote and asked to confirm their eligibility. They would then provide any missing data, such as National Insurance Number, to complete the application. Some universities, such as Sheffield and Cardiff, already do this by including an electoral registration module into online student enrolment with those universities. Such an approach could be integrated into driving licence applications or updating address details with a government or public sector body.

Assisted registration would involve a government department or public sector body providing EROs with recently updated data about the names and addresses of people who may be eligible to vote. Assisted registration differs from automatic registration because the DSO would not have all the data needed for the ERO to automatically register an individual. Therefore, the ERO would need to write to those people explaining the eligibility criteria and inviting them to register if they are eligible. The invitation would ask them to provide any missing data needed to complete the application. For example, one option would be for HMRC to share data about those about to turn 16 with EROs. EROs would write to those young people inviting them to register either by completing a paper application form pre-populated with that data or developing a system that allows them to scan a QR that links to a pre-populated online form.    

Signposting registration would involve providing an individual with information about registering to vote during a transaction with, or communication from, an organisation or public body. This could include a prompt directing the individual to the UK Government’s Register to Vote website. This option could work in a number of scenarios, for example at the end of transaction when applying for a driving licence or passport or when updating their details with a government department, body or agency. It does not necessarily need to be limited to government or public sector bodies. We are currently exploring the possibility of working with the UK’s three tenancy deposit schemes to include signposting registration in their communications.