Report on the 2024 UK Parliamentary general election and the May 2024 elections

Public confidence in elections is high

After each election we ask people who were eligible to vote for their views on voting and elections. This helps us understand if views have changed since the last comparable set of elections.

Most people continue to be confident that elections are well-run and are satisfied with registration and voting

Our research with the public found that:

• Most people (83%) said they were confident that the elections were well-run
• This was largely consistent across the UK (England 83%, Northern Ireland 85%, Wales 83%) although slightly lower in Scotland (79%)
• This also represents an increase since the 2019 UK general election when 69% of people in the UK said they were confident (England 69%, Northern Ireland 83%, Wales 71% and Scotland 72%)

Among the 10% of people who said they were not confident that the elections were well-run, the most common reasons given were the perceived unfairness of the voting system and a lack of information about candidates and/or parties. However, in Scotland, people were more likely than elsewhere in the UK, to refer to concerns around the timing of the election in a holiday period and issues with postal voting (both directly experienced and issues they heard about in the media).

Across the UK, there are also high levels of satisfaction with the two key processes of registering to vote and voting:

• 80% of people were satisfied with the system of registering to vote, very similar to the level recorded in 2019 (78%). As with overall confidence, there is little variation across UK nations (England 80%, Wales 81%, Scotland 79%), with the exception of Northern Ireland where 86% of people said they were satisfied
• 90% of voters were satisfied with the process of voting, consistent with 2019 when 93% of voters were satisfied. This is similar across the UK (England 90%, Wales 90%, Scotland 88%), although again higher in Northern Ireland (95%)

These generally positive perceptions of the poll are reflected in views on electoral fraud – 87% of people said that they thought voting in general was safe from fraud and abuse (England 86%, Scotland 90%, Wales 88%, and Northern Ireland 88%). This is a positive change from the 2019 general election when 72% said that they thought voting was safe from fraud and abuse.

Some groups of people are consistently less likely to have a positive view of the election

Despite high headline levels of confidence and satisfaction, there are differences along specific demographic lines, including age, social grade, disability and ethnicity.

Age is a dividing line:

• Older age groups are more likely to feel confident that the election was well run (86% of 65- to 74-year-olds and 87% of people aged 75 or over, compared to 75% of 18- to 24-year-olds)
• They are also more likely to say they are satisfied with the system of registering to vote (60% of those aged 75 or over said that they were ‘very satisfied’ with the registration system compared to 23% of 18- to 24-year-olds)
• Younger people are also less likely to believe that voting was safe from fraud or abuse (80% of 18- to 24-year-olds believe it was safe compared to 92% of people aged 65 or over)

People in different social grades show significant differences in attitudes:

• Among people in the C2DE social grade, confidence in the running of the poll was lower (79% confident it was well run compared to 87% of those in the ABC1 social grade) 
• Satisfaction with registration was also lower (83% were satisfied among ABC1s compared to 78% among C2DEs) 
• Those in the C2DE social group (83%) are also less likely to feel voting is safe from fraud compared to ABC1s (90%)

People from different ethnic backgrounds showed varying perceptions:

• Overall, people from ethnic minority backgrounds are less likely to feel voting is safe (82%) compared to white people (87%)
• Asian people are less likely to believe that the election was well run (79%) compared to White (84%) or Black people (89%) 
• Asian people are also less likely to be satisfied with the system of registering to vote (76% satisfied compared to 81% of White people and 87% of Black people)

Disabled people consistently have less positive views of the election:

• Among those who say they are ‘limited a lot’ by a disability or long-term health condition, levels of satisfaction with registering and voting (75% and 85% respectively) are lower compared to people without a disability (82% and 92% respectively) 
• Confidence in the running of the poll is also lower (78% of those ‘limited a lot’ by a disability or long-term health condition are confident compared to 85% of those without a disability) 
• We explore the experiences of disabled people and the measures in place to assist people to vote later in this report

Participation improves people’s perceptions of the election

Whether people voted in the election is sometimes linked to differences in attitude. Some of the groups above are less likely to vote, in particular younger people and people in the C2DE social grade. As always, voters are more likely than non-voters to think the election is well run (88% compared to 58%). They were also more likely to think voting was safe from fraud or abuse (90% compared to 72%).

The variations in attitude towards the election are not all explained by whether someone voted. There are still differences, albeit reduced, across the demographic groups. But higher levels of participation at future elections could improve levels of confidence and satisfaction.

Turnout fell significantly at this election

Turnout at the UK general election was 60.0%, down from 67.5% in 2019. This is the second lowest turnout at a UK general election since the introduction of universal suffrage in 1928, with only the 2001 election recording a lower turnout (59.4%).

Overall turnout at elections is steadily declining

At recent UK general elections, variations in turnout have been largely driven by political factors. This included the perceived importance of the poll and the level of competition implied by opinion polling ahead of the election. For example, the 2024 election was widely expected to not be as closely contested as the four elections between 2010 and 2019. All four of these elections had a higher turnout than in 2024.

However, of more concern, the last 25 years have seen a downward shift in levels of turnout. There is no indication that the trend is reversing.

Most people were able to vote using their preferred method

Across the UK, 94% of voters said they had voted using their preferred method whether that was in person, by post or using a proxy. There were no significant differences across the nations of the UK or by demographics. In-person voters were more likely to say that they voted using their preferred method (96%) compared to postal voters (91%), suggesting that some did choose to vote by post out of necessity.

We asked postal voters why they chose to vote by post and most (32%) said it was because they did not want to vote in person. However, some said it was because they did not have time to go to their polling station on 4 July (13%), were away on holiday (14%) or found it difficult to access or travel to their polling station (18%).

Voters found it easy to fill in their ballot papers

Nearly all voters at the UK general election (98%) felt that it was easy to fill in their ballot paper, which is consistent with our research from the May 2024 elections.

This is also supported by the levels of rejected ballots at these elections. At the 2024 general election, 0.4% of ballot papers were rejected, due to being completed incorrectly or left blank. In 2019, this was 0.36%.

The rejection rate in London for the 2024 Mayoral election was similar, at 0.5%, significantly lower than at previous mayoral elections. Following a change in the law, the First Past the Post voting system was used for the first time at this election. Prior to 2024, the London Mayor was elected with the Supplementary Vote system, which asked voters for first and second preference choices. In 2021, 4.3% of first preference mayoral votes were rejected in London and in 2016 1.9% were rejected.

Usually there are fewer rejected votes in First Past the Post elections compared to other systems which require voters to mark the ballot multiple times. However, the higher level of rejected votes in 2021 at the London Mayoral election was also due to issues with the design of the ballot paper and the high number of mayoral candidates.

Postal voters found it easy to complete their postal ballots

Most postal voters (96%) said it was easy to complete their postal ballot pack. There were no differences across the UK nations and limited variation by different demographics. The youngest voters, aged 18 to 24, were less likely to find it easy compared to those aged over 55, but 90% of 18- to 24-year-olds still said it was easy. Similarly, disabled people who said they are ‘limited a lot’ by a disability or health condition were less likely to say it was easy (93%) than people without a disability (98%), but perceptions were still very positive for all.

Data provided by Returning Officers on the proportion of postal votes rejected (where the personal identifiers of signature and date of birth cannot be verified) shows that levels of rejection are broadly similar to those recorded at previous polls. Overall, at the 2024 general election, 2.2% of returned postal votes (approximately 168,000 votes in total) were rejected and not able to be included in the count.

Returning Officers provided support to disabled voters, but awareness of its availability needs improvement

The Elections Act 2022 made changes to the support and equipment that Returning Officers can provide at the polling station to enable, or make it easier for, disabled people to vote independently and in secret.

There were also changes to who can be a ‘companion’. Anyone who is 18 or over can now go with a disabled voter to the polling station and, if requested by the voter, provide support. The companion does not need to be eligible to vote at the election, but they must still complete a declaration before providing help.

These changes first applied at the local elections in England and Northern Ireland in 2023. The Police and Crime Commissioner elections were the first time they applied in Wales. The UK general election was the first time they applied in Scotland.

We provide Returning Officers with guidance to support them in delivering the accessibility requirements. Ahead of the UK general election, the Convener of the Electoral Management Board (EMB) for Scotland also issued recommendations to support administrators in Scotland improve accessibility.

Returning Officers provided support to voters at polling stations

Following the elections, we asked electoral administrators and polling station staff for their feedback on the accessibility support they provided. We also asked them if voters made any specific requests for support or equipment to be provided, beyond that which the administrator had already put in place. Responses to our surveys were voluntary, so they are not a representative sample of all administrators’ views. Among the administrators who responded we found that:

• Over four-fifths (84%) found our guidance on assistance with voting for disabled people useful, with over half (62%) saying it was very useful 
• Almost all polling stations provided most items from the list of equipment that should be provided as a minimum, as set out in our guidance 
• Electoral data returned shows that there were only 117 requests overall for specific equipment

Returning Officers can consider local factors when determining what support and equipment to provide, and where administrators told us that the minimum equipment was not provided it was nearly always where the equipment was not needed. For example, some polling stations will not have parking available or may not require ramps.

Most of the equipment that was made available at polling stations was provided proactively. A small number of administrators said they went beyond the minimum list of equipment because of local knowledge. Additional support they provided included:

• Audio devices or QR codes to access the ballot paper in audio format 
• Braille reference ballot papers 
• Hearing loops 
• Coloured overlays

As in recent elections, voters in Northern Ireland could access a telephone helpline to listen to the list of candidates standing in their constituency.

There were a limited number of requests from voters for specific support or equipment to be provided to enable, or make it easier, for them to vote.

Administrators said that they could meet many of the requests for specific equipment, but that this was not possible in all cases. Where requests could not be met, this was sometimes a result of the request arriving too close to polling day.

“We had someone request audio devices around a week before the poll and we were unable to do this in time.”

Others, such as alternative formats of ballot papers on which to mark one’s vote, could not be provided at all. This was because ballot papers must follow the design and print specifications prescribed in legislation, and ballot papers used by postal and polling station voters must be the same in design and size.

“We were unable to meet a request to produce a ballot paper on different colour paper for a postal voter and the only reasonable adjustments that were acceptable to [them] would have required changing their method of voting from postal voting to proxy arrangements, which we were unable to assist with as the deadline for changing absent voting arrangements had already passed.”

Some administrators also noted that funding played a role in their decision making.

“There is no problem sourcing accessibility equipment but there is always a concern over how much of the cost will be reimbursed by [the Elections Claims Unit].”

Many administrators told us that they had tried to engage with local disability groups and civil society organisations. However, some indicated that they experienced issues doing so, because the unscheduled nature of the UK general election left limited time to undertake specific engagement. Others received mixed reactions to their attempts to engage. Where administrators were able to work with local groups, they reported this had been helpful in informing training and the assistance provided.

“Elections team had specialised training from hearing loss and vision impaired local charities. This was built into polling station training sessions.”

“We engaged with disability groups and have used feedback to provide assistance and also disabled staff network to get the [perspective] of colleagues also.”

Some noted that the extent to which training could cover accessibility measures was limited as a result of the number of other changes made by the Elections Act.

“We cover supporting those with disabilities in polling staff training. I would like to do more, but training, with all the new measures, now takes over two hours. There is only so much training and information you can provide to a member of staff who is only working one day, and may only do this once every few years.”

We asked polling station staff about their experiences. Among those who responded to our survey:

• The majority (93%) felt that they were well trained in supporting voters who needed additional assistance 
• Most felt confident that they would be able to assist disabled voters – including voters who are physically disabled (97%), blind or partially sighted (94%), deaf or have hearing loss (90%), or who have a learning disability (91%) 
• Over four-fifths (88%) felt that they would be confident assisting someone who needed to use a tactile voting device

In general, high numbers of polling station staff reported that the recommended minimum list of equipment was available in their polling station. However, despite many feeling that the equipment available was helpful, 14% of polling station staff reported that at least one disabled voter experienced issues either accessing the polling station or completing the ballot paper.

Awareness of the new accessibility measures should be improved

Our research with those who voted at the elections found that:

• Almost all adults (96%) who voted in person and told us that they have a disability or long-term health condition said that it was easy to get inside the polling station and vote. This was consistent across the UK (England 96%, Wales 96%, Scotland 97% and Northern Ireland 95%) 
• Voters who say that they are limited a lot by their disability or long-term health condition were more likely to say that they went to the polling station with another person who helped them to vote (14%) than voters overall (3%) 
• One-in-twenty of those voting in person with a disability or long-term health condition (5%) said that they needed additional assistance or equipment. Among this group, 74% said that they thought that the assistance or equipment they needed was available to them at the polling station (19% said no, 4% did not know and 3% preferred not to say)

We asked all those who have a disability or long-term health condition for their views on the experience of voting at the UK general election:

• 49% of voters agreed that the equipment, information and support that they need to vote is available, with 7% disagreeing 
• 47% felt that staff at polling stations are properly trained to assist them with voting, while 6% disagreed 
• 59% disagreed that the way elections are run at present prevents them from voting in person, with one in ten (9%) agreeing

Where respondents did not agree or disagree, they could choose one of the following options: neither agree or disagree, not applicable, don’t know, and prefer not to say. Reasons for choosing these options could be that they did not need to use equipment or support to vote, or it could be because they had not been made aware of its availability.

We also asked civil society organisations and the people they support for feedback on their experiences at this year’s elections, on the impact of voter ID and the new accessibility measures. The feedback provides a valuable insight into disabled people’s lived experiences, although the number of responses and self-selecting sample means that they are not representative of the views of all disabled people.

Most people who fed back found it easy to register and vote. However, many people were not aware of the assistance available to them at the polling station. This included the equipment that should be provided, as well as the help and support available from staff and companions.

“Until your survey, I was not aware that it was possible to have assistance in a polling station.”

“More can be done to publicise the different ways to vote and what help and accessibility aids are available at polling stations.”

In some cases, where they had requested equipment, voters felt that staff were not familiar with how to use it.

“[Polling station staff could improve by] knowing the products and how they work, so that they can explain them without saying ‘I'm not sure’ and ‘I think that is how it goes’. I had to tell the staff the difference between the large and small magnifier.”

In addition, some people raised concerns around:

• Information provided by parties and candidates not always being in an accessible format 
• The requirement to show photo ID and its impact on whether some respondents chose to vote at all or in person 
• Difficulties applying for and completing a postal vote
• Issues with physical access to the polling station

“I required a person to assist me when voting by post, as the information was not in an accessible format, combined with the fact that I would not know which box I would be ticking, due to my total lack of vision.”

“It would’ve been helpful if there [were] wider openings for the doors because I barely was able to fit through the door.”

Postal voting delays affected some people’s ability to vote, but overall turnout remained high

People who do not want to vote in person at the polling station can apply to vote by post or appoint a proxy to vote on their behalf. More than 1.3 million people applied to vote by post after the UK general election was announced, and this was the first UK general election at which people could apply online.

During the election, we received reports about some voters not receiving their postal ballot packs. These reports were primarily concentrated in Scotland, where polling day coincided with the summer holiday period, and in some areas of England. The reports were picked up by a wide range of media outlets.

Our analysis finds that there were no widespread, systemic issues with postal voting and that most people were satisfied with this method of voting. Across the UK, 89% of postal voters told us they were satisfied with the process of voting (95% in Northern Ireland, 91% in Wales, 89% in England and 85% in Scotland).

However, some voters did experience problems which stemmed from a number of issues including: 

• The timing of the election 
• The increase in absent vote applications close to the deadline (which could be done online for the first time) 
• A lack of public awareness of the timing of postal vote delivery and the availability of proxy voting
• The timetable for a UK general election (which is shorter than for other polls, such as Scottish Parliament elections) 
• Problems with print and software suppliers

The overall volume of postal voting was not a key issue. There has been a notable increase in the proportion of people registered for a postal vote since the 2019 UK general election – from 18% to 20%. The Covid-19 pandemic was a significant driver for postal voting, and high numbers voted by post at elections between 2021 and 2023. In Scotland, there were slightly more postal votes issued at the 2021 Scottish Parliament election (just over one million) than at the 2024 UK general election (just under one million).

Overseas voters continue to face barriers to participation

This was the first general election since the extension of the franchise to British and eligible Irish citizens living overseas for more than 15 years, removing the previous time limit.

More than 170,000 applications to register as an overseas voter were received between the introduction of this change on 16 January 2024 and the deadline for registering ahead of the general election. Around 110,000 of these applications came after the general election was announced on 22 May. The total number of overseas voters registered for the 2024 general election was 191,338.

This is fewer than the 234,000 registered to vote in the 2019 general election. We cannot survey a representative sample of overseas voters because there is no information on the total population. However, we did survey 500 UK citizens resident overseas via YouGov and found that awareness of the change in the franchise was low – only 26% said they knew about it.

Overseas voters continue to struggle to participate using existing voting options

As at other recent polls, overseas voters faced significant difficulties when trying to participate in the election. We highlighted evidence of these issues in our statutory reports on the 2015, 2017 and 2019 UK general elections, as well as following the 2016 EU referendum and the 2019 European Parliament election. However, we have more detailed evidence for this election about the scale of the problem.

Overseas voters can choose to vote by post, by proxy, or in person if they will be in the UK on polling day. As with domestic postal voters, electoral administrators had limited time to issue postal ballots and receive them back by the close of poll. In addition, following the extension of the franchise, determining overseas voters’ eligibility also took up a lot of administrators’ time. Timescales were also more challenging for overseas voters as it takes longer for a postal ballot pack to reach their country of residence and then be returned to the UK.

We do not have data on how many overseas voters voted by proxy. We do know that half (49%) of all registered overseas voters registered for a postal vote. Of these, only 52% returned their ballot paper in time to be counted in the general election. This means that around a quarter of all registered overseas voters were able to vote by post, without using a proxy.

The average return rate for domestic postal votes is around 80%.

Dispatch dates and destination country affected return rates for overseas postal votes

We do not have comprehensive data on the proportions of postal votes returned by either the date they were sent out or the country they were sent to. However, data from a small sample of local authorities shows some clear patterns.

Overseas voters who were sent their postal ballot packs in the first issues (from around 14 June) were more likely to return it before the close of poll. The chart below shows how return rates dropped for all batches following the first issue.

Continued abuse and intimidation risks weakening public debate

Campaigning is a vital part of the democratic process. It allows voters to hear different views and make informed decisions. Political views can be diverse, and at time divisive. Debate must be robust and open. But candidates must be able to campaign without feeling threatened.

After the elections in 2022 and 2023, our research highlighted that many candidates who responded to our survey reported experiencing some form of abuse or intimidation. As a result, we recommended that urgent action should be taken to address these problems.

In response to concerns about safety, a range of actors took steps to tackle abuse and intimidation in the run-up to the general election:

• For the first time, all candidates at the general election were offered basic security during the campaign. As part of Operation Bridger, they also had access to a dedicated, named, police contact in every force to raise concerns or threats against them
• The Committee on Standards in Public Life and Equality and Human Rights Commission called on parties and candidates to uphold standards of conduct and engage in respectful discourse
• We promoted a campaign free from abuse and intimidation. We worked with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland to publish updated guidance to candidates.

However, candidates and campaigners, and some electoral administrators, reported being subject to increased and unacceptable levels of abuse and intimidation online, on the campaign trail, at hustings, and at count venues. Ongoing international tensions in some cases led to an increase in antisemitic and Islamophobic abuse directed at candidates.

Many candidates continue to experience unacceptable levels of intimidation and harassment

After the general election, we asked candidates whether they had experienced any problem with harassment, intimidation, or threats:

• Over half (55%) of respondents felt that they had some kind of problem with harassment, intimidation, or abuse, rating their problem a two or above on a one to five scale 
• Just over one in 10 (13%) respondents said that they had a serious problem with abuse (a four or five out of five on the scale)

Some voters did not receive the information they needed from campaigners

Campaigners engaged with voters in a range of ways ahead of the elections and many felt able to get their views across effectively. However, voters did not always receive information that was accurate, reliable or accessible to them.

Some candidates struggled to communicate with voters

At a general election, candidates are entitled to free postage on an ‘election address’ (a leaflet) to voters in their constituency. The address must only include information relating to the election and is delivered by Royal Mail. There is a similar offering at mayoral elections, where candidates have an opportunity to tell voters about themselves and their policies in the mayoral booklet, which is produced by the local Returning Officer. For Police and Crime Commissioner elections, the Choose My PCC website collates information on candidates.

Candidates engaged with voters using a variety of methods. We found that:

• Social media was the most used method, chosen by 83% of respondents 
• Over three-quarters of candidates told us they used leaflets/newsletters/flyers (78%) and a free election address via Royal Mail (75%) 
• Over half of respondents said they went canvassing door-to-door and attended in-person meetings (both 59%
• Around four in 10 respondents said they used posters or billboards (44%) or websites/digital advertising (41%)

Just under one in ten (9%) said they used artificial intelligence (AI) during their campaign. AI was used for a range of tasks, such as drafting responses to emails from voters, summarising manifestoes for campaign materials, generating images, and data analysis (e.g. for targeting purposes).

Fewer than half (48%) of respondents agreed that they were able to effectively get their views across to voters during the campaign and 39% disagreed (12% said they neither agreed nor disagreed). Of those who disagreed, the most common reasons given were:

• Inequalities between big and small parties, and between parties and independents 
• Media bias or lack of media coverage
• Issues with the Royal Mail freepost scheme 
• Short timescale due to the snap election announcement

Most reasons are common themes at previous elections, but issues with Royal Mail have become more prominent among candidates at the general election.

Around three quarters of respondents sent out leaflets as part of their campaign, both using Royal Mail’s free election address (75%) and paying for postage themselves (78%). Around one in five who said they had difficulties getting their views across to voters mentioned the postal service in their reason (21%).

“Trying to communicate to over 70,000 people is beyond challenging. The Freepost is unreliable and often goes out before the postal votes.” - Male, England, 65-74

“The Royal Mail Freepost scheme was patchy and many voters did not receive theirs. As a disabled candidate I am at a distinct disadvantage as I am unable to knock on doors. A lot of voters remarked on this. I feel discriminated against as there is no extra money available to help me campaign effectively.” - Female, England, 45-54

“We must change the Mayor Booklet to a link only on a website where people can view. The cost of a hard copy booklet is a waste of public money.” - Electoral administrator, London

At the mayoral elections in May 2024, some concerns were raised about the mayoral booklet, such as:

• The cost and effectiveness of producing printed mayoral booklets 
• The burden on candidates in providing a statement, and on administrators editing them
• The inconsistent approach with PCC elections.

Any review of how printed candidate booklets are produced and distributed should consider how to ensure that options are accessible to all voters, including those who are digitally excluded.

Despite this, more traditional methods remain an effective way for candidates to communicate with the public. The most common ways people reported seeing information were:

• A leaflet or flyer from a candidate or political party (63%) 
• TV news (48%) 
• Social media (39%) 
• A news website (35%) 
• TV debates (35%) 
• Word of mouth (24%)

Our research with the public after the general election also found that:

• Most people thought it was easy to get information, including on voter ID (87% said it was easy), the different ways to vote, and the candidates and parties running for election (both 83%) 
• The public were more uncertain on how easy it was to get information on applying for a Voter Authority Certificate, with only 36% saying it was easy and 54% saying they did not know (10% said it was difficult)
• Over four in five (85%) agreed that there was enough information or coverage on the election, including voter ID (84%) and how to cast their vote (82%) 
• Just under three-quarters (72%) of people said they had enough information on candidates to make an informed decision.

Many people said they saw or heard misinformation during the election

Ahead of the general election, we published information and advice for voters on how to engage confidently with campaign material and to think critically about material they saw and heard. We called on all campaigners not to mislead voters and to consider how their campaign material would be received, particularly when using generative AI. We worked with other organisations, including regulators and social media companies, to help people understand how candidates, political parties and other organisations campaign for their vote.

Our post-election survey found that:

• Over half of people said they saw misleading or inaccurate information about political parties’ policies (61%) and candidates (52%) at the general election
• Fewer than one third (30%) saw misleading or inaccurate information about how the elections work
• Around a quarter (24%) saw or heard a deepfake photo, video or audio clip about the election
• Just over one in 10 (12% to 13%) people said they did not know whether they saw inaccurate or misleading information about policies, candidates or the elections,
• Almost one-fifth (18%) said they did not know if they had seen or heard a deepfake, suggesting there is perhaps confusion among the public about being able to identify this type of content

The most common response to seeing or hearing misleading content was to ignore it (64%). Around half (49%) of respondents said they took specific action, such as fact-checking or reporting this information in some way. Of these, only one in 10 (12%) said they reported it to the platform they saw it on.

Younger people were somewhat more likely to say they took action (57% of those aged 18 to 34, compared with 46% of those aged 55 to 64 and 48% of those aged 65 to 74).

Candidates found the digital imprints regime easy to comply with

The 2024 local elections and UK general election were the first large-scale electoral events, outside of Scotland, where imprints were required on some forms of digital campaign material. We first called for this change in 2003.

Imprints state who is responsible for publishing campaign material, providing transparency for voters about who is campaigning.

The Scottish Government introduced new requirements for imprints on digital campaign material for Scottish Parliamentary and local elections in December 2020. The rules were in force for the first time at the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections.

We provided statutory guidance explaining how the new digital imprints regime would operate, and met with parties, candidates and campaigners to inform them of this new requirement.

Responsibility for ensuring that digital material has a compliant imprint is split between us and the police, depending on the type of material. We received several complaints about potentially missing or non-compliant imprints during the elections. We communicated with parties, candidates and campaigners if a breach of the regime had been identified.

We did not see evidence of significant levels of non-compliance. Many of the complaints we received related to material that had a compliant imprint. Where we identified a breach, most campaigners responded to our advice and amended their imprints.

Most candidates who responded to our survey broadly agreed that they understood the requirements to include digital imprints (86%), and over two-thirds (69%) said it was easy to meet the requirement.

Our survey of SPOCs following this year’s elections said they experienced several issues relating to digital imprints. Some of these issues were because of the number of reports received, while others came from uncertainty about how to interpret the legislation when responding to reports.

SPOCs told us that they would like more information and guidance about digital imprints, including about the application to social media. But it appears that they were generally able to resolve the queries or complaints they received.

“We received a few imprint allegations where the material was not promoting a party or candidate but was just anti a particular candidate or party. There doesn't seem to be much information on [Authorised Professional Practice] or in the legislation about this. It says that the material has to be promoting a candidate or party but can also include campaigning against a candidate, but there is no further information about what campaigning against a candidate would look like and whether anybody can commit this offence. We were unsure whether this was actually an offence so had to seek advice from [the Electoral Commission].”

SPOCs gave more detail in their response to our 2024 local elections survey. The issues they shared were:

• Challenges determining which posts on social media constituted ‘election material’
• The complexity of the regime
• The division of responsibilities between the police and the Commission, which meant it was not always clear who to approach
• Character-limiting platforms making it difficult to include imprints within the post
• Understanding whether organic election material required an imprint
• The need to clarify whether imprints should be on every post, or on a home page/profile.

We are doing further work to evaluate the implementation of the regime. It will consider how campaigners complied with it and whether we can recommend changes that would improve transparency for voters.

Elections should be accessible to everyone

Parties published their manifestos in good time before the election, but not all were available in accessible formats, such as easy read or BSL, either at all or in good time. This can make it harder for some people to decide how to vote. This is an issue we have highlighted previously, yet political parties routinely fail to provide information about their policies in accessible formats.

Political parties should make sure accessible versions of their manifesto are published at the same time. Disabled people should have just as much time as anyone else to understand what the parties stand for.

Currently, disabled candidates cannot access financial support to stand as candidates at UK general elections. The UK Government provided some financial support in the past, such as the Access to Elected Office Fund, which ran between 2012 and 2015. This fund allowed disabled candidates to bid for funding for support, to ensure they were not disadvantaged due to the greater costs they may incur while campaigning due to their disability. The forms of support could have included items such as BSL interpreters, a personal assistant to assist with specific tasks, or taxi fares where no other suitable transport was available.

Equivalent funds are available for disabled people standing at devolved elections in Scotland and Wales. A similar scheme could be set up for reserved elections to remove barriers to candidates engaging in the democratic process, and to ensure voters can hear from a range of campaigners.

Some candidates presented new challenges to the system

Candidates who responded to our survey were broadly content with the process of becoming a candidate and participating in the election. They had high levels of confidence that the election was well-run, and that voting was generally safe from fraud and abuse.

However, some raised issues around collecting signatures. This was compounded in some areas by reported difficulties getting hold of the electoral register from local authorities. They also raised issues with the paper-based system of forms, which many complained was an outdated approach.

“It is the year 2024 and we are still having to mess about with paper forms – I am sure some of the forms could be electronic, or at the very least scanned and emailed into the council. Also, when it comes to signatures, it was only when I was collecting these for my candidate that I found out a couple of people weren't even registered to vote (they thought they were) – so that was beneficial for them as it meant they were able to make sure they were registered, but it meant I had to run around looking for more people to sign the nomination form. We don't need signatures for other elections, so I'm not sure why this still exists for UK elections.” - Male, Scotland, 35-44

Some candidates posed a challenge to administrators and risked confusing voters

During the election campaign, we received several reports of alleged fake candidates or multiple candidates with the same name standing in specific constituencies. In some cases, these nominations were intended to confuse or mislead voters, for example by seeking to impersonate a real candidate.

In one case, YouTuber Niko Omilana encouraged his followers to stand as a candidate under the name ‘Niko Omilana’ in at least 11 constituencies. It was unclear at the time – but subsequently established – whether, beyond the YouTuber himself, the other candidates had legally changed their name.

To stand for election a candidate must complete a set of nomination papers and sign a declaration of truth that the details they have provided are accurate. There is no requirement for a candidate to show ID as part of this, but it is an offence to provide a false statement on nomination papers, including to falsely confirm that they are not standing in another constituency. If a false statement was provided, the police have the power to investigate.

There are limited and specific grounds in the law for determining a nomination to be invalid. Under electoral law, Returning Officers must take the details provided in candidate nomination forms at face value, and accept the nomination if it meets the requirements. They do not have the power to investigate or research the information provided by the candidate.

However, some candidates may legally change their name. Others may be unaware of the rules and risk inadvertently breaking the law.

Pressures on the capacity and resilience of elections teams are increasing

The UK general election was challenging for several reasons. This included:

• Its timing
• The number of legislative changes being implemented for the first time at a high-profile UK-wide poll
• The implementation of the new parliamentary boundaries.

Additionally, at a general election, the law requires that Returning Officers must start the count within four hours of the close of poll. Those unable to do so must submit their reasons to us (see Appendix B).

Feedback from electoral administrators reflected concerns of increasing complexity of administering elections. Similarly, around four in ten polling station staff (43%) who responded to our survey and who had worked at previous UK general elections said that their experience was more difficult compared with previous polls.

Despite significant changes and challenges to delivery processes, the elections were delivered successfully. However, the capacity and resilience of the broader electoral system continues to be a key area of concern, especially with several, new, interconnected and complex changes layered onto an already stretched system.

Administrators had limited time to prepare for the UK general election

The UK general election had to take place before the end of January 2025. It was widely reported that it would take place in the second half of 2024. However, the exact date of the election was not known until the announcement on 22 May.

The election was called less than three weeks after elections in England and Wales had taken place. For those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, polling day (4 July) coincided with the start of the school summer holidays.

The timetable for UK general elections, and the lack of a fixed date, meant that elections teams only had 25 working days to prepare for and deliver the election. This included processing the over 2.8 million applications to register to vote received between 22 May and the registration deadline on 27 June.

New processes and legislative changes placed additional pressures on administrators

Since the Elections Act, election teams have been responsible for several new activities. These include:

• Processing Voter Authority Certificate and Anonymous Elector’s Document applications
• The issuing of temporary Voter Authority Certificates or Anonymous Elector’s Documents
• Providing equipment and support in polling stations
• Processing postal votes handed in at polling stations.

The general election was also the first time British and eligible Irish citizens, who were previously registered or resident in the UK and who have lived overseas for more than 15 years, were eligible to vote.

There was also an increase in the number of postal vote applications during the period before the application deadline compared to the last UK general election. This placed significant time and resource pressures on administrators, because they could not issue postal votes before the close of candidate nominations on 7 June. We cover postal voting in more detail earlier in this report.

Our survey of administrators asked respondents to rate on a one to five scale whether they had any issues with specific processes:

• Around nine in 10 (89%) told us they experienced at least some issues (rated as a two or above) with processing domestic absent vote applications (both online and offline)
• 95% said they had issues with overseas applications.

Processing overseas voter applications took up a lot of administrators’ time. Administrators responding to our survey reported multiple issues with voters not having the documentation to be able to register. There were fewer issues reported with more familiar processes, including domestic registration applications.

Duplicate and last-minute applications continue to be an issue. In some cases, administrators described the number received as ‘astronomical’ or ‘off the scale’. Our electoral data shows that 39% of register to vote applications in Great Britain received before the general election, were duplicates.

“We would often have more duplicates than new registrations taking up our time.”

There was a specific, additional challenge at the Greater London Authority (GLA) and London Mayoral elections in May, where votes were counted manually for the first time. They had previously been counted electronically since 2000. Although they managed to count manually without any problems, feedback from administrators highlighted the logistical and management challenge of manual counting over multiple days, including being able to find count staff and appropriate venues.

New constituency boundaries were an additional consideration for administrators

New constituency boundaries were in place for the first time at this general election. Some candidates contested new or changed seats. There were also new combinations of local authorities within different constituencies due to changes in constituency boundaries. Many of the cross-boundary arrangements which administrators had developed for the 2019 general election no longer applied and new ones had to be put in place within the limited time available. This included arrangements for sharing information and the production and supply of voting materials, such as the details to include on the notices of election.

Almost a quarter of administrators responding to our survey said that they did not experience any problems in managing the new parliamentary boundaries. The remaining three-quarters did experience at least some issues. Some highlighted specific problems with using different Electoral Management Systems (EMS) across local authorities.

“Cross boundaries was an added risk to the election given that our partner authority didn’t have the expertise to provide us with the information required on numerous areas without being asked and reminded.”

“Cross boundaries caused extreme problems with understanding and data management from colleagues. Extremely confusing for electors when applying for replacement postal votes which had to be collected in person from the take-on authority which is a considerable distance from the give-away authority. Cross boundaries impossible to explain to contact centre staff taking calls. All in all, I would say this was the biggest nightmare we had.”

Finding and retaining sufficient staff presented challenges

We received feedback from 47% of local authorities after the elections. Comments and views received from administrators show that finding and retaining staff remains a key concern.

When asked to indicate how much of a problem they had with recruiting staff, we found that:

• 90% of respondents experienced problems recruiting polling station staff, with one-in-eight (13%) experiencing significant issues 
• 93% of respondents said that they had experienced at least some issues retaining polling station staff between recruitment and polling day 
• Recruiting count staff was less of a problem, with a third (33%) of respondents saying that they had no issues

Comments from administrators highlighted that the increased complexity of the work, combined with the rate of pay offered, impacted their ability to recruit and retain staff. Others noted the difficulties created by the timing of the election during the holiday period in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

“The biggest single staffing issue remains the inability to recruit and retain Presiding Officers as their remit increases in amount and difficulty election on election, but their fees do not.”

“Difficulty in recruiting experienced staff due to the election taking place during Scottish school holidays.”

Administrators also highlighted how the requirement for the general election count to start within four hours of the close of poll affected recruitment and placed additional pressure on staff.

“Staff recruitment was a challenge as we couldn't use our polling staff.” 

“It feels as though we are being pressed for quick results and are criticised if we take too long to complete. When everyone has been working 12+ hours a day for the past few weeks, being clear-headed is not easy creating delays to decision making.” 

“For a lot of staff it is a 24 hour day and this is a concern.”

We are aware that at this year’s elections there were several errors which could have impacted the confidence levels of candidates, agents and voters in the effectiveness and integrity of the electoral process. This included two issues at the May polls and two at the UK general election, where we concluded that the Returning Officers did not meet elements of our performance standards. Of these, three related to the counting and the declaration of results:

• Incorrect result declaration made: at the May local elections in Maidstone, the Returning Officer read out the incorrect candidate due to an error on the results sheet for a parish council count
• Counting errors: at the general election in Wandsworth, an error was made when tallying the totals, with 6,558 votes not included in the declaration made on election night. Once added, these did not change the election result. In Richmond, also for the general election, a spreadsheet error led to the total number of votes for one candidate being under reported by 688 votes. The declared outcome did not change but it changed the results order.

The final issue occurred earlier in the electoral process:

• Polling districts swapped between wards: during the May local elections in Epping Forest, an error, discovered after polling, resulted in 1,394 voters in one ward being instructed to vote for candidates in another ward. Following agreement from candidates, the votes were subsequently counted and the result declared.

Since the elections, we have engaged with the Returning Officers and their teams to identify the cause of the issues to prevent similar problems from arising in the future. We will continue to support the Returning Officers as they implement the necessary improvements to processes to help ensure that voters, candidates and political parties can continue to have confidence in the delivery of election processes.

Administrators need to be able to rely on suppliers and systems

Elections are delivered through complex systems involving many different partners, including commercial suppliers. There are a limited number of suppliers and contractors who can provide services. Lack of capacity was a key concern for administrators. Administrators also raised concerns about the suitability of digital systems which they use to manage a range of election processes. This includes EMS systems as well as the Electoral Registration Officer Portal (EROP).

Throughout the election, we worked closely with electoral administrators, the UK Government, and key suppliers, including through the Electoral Coordination Advisory Board, to ensure any issues could be identified and, where possible, mitigated or resolved. In Wales and Scotland respectively, the Wales Electoral Coordination Board (WECB) and the EMB for Scotland went to great lengths to support the wider electoral community.

Electoral administrators raised concerns about the capacity and resilience of suppliers

Thanks to their exceptional efforts and commitment, electoral administrators were able to make the system work well to deliver both the May and July elections. On the whole, suppliers and contractors delivered as required, and there were no widespread, systemic problems with delivery.

However, administrators raised concerns around the capacity and resilience of their suppliers, especially given the tight timeframes and high volumes at the general election. During the election, we received reports of some localised issues with the delivery of postal votes, with software suppliers, and with ballot paper proofing and printing.

Administrators responding to our survey also reported experiencing some problems with suppliers and systems. This included with the ERO portal, EMS or print providers, and Royal Mail.

In some cases, these problems exacerbated the issues covered in this report, including the volume of applications and the administration of postal voting.

“Volume of applications and the inability to adequately manage applications within the portal caused inefficiency and added risk. Duplicate registration applications were significant. Short timetable and little notice of the election prevented appropriate planning. No management information available at the portal prevented effective tracking of workload and bottlenecks.”

“We had issues with post not arriving (mainly polling cards, some postal packs), the length of time items were taking in the post (incoming and outgoing), and postal votes going to the wrong authority.”

The resilience of the supplier market continues to pose considerable risks to the delivery of elections. Forums like the WECB or the EMB for Scotland can ensure mitigations and contingencies are put in place. But supply chain failure risks disrupting the entire system.