Results and turnout at the May 2017 England local elections

This report provides analysis on participation in and the administration of the local government elections in England, held on 4 May 2017. For this, data were collected from Returning Officers and Electoral Registration Officers. This comprised the Form K ‘Statement as to Postal Ballot Papers’ and an additional data form, specified by the Commission, which included data relating to electoral registration, turnout, absent voting and rejected ballots.

Local elections were scheduled in 27 counties and seven unitary and metropolitan authorities on 4 May 2017. There were also city mayoral elections in Doncaster and North Tyneside. In just four wards and divisions were candidates elected unopposed1 .

The elections gave 18.6 million registered electors the opportunity to vote2 ; 16.4 million in county councils, 2.0 million in unitary and metropolitan authorities, and 376,295 in city mayoral elections3 .

A total of 174,238 electors (0.9% of the electorate in contested wards) were added to the electoral register during the weeks leading up to the election. As a proportion of the electorate, this was highest in Shropshire where additions represented 2.0% of the electorate in contested wards, and lowest in Norfolk, where additions represented 0.5% of the electorate in contested wards.

A total of 204,845 applications to register were received in the weeks leading up to the election. Almost a quarter (22.3%) of these was recorded as duplicates4 .

In addition, 332,004 individuals applied to register to vote after the registration deadline. This is likely to be attributable to the announcement of the UK parliamentary general election which came after the deadline for registration for the council elections. Based on data from 155 local authorities, 1,288 individuals were recorded as trying to vote on election day despite not being registered5 .

Votes were cast at 16,977 polling stations as well as by post.
 

The measure of turnout referred to in this report, ‘ballot box turnout’, includes all valid votes cast (‘valid vote turnout’) and votes rejected at the count. Total turnout refers to valid votes cast, votes rejected at the count, and those rejected at the postal ballot verification stage before the count. Table 3.1 confirms that only a small fraction of the total votes cast are not valid

Table 3.1: Turnout 

Ballot box turnout was 35.1%, which is higher than turnout at the comparable stage in the electoral cycle in 2013, but still lower than turnout at the 2009 elections (39.3%), when European Parliament elections were held on the same day.

Turnout increased across all counties, unitary and metropolitan authorities, and city mayoral elections. At a division/ward level, turnout ranged from 18.1 in Tidworth, Wiltshire to 60.1 in Hexham West, Northumberland. In five divisions/wards, turnout was less than 20%.

Table 3.2: Ballot box turnout 2013 – 2017

The proportion of ballots rejected at official counts was 0.3%. This compares with 0.5% at the 2013 local elections. The rejection rate at unitary and metropolitan elections was higher than at county elections (0.5% compared with 0.2%).

Table 3.3: Proportion of ballots rejected at the count

In six county divisions, the rate of rejected ballots was more than 1%. Three of these were in county Cambridgeshire, where Combined Authority Mayoral elections were held on the same day. In unitary and metropolitan authorities, 32 wards had a rejection rate higher than 1%. One authority in Cornwall rejected 3.8% of ballots at the count.

The majority of rejected ballots (69.6%) were rejected due to being unmarked or wholly void for uncertainty. More than a quarter (26.5%) were rejected due to voting for more than one candidate. 

Table 3.4: Reasons for rejected ballots

The total number of postal votes issued for these elections was 3.1 million, representing 16.6% of all electors with a contested election in their division/ward. This compares with 14.9% at the 2013 local elections. 

At a division/ward level, electors registered for a postal vote ranged from 2.8% in University Parks, Oxford, to 39.2% in Cramlington South East, Northumberland.

Postal voting remains more common in unitary and metropolitan authorities. 19.5% of the electorate (384,079 electors) in unitary and metropolitan authorities were issued with a postal ballot paper compared with 16.2% in county districts (2.7 million electors).

At the City Mayoral elections in Doncaster and North Tyneside, more than a quarter of electors (26.0% or 98,001 electors) had a postal vote.

Table 4.1: Highest and lowest proportions of postal voters

Fewer than 10% postal voters 

The proportion of postal voters returning their ballot papers always exceeds the turnout among ‘in person’ voters. This year, 68.4% postal electors used their postal vote compared with 29.1% who turned up to vote in person6 .

Table 4.2: Postal vote vs in-person turnout

Postal votes accounted for 31.7% of all votes included at the count. This compares with 31.3% in 2013 and 22.7% in 2009.
 

Postal voting packs (PV) require voters to provide their signature and date of birth (DOB). These identifiers are then matched against those provided at the time of application. If the signature or date of birth is missing or does not match, the postal vote is rejected and is not included at the count. 

Since 2014, Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) have been required to notify electors if their postal vote has been rejected and give the reason(s) for rejection. They can also request the elector to provide an up-to-date signature.

Table 4.3: Rejected postal ballots

The total rate of rejection across elections was 2.3%, which represents a decrease from 3.1% in 2013 and 3.2% in 20097 . The overall fall in levels of rejected postal votes suggests that the new policy may be having a positive impact overall.

More than half (51.6%) of rejected ballots were rejected due to mismatched information. In almost a quarter of cases (24.6% and 23.8% respectively), postal ballots were rejected due to missing information, or because voters returned their postal voting envelopes but failed to include either the ballot paper itself or the verification statement or both.

Table 4.4: Reasons for postal vote statement rejection

These figures are percentages of the total, small number of rejected ballots. For example, although 51.6% of rejected postal votes were rejected due to mismatched information, this represents 1.1% of covering envelopes received and 0.4% of all votes cast. The vast majority of postal voters did cast their vote correctly.
 

A total of 22,029 electors appointed a proxy (0.1% of the electorate). This is consistent with levels in 2013 and 2009.

The number of emergency proxies issued was 641. This is more than nine times higher than in 2013, when emergency proxies were granted only on disability grounds resulting in 67 being issued. The provision has since been extended to occupation or military service.

A concession granted under the terms of the EAA 2006 was that postal electors who either had a disability, or were illiterate, or were unable to furnish a consistent signature could apply for a waiver to use their date of birth as their sole identifier. A total of 19,583 waivers were granted, representing 0.6% of postal electors. The proportion of postal electors granted such a waiver ranged from 0.3% in Doncaster to 1.3% in West Sussex.