‘Next Generation’ Thinking Presented by Simon Verdon, Managing Director
www.democracycounts.co.uk Executive Summary
• 52.3% turnout is higher than that in recent council elections and by-elections and 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections • A third of voters chose to vote by post and 10.5% by phone. The low take-up of phone voting could be due to concerns over voter confidentiality • 37.9% of attainers cast their vote and this group was the most likely to vote online • Significant difference in turnout generally and that of attainers across the wards • Positive relationship demonstrated between both income and educational attainment levels within wards and ward turnout. • Turnout also lower in postcodes where the number of young people was higher • Take-up of online voting was higher in postcodes where either incomes were higher or there are more young people indicating that younger people have a higher affinity and trust in the technology and that perhaps some individuals cannot vote online due to the lack of access associated with low incomes
www.democracycounts.co.uk Executive Summary • Attainers were more likely to have voted in the last 3 days. They were also more likely than non-attainers to vote later in the day – particularly between 6 and 10pm. • The votes of online voters peaked between 12pm and 10pm whilst those of phone voters peaked between 10am and 6pm • When comparing votes cast by online and phone voters there was little difference in there preference for retaining the current garden or the City garden option • Similarly there was little difference in preference between attainers and non- attainers voting online or by phone • There was more difference in preference of individuals across the wards • Overwhelming majority found online voting service easy to use and voter pack easy to understand • 7.7% would have liked more information – Provision of enough unbiased, comprehensive and plain English information was a concern for these voters who complained that they did not understand the information presented, felt it was biased or misleading in some way or simply did not feel there was enough information on which to base a decision
www.democracycounts.co.uk
Conclusions • Investigate relatively low take-up of phone voting and possible link to concerns over confidentiality • Look to increase voter engagement in wards where turnout was low – particularly in light of links to income and education levels. It was identified that even in low turnout wards voter turnout had increased relative to previous elections and given the high take-up of internet voting in some of these wards online activity may be a useful tool in future to encourage voter turnout amongst the previously disenfranchised • Attainers have different voting patterns to older voters – voting later in the day and more likely to vote in last few days. Therefore the provision of 2 week voting window and 24hr voting may have combined to increase turnout relative to elections run in the traditional manner. Increased use of reminders and prompts may in future also help raise turnout levels. • Provision of enough unbiased, comprehensive and plain English information is a vital step in encouraging voters to feel both engaged with the voting process and that they are able to make a choice between options and therefore ultimately to cast their vote www.democracycounts.co.uk
Results Overview
www.democracycounts.co.uk Referendum Turnout
Yes, 52.3%
No, 47.7%
The turnout at 52.3% was lower than for the parliamentary elections in 2010 but significantly Voted? Electors Elector % higher than the 29% turnout from local council Yes 86,773 52.3% by-elections in 2011 and the 44-47% turnout of No 79,059 47.7% the Scottish Parliamentary elections in the Total 165,832 100.0% Aberdeen Central and Donside constituencies www.democracycounts.co.uk Voting Channel Post, 56.4%
Internet, 33.0%
Phone, 10.5% Voting Method Electors Elector % A third of voters – almost 29,000 - took Post 48,969 56.4% advantage of the online voting system to make their choice. Only 10.5% decided to vote by Internet 28,666 33.0% phone – perhaps as a results of worries over the Phone 9,138 10.5% confidentiality of their vote if they believed they Grand Total 86,773 100.0% would have to give this to a call centre operative? www.democracycounts.co.uk Voting: Turnout
www.democracycounts.co.uk Summary • Huge differences in turnout across the 13 council wards – with Hazlehead having the highest turnout at 62.9% and Tillydrone the lowest at 34%. This could indicate either that voters in some wards were less interested in the referendum subject or that they are generally less enfranchised. • An uplift in turnout over the results from the local elections in 2007 was experienced in all wards. The uplift was highest at 21.3% in the George Street ward. • Non-attainers were 38% more likely to vote than attainers. However the turnout for attainers – a group traditionally seen as disenfranchised – was still significantly higher than the overall turnout for recent council by-elections • There were significant differences in attainer turnout across the wards. Tillydrone had the lowest at 19% and Kingswells the highest at 48.4% • Higher the level of income deprivation within a ward the lower the voter turnout – similar results were found when comparing turnout with the level of employment deprivation • Positive relationship between educational achievement and likelihood to vote. The higher the mean educational attainment score within a ward the higher the voter turnout • General trend that voters in the least affluent areas or where there are a higher proportion of singles and students are less likely to vote www.democracycounts.co.uk
Turnout by Ward Hazlehead/Ashley/Queens Cross 62.9%
Lower Deeside 62.3%
Airyhall/Broomhill/Garthdee 62.1%
Bridge of Don 60.4%
Dyce/Bucksburn/Danestone 56.2%
Kincorth/Loirston 54.9%
Kingswells/Sheddocksley 53.8%
Midstocket/Rosemount 52.4%
Hilton/Stockethill 51.4%
Torry/Ferryhill 48.7%
Northfield 46.4%
George St/Harbour 35.5%
Tillydrone/Seaton/Old Aberdeen 34.0%
There were huge differences in turnout across the 13 council wards – with Hazlehead having the highest turnout at 62.9% and Tillydrone the lowest at 34%. This could indicate either that voters in some wards were less interested in the referendum subject or that they are generally less enfranchised. www.democracycounts.co.uk Turnout by Ward 10,000 25%
9,000
8,000 20%
7,000
6,000 15%
5,000
Turnout 4,000 10%
3,000 Turnout Uplift on 2007 on Uplift Turnout
2,000 5%
1,000
0 0%
2007 Elections Non Attainers Voting Turnout Uplift
An uplift in turnout over the results from the local elections in 2007 was experienced in all wards. The uplift was highest at 21.3% in the George Street ward. Although this ward had one of the lowest turnouts overall, relative to previous elections, substantially more voters in this ward were encouraged to vote – one important factor here, as we shall see later, is that voters in this ward were the most likely to cast their vote online www.democracycounts.co.uk Turnout for Attainers
Attainer 37.9% 62.1%
Attainer Flag Attainer
Non Attainer 52.5% 47.5%
% of Electorate who cast their vote Yes No
Non-attainers were 38% more likely to vote than Attainer Flag Yes No Grand Total attainers. However the turnout for attainers – a group traditionally seen as disenfranchised – was Yes 744 1,218 1,962 still significantly higher than the overall turnout No 86,029 77,841 163,870 for recent council by-elections Total 86,773 79,059 165,832 Turnout by Ward: Attainers
60% 100%
90%
50%
80%
70% Attainer 40% 60%
30% 50%
as as ofNon %
Turnout by Ward by Turnout
40% Tunrout 20%
30% Attainer
20% Attainer 10% 10%
0% 0%
Dyce..
Torry..
Hilton..
Airyhall..
Kincorth..
Northfield
Kingswells.
George St.. George
Tillydrone..
Hazlehead..
Midstocket..
Bridge of Donof Bridge Lower Deeside Lower Attainer Turnout Attainer Turnout as % of 18+ Turnout There were significant differences in attainer turnout across the wards. Tillydrone had the lowest at 19% (only 54% of the non attainer turnout in the ward) and Kingswells the highest at 48.4% (89.8% of the turnout % for non-attainers). Some wards therefore require intervention to increase the level of participation of the young – in particular Tillydrone, George Street, Hilton and Northfield www.democracycounts.co.uk Turnout by level of Income Deprivation 25
20
15
10
% Income Deprived in Ward in Deprived Income % 5
0 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% Ward Turnout %
Chart indicates that the higher the level of income deprivation within a ward the lower the voter turnout – similar results were found when comparing turnout with the level of employment deprivation www.democracycounts.co.uk Turnout by Educational Attainment 260
240
220
200
180
160
Average Tariff Score 2009 Score Tariff Average 140
120
100 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% Ward % Turnout
Chart indicates a positive relationship between educational achievement and likelihood to vote. The higher the mean educational attainment score within a ward the higher the voter turnout www.democracycounts.co.uk Ward Turnout
Turnout - Non % Employment % Income Mean Tariff Ward Attainers Deprived 2008 * Deprived + Score 2009 Airyhall/Broomhill/Garthdee 62.2% 6 8 201 Bridge of Don 60.7% 4 4 176 Dyce/Bucksburn/Danestone 56.4% 6 7 173 George St/Harbour 35.6% 8 12 165 Hazlehead/Ashley/Queens Cross 63.1% 4 4 245 Hilton/Stockethill 51.5% 14 17 157 Kincorth/Loirston 55.1% 7 9 174 Kingswells/Sheddocksley 53.9% 10 12 158 Lower Deeside 62.7% 4 4 236 Midstocket/Rosemount 52.5% 8 9 213 Northfield 46.6% 17 23 127 Tillydrone/Seaton/Old Aberdeen 34.3% 13 18 142 Torry/Ferryhill 48.8% 12 16 148
* % of the working age population who are on the unemployment claimant count, are in receipt of Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance or are Compulsory New Deal participants + % of people in recent of certain means tested benefits www.democracycounts.co.uk Turnout by Cameo UK Group
Affluent Singles & Couples In Exclusive Urban Neighbourhoods 96
Wealthy Neighbourhoods Nearing & Enjoying Retirement 190
Affluent Home Owning Couples & Families In Large Houses 105
Suburban Homeowners In Smaller Private Family Homes 138
Comfortable Mixed Tenure Neighbourhoods 116
Less Affluent Family Neighbourhoods 101
Less Affluent Singles & Students In Urban Areas 52
Poorer White & Blue Collar Workers 129
Poorer Family & Single Parent Households 88
Poorer Council Tenants Including Many Single Parents 80
Communal Establishments In Mixed Neighbourhoods 53
General trend that voters in the least affluent areas or where there are a higher proportion of singles and students are less likely to vote www.democracycounts.co.uk Turnout by Cameo Income
Many Households With An Income Over £100K 118
Many Households With An Income Between £75 - £100K 182
Many Households With An Income Between £50 - £75K 159
Many Households With An Income Between £40 - £50K 166
Many Households With An Income Between £30 - £40K 148
Many Households With An Income Between £20 - £30K 122
Many Households With An Income Between £10 - £20K 78
Many Households With An Income Less Than £10K 76
Communal Establishments In Mixed Neighbourhoods 53
Again we see that voters living in postcodes where the majority of household are on low incomes were significantly less likely to vote www.democracycounts.co.uk Voting Method
www.democracycounts.co.uk Summary • The % of voters choosing to vote by phone varied little by ward. However take-up of online voting was significantly higher in some wards than others. • Attainers were 40% more likely to vote online than non-attainers – perhaps indicating the stronger affinity and trust of the young in new technology. There was little difference in the % voting by phone. • Online voting was at its highest in postcodes where either incomes were high or there is a high proportion of younger voters. • As household income falls the % of voters casting their vote online also falls. The % voting by phone remained fairly static whilst the proportion voting by post increased substantially as incomes fall.
www.democracycounts.co.uk Channel Preference by Ward
George St/Harbour 41.6% 7.8% 50.6%
Hazlehead/Ashley/Queens Cross 40.5% 11.9% 47.6%
Lower Deeside 40.0% 10.0% 50.0%
Midstocket/Rosemount 39.5% 9.4% 51.1%
Airyhall/Broomhill/Garthdee 35.3% 11.5% 53.2%
Torry/Ferryhill 34.2% 9.8% 56.0%
Bridge of Don 33.0% 11.2% 55.8%
Tillydrone/Seaton/Old Aberdeen 30.5% 8.2% 61.3%
Dyce/Bucksburn/Danestone 29.1% 10.7% 60.2%
Kincorth/Loirston 28.8% 11.1% 60.2%
Kingswells/Sheddocksley 27.4% 11.1% 61.4%
Hilton/Stockethill 25.6% 11.2% 63.2%
Northfield 19.6% 11.1% 69.3%
Internet Phone Post
The % of voters choosing to vote by phone varied little by ward. However take-up of online voting was significantly higher in some wards than others. 41.5% of voters in the George Street ward, for example, chose to vote online compared to only 19.5% in Northfield. www.democracycounts.co.uk Channel Preference by Attainer Status
Attainer 46.2% 8.1% 45.7%
Non Attainer 32.9% 10.6% 56.5%
Internet Phone Post
Attainers were 40% more likely to vote online than non-attainers – perhaps indicating the stronger affinity and trust of the young in new technology. There was little difference in the % voting by phone. www.democracycounts.co.uk Channel Preference by Cameo Group
Affluent Singles & Couples In Exclusive Urban 40.0% 9.8% 50.2% Neighbourhoods
Wealthy Neighbourhoods Nearing & Enjoying Retirement 37.7% 10.9% 51.4%
Affluent Home Owning Couples & Families In Large 36.8% 14.1% 49.1% Houses
Suburban Homeowners In Smaller Private Family Homes 33.1% 12.9% 54.0%
Comfortable Mixed Tenure Neighbourhoods 35.7% 10.9% 53.4%
Less Affluent Family Neighbourhoods 23.9% 13.5% 62.5%
Less Affluent Singles & Students In Urban Areas 44.7% 7.9% 47.4%
Poorer White & Blue Collar Workers 13.5% 10.5% 76.0%
Poorer Family & Single Parent Households 25.1% 10.6% 64.4%
Poorer Council Tenants Including Many Single Parents 19.4% 9.8% 70.7% Internet Phone Post
Online voting was at its highest in postcodes where either incomes were high or there is a high proportion of younger voters. www.democracycounts.co.uk Channel Preference by Cameo Income
Over £100K 44.2% 7.7% 48.1%
£75 - £100K 40.5% 11.0% 48.4%
£50 - £75K 46.0% 11.1% 42.9%
£40 - £50K 44.1% 11.1% 44.9%
£30 - £40K 41.6% 10.9% 47.6%
£20 - £30K 36.4% 11.3% 52.3%
£10 - £20K 26.2% 10.3% 63.5%
Less Than £10K 17.8% 9.5% 72.7%
Internet Phone Post
Substantiating the results of the previous slide, we can see that as household income falls the % of voters casting their vote online also falls. The % voting by phone remained fairly static whilst the proportion voting by post increased substantially as incomes fall. www.democracycounts.co.uk Voting: Date & Time
www.democracycounts.co.uk Summary • Looking at votes cast by phone and online only: – Phone voters were more likely than online voters to vote on day 1 whilst a higher % of online voters cast their vote toward the end of the ballot period – Attainers were more likely than non-attainers to have voted in the last 3 days – The time profile of votes cast by phone and online differed with phone votes peaking between 10 am and 6pm and online votes between 12pm and 10pm. – The time profile of votes cast by attainers and non-attainers differed with attainer votes peaking between 2pm and midnight and non-attainers more evenly spread between 8am and midnight
www.democracycounts.co.uk Profile of votes cast
25% by date
20%
15%
10% % of votes cast votes of %
5%
0%
25/02/2012 01/03/2012 17/02/2012 18/02/2012 19/02/2012 20/02/2012 21/02/2012 22/02/2012 23/02/2012 24/02/2012 26/02/2012 27/02/2012 28/02/2012 29/02/2012 Internet Phone
Phone voters were more likely than online voters to vote on day 1 whilst a higher % of online voters cast their vote toward the end of the ballot period www.democracycounts.co.uk Voting Dates: Attainer Status
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
% of votes cast votes of % 6%
4%
2%
0%
17/02/2012 18/02/2012 19/02/2012 20/02/2012 21/02/2012 22/02/2012 23/02/2012 24/02/2012 25/02/2012 26/02/2012 27/02/2012 28/02/2012 29/02/2012 01/03/2012
Non Attainer Attainer
Voting Date Looking at votes cast by phone and online only, attainers were more likely than non-attainers to have voted in the last 3 days www.democracycounts.co.uk Profile of voting times 00:00 - 01:50 18% 22:00 - 23:59 16% 00:20 - 03:59 14% 12% 10% 20:00 - 21:59 00:40 - 05:59 8% 6% 4% 2% Internet 18:00 - 19:59 0% 06:00 - 07:59 Phone
The time profile of votes cast by 16:00 - 17:79 08:00 - 09:59 phone and online differed with phone votes peaking between 10 am and 6pm and online votes between 12pm and 10pm. 14:00 - 15:59 10:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 13:59
www.democracycounts.co.uk Voting Time: Attainer Status 00:00-01:59 20% 22:00-23:59 18% 02:00-03:59 16% 14% 12% 20:00-21:59 10% 04:00-05:59 8% 6% 4% 2% Non Attainer 18:00-19:59 0% 06:00-07:59
Attainer
The time profile of votes cast by 16:00-17:59 08:00-0959 attainers and non-attainers differed with attainer votes peaking between 2pm and 14:00-15:59 10:00-11:59 midnight and non-attainers more evenly spread between 8am and 12:00-13:59 midnight www.democracycounts.co.uk Voting: Outcomes
www.democracycounts.co.uk Summary • Looking at votes cast by phone and online only: – There was little difference in the preferences of phone and internet voters to retain the current gardens or move to a new City Garden design – There was little difference in the preferences of attainers and non-attainers to either retain the current gardens or move to a new City Garden design – Amongst phone and internet voters there were differences in the voting outcome with voters in Tillydrone and Hilton, for example, split fairly evenly between those who wish to retain the gardens in their current form and those who wish to see them converted to the new City Garden design whilst around 60% of voters in Hazlehead and Kingswells preferred the City Garden option
www.democracycounts.co.uk Outcome: Voting Method (phone and internet voters only)
Phone 44.5% 55.5%
Voting Method Voting
Internet 42.7% 57.3%
Retain City Gardens
There was little difference in the preferences of phone and internet voters to retain the current gardens or move to a new City Garden design www.democracycounts.co.uk Outcome: Attainer Status (phone and internet voters only)
Attainer 41.6% 58.4%
Non Attainer 43.2% 56.8%
Retain City Gardens
There was little difference in the preferences of attainers and non-attainers to either retain the current gardens or move to a new City Garden design www.democracycounts.co.uk Outcome: Ward (phone and internet voters only) Tillydrone.. 48.2% 51.8% Hilton.. 47.3% 52.7% Midstocket.. 47.1% 52.9% George St.. 46.3% 53.7% Northfield 45.7% 54.3% Torry... 44.6% 55.4% Airyhall.. 44.1% 55.9% Kincorth.. 43.4% 56.6% Dyce.. 43.2% 56.8% Lower Deeside 40.4% 59.6% Bridge of Don 40.3% 59.7% Kingswells.. 39.1% 60.9% Hazlehead.. 38.8% 61.2%
Retain City Gardens
Amongst phone and internet voters there were differences in the voting outcome with voters in Tillydrone and Hilton, for example, split fairly evenly between those who wish to retain the gardens in their current form and those who wish to see them converted to the new City Garden design whilst around 60% of voters in Hazlehead and Kingswells preferred the City Garden option www.democracycounts.co.uk Voting: Internet Comments
www.democracycounts.co.uk Summary • Looking at votes cast online only: – The overwhelming majority of online voters found the voting letter clear and easy to understand and the voting service easy to use. – 7.7% of online voters, however, would have liked more information in order to have made their decision. – Online voters who cast their vote in the last 3 days were more than twice as likely to state they did not have enough information on which to make their decision – this difference was apparent amongst both those who voted to retain the current gardens and those who preferred the City Garden option. – Amongst those who wanted more information and who left a comment to that effect, the most common requirement was for more financial information concerning the City Garden design. Many voters were concerned that there had not been enough balanced information provided from all interested parties and that it had been biased toward one side or the other whilst others felt they needed more information and pictures of the design itself or just more information in general – Those who voted to retain the garden were more likely to want more financial information concerning the City Garden plans whilst those who preferred the City Garden option wanted more information about the design/plans or were concerned that information presented had been biased toward one or other option. www.democracycounts.co.uk
Voting Process Questions (Internet voters only)
Do you feel that you received enough information to allow you to 92.3% 7.7% make your decision
Was the voting Letter clear and 98.8% 1.2% easy to understand?
Did you find the voting service easy 98.3% 1.7% to use?
Yes No
The overwhelming majority of online voters found the voting letter clear and easy to understand and the voting service easy to use. 7.7% of online voters, however, would have liked more information in order to have made their decision. www.democracycounts.co.uk Information Provision v Voting Date
Early 94.9% 5.1%
Mid 92.5% 7.5%
Late 87.7% 12.3%
Yes No
Online voters who cast their vote in the last 3 days were more than twice as likely to state they did not have enough information on which to make their decision – this difference was apparent amongst both those who voted to retain the current gardens and those who preferred the City Garden option. www.democracycounts.co.uk Extra Info Required?
Costs/ Financing/Business Case 33.8%
Balance of info from all interested parties 21.6%
Design/Plans 18.5%
Generally not enough detail - more facts not opinions 16.7%
More information on alternative designs 5.2%
Design selection process 4.5%
Timescalesfor redevelopment 3.1%
Who will maintain the gardens 3.1%
Who will own the gardens 2.8%
What if gardens are retained? 1.7%
Effect on surrounding areas 1.0%
Amongst those who wanted more information and who left a comment to that effect, the most common requirement was for more financial information concerning the City Garden design. Many voters were concerned that there had not been enough balanced information provided from all interested parties and that it had been biased toward one side or the other and others felt they needed more information and pictures of the design itself or just more information in general www.democracycounts.co.uk Extra Info Required?
Costs/ Financing/Business Case 39.9% 26.4%
Balance of info from all interested parties 19.0% 24.8%
Generally not enough detail - more facts not opinions 18.4% 14.7%
Design/Plans 14.6% 23.3%
More information on alternative designs 6.3% 3.9%
Who will maintain the gardens 3.8% Retain City Garden 2.3%
Design selection process 3.8% 5.4% Those who voted to retain the garden Who will own the gardens 3.2% 2.3% were more likely to want more financial information concerning the What if gardens are retained? 1.9% 1.6% City Garden plans whilst those who preferred the City Garden option Timescalesfor redevelopment 1.9% 4.7% wanted more information about the design/plans or were concerned that Effect on surrounding areas 1.9% 0.0% information presented had been biased toward one or other option. www.democracycounts.co.uk