Appendix 4

Spoilt ballot papers at London Mayoral and Assembly elections

– paper by Lea Goddard, senior election programme manager, Greater London Authority

1. At the oversight committee last month; the question arose as to whether the number of spoilt ballot papers was reducing over time. The short answer is ‘yes’: since the current system of recording spoils was introduced at the 2008 elections, numbers have reduced.

2. The only exception is the number of rejected Mayoral election first choice spoils, as shown in Table 1 below. In 2016 there was an significant increase in the number of mayoral ballot papers rejected because electors were voting for more than the permitted number of mayoral candidates. This is a concern and as we move forward we will highlight the correct process for voting; both for the elector and in the training for polling station staff.

GLA Elections 2008- 2016 Spoilt ballot papers analysis

Mayoral Election spoilt ballots 3. The main reason for spoils at the first stage of adjudication of the mayoral ballot papers was the number of papers rejected because electors voted for more than the permitted number of candidates. (‘over- voting’), or that the paper was unmarked. Regarding the 2nd choice spoils the main reason was the number of unmarked papers. This may be either because people didn’t understand the process or that they did not want to cast a 2nd choice vote.

TABLE 1 Mayoral election-1st choice spoils

Spoils want of writing official identifying voting for TOTAL Election Year mark voter unmarked uncertain too many Spoils 2008 65 351 13034 1485 26097 41032 2012 25 153 12705 5494 21833 40210 2016 12 215 12292 5135 32217 49871

Mayoral election-2nd choice spoils

Spoils want of writing official identifying voting for TOTAL mark voter unmarked uncertain too many Spoils 2008 n/a n/a 407840 2540 1674 412054 2012 n/a n/a 435606 4134 5726 445466 2016 n/a n/a 381862 861 1520 384243

1

Assembly Constituency Member spoilt ballots

4. Again, the main reason for spoils was the number of unmarked papers. Which may be because people didn’t understand the process, or did not want to cast a vote.

TABLE 2 Constituency Member-pan London spoils

Spoils want of writing official identifying voting for TOTAL Election Year mark voter unmarked uncertain too many Spoils 2008 23 247 41799 1763 6315 50147 2012 33 85 28407 1354 6576 36455 2016 8 105 23387 1368 5347 30215

Assembly List Member spoilt ballots

5. And again, the main reason for spoils was the number of unmarked papers. Which may be because people didn’t understand the process, or did not want to cast a vote.

TABLE 3 Assembly Elections-pan London spoils

Spoils want of writing official identifying voting for TOTAL Election Year mark voter unmarked uncertain too many Spoils 2008 45 145 32251 1501 7651 41593 2012 55 90 20827 1163 8528 30663 2016 6 145 18842 1127 9613 29733

Table showing spoilt votes as a percentage

TABLE 4

2

Spoiled ballot papers as a percentage of total votes cast Number % of Spoils Total Vote Mayoral 1st choice 2008 41032 1.67 2012 40210 1.82 2016 49871 1.92 Assembly Consituency 2008 50147 1.96 2012 36455 1.65 2016 30215 1.15 Assembly List 2008 41593 1.69 2012 30663 1.38 2016 29733 1.13

Mayoral 2nd choice 2008 412054 17.04 2012 445466 25.26 2016 384243 17.36

3