In early 2003, the Electoral Commission received a request from the Deputy Prime Minister to review and submit a report on the cycle of local government elections in England, including options for change that would simplify the current cycle. The Electoral Commission published their consultation paper in July 2003, with the final report The Cycle of Local Government Elections in England: Report and Recommendations published in January 2004. Waveney District Council recognised the problems caused by elections by thirds in the Corporate Self Assessment produced for CPA in 2004. We identified one of our weaknesses in achieving our Ambitions was uncertainty through annual elections. To address this, our future plans for management stated moving away from annual elections: we will consider new options so to have a new system in place by 2008. This paper highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the thirds system and the whole council system, the relationship between local election turnout and election cycles, CPA scores and election cycles and a review of the cycles used by authorities in Norfolk and Suffolk. 1.1 Elections in England ------------------------ As the Electoral Commission have pointed out, it is of fundamental importance to the future health and relevance of local government, especially in the context of continued low turnout at local elections, that the electoral system is clear and easily understood by the public. Consequently, issues were raised when a poll carried out by MORI about local elections (in respondents areas in 2003) produced some mixed results of levels of understanding of the local electoral cycle. Of the questions relating to the electoral cycle: 19% did not know which authority they would be voting for in May 2003 15% thought elections would be held for county councils (even though they were not being held that year) 30% did not know how often elections were held in their area Only 16% were able to identify the actual cycle of local elections Local democracy can only flourish and have worth when electors understand how and when to vote, as this enables them to be better placed to hold their local representatives to account. The above evidence suggests this is not the case currently. The Electoral Commission recommends that each local authority in England should hold whole council elections, with all councillors elected simultaneously, once every four years, to establish a clear and consistent pattern. 1.2 Election Cycles ------------------- 2 Participation --------------- In two-tier authorities, county elections are held every four years, with district elections held in the middle of the cycle (whole) or in each of the intervening years (thirds). Thus, for those living in a two-tier ward with a whole system, elections take place every two years. However, when thirds are used, some voters have more opportunities to vote than others; in single member wards, the electorate are able to vote twice in the four-year cycle (once for county, once for district); in two-member wards, three times and in three-member wards, voters are able to vote four times. With no uniform pattern of members, electors may become confused or disaffected if the control of the council changes as the result of an election in which they were not able to participate. Nevertheless, elections by thirds clearly offer greater opportunities for the electorate to get involved in the democratic process. However, more frequent elections may dilute public interest. Whole council elections provide all electors with the same opportunities to influence the political composition and control of the authority at the same time. In addition, all electors are able to pass judgement on both individual members and the authority as a whole. 3 Democratic Legitimacy ----------------------- High levels of participation are associated with democratic legitimacy, so the arguments described above relating to increased participation can also be used here to advocate elections by thirds. In addition, supporters of elections by thirds argue that it helps to ensure that composition better reflects the political complexion of the electorate. 3.1 Accountability ------------------ Elections by thirds provide the electorate with a means to hold members to account on a more frequent basis. In addition, under a whole system, important but controversial decisions may be postponed for political reasons until after an election, giving electors no opportunity for democratic protest for three years. Holding the authority to account will have the biggest impact when the whole council is up for election. With elections by thirds, there will be minimal impact; it is difficult for electors to change overall political control when fewer than half the seats are up for election. Furthermore, political control may not change at all even if the ruling party loses all seats contested (this could also act as a disincentive to vote). 3.2 Management -------------- Electing the whole council at the same time provides stability; the ruling group will have a clear four-year period within which it can fulfil its manifesto promises before being judged on its policies and performance. In addition, stability is provided through the consistency of policies and representatives without the interruption and diversion elections would cause. These longer intervals between elections will also encourage a more coherent long-term approach to policy development and decision-making. Nevertheless, supporters of thirds claim it can also result in stability and continuity, as there is less potential for abrupt changes of political control and switches of policy. However, where political control is closely balanced, frequent changes in overall control of the authority can lead to inconsistencies in policy. Greater continuity in political composition, particularly in relationship to membership of committees, may help encourage more productive working relationships between members and officers. It will be cheaper for local political parties and groups to contest whole council elections once every four years and it would be the same for council, both the direct running costs and indirect running costs in terms of annual disruption to normal council business. However, there is a possibility that significant numbers of new council members with little or no experience be elected. Plus, it may be difficult for parties to identify the large number of candidates needed to contest all seats. Research by the LGC Elections Centre at Plymouth University highlights this last point: 3.2.1 Ratio of candidates per vacancy in English shire districts | | Year | Whole |Partial | | | | 1979 | 1.82 | 2.23 | | | | 1983 | 2.07 | 2.76 | | | | 1987 | 2.27 | 2.89 | | | | 1991 | 2.20 | 2.92 | | | | 1995 | 2.29 | 2.90 | | | | 1999 | 2.23 | 2.85 | | As can be seen in the above table, competition in the shires using partial elections has generally been greater, with more candidates fighting for vacancies in the shire councils that elect by thirds compared with those that use whole council elections. Further research has also shown that three-party competition (compared to two party competition) is higher in those wards that elect partially. 3.3 Election Cycles and Local Election Turnout ---------------------------------------------- The Elections Centre has also undertaken studies to see if there is a relationship between local election turnout and the electoral cycle used. Research has shown that those councils that use whole elections tend to have a higher turnout: | | Year | Whole |Partial | | | | 1973 | 39.8 | 39.2 | | | | 1976 | 45.0 | 44.4 | | | | 1979 | 73.9 | 75.0 | General Election | | | 1983 | 45.6 | 45.6 | | | | 1987 | 48.3 | 47.3 | | | | 1991 | 48.1 | 45.5 | | | | 1995 | 41.6 | 38.4 | | | | 1999 | 34.9 | 31.9 | | As the table shows, on all but two occasions turnout was higher in districts where whole elections were used, although each time the difference was minimal. In addition, turnout at county elections also varies depending on the type of electoral cycle used at district level; councils using a whole system having a higher turnout rate than those that use partial elections. 3.4 Election Cycles and CPA --------------------------- The consultation paper sent out by the Audit Commission made reference to election cycles and the impact this may have on CPA ratings. Although a clear and definitive link could not be identified, the Audit Commission pointed to issues relating to the cycle of local government elections for authorities categorised as poor, which tended to relate to member turnover. Of the 149 authorities inspected by the Audit Commission at the time the consultation paper was produced, 94 held whole elections, whilst the remaining 55 elect by thirds. The authorities that hold whole council elections every four years were slightly more likely to be rated as either excellent or good (54%) than those electing by thirds (44%), and were less likely to be rated either weak or poor. However, when this analysis was carried out by authority type, a mixed picture was presented, which may illustrate the importance of other factors in determining CPA scores. (This, however, does not include any figures for district councils). Further analysis of CPA scores and election cycles is included in the next section. Election Cycles in Norfolk and Suffolk Authorities -------------------------------------------------- This part of the paper required the Policy and Performance Officer to contact other authorities in the region to find out which cycle they used and what advantages it brought to the authority. The CPA rating has also been provided to undertake further research, which is at the end of this section. 4 Babergh District Council (Good) --------------------------------- Babergh elects their members every four years. Their reasoning for this is that the politicians know they have a full four years to implement their policies without fear of a change of control. However, Babergh are aware this system does not account for changes in public opinion. But, these changes would provide strategic problems as it can result in drifting due to the continual changes in political leadership. 5 Forest Heath District Council (Fair) -------------------------------------- Whilst we have not received any feedback from Forest Heath, they elect their members every four years. 6 Ipswich Borough Council (Good) -------------------------------- Again, whilst we have not had a response from Ipswich Borough, they elect their members by thirds. 7 Mid Suffolk District Council (Fair) ------------------------------------- Mid Suffolk also elect all their members every four years. This has always been the case, they have never had any problems so have not had the need to change. 8 St Edmundsbury Borough Council (Good) --------------------------------------- St Edmundsbury elects their members on an all-out four-yearly cycle. The advantages are that it focuses attention on the election, as it can produce a full-scale change in administration at one go, unlike the creeping change from one administration to another elections by thirds can produce. It also allows resources and staff time for induction events to be focussed in the one year following the big new intake. Potentially, it can also provide more stability to the policy framework, as it does not get changed every year as a result of new people coming in. 9 Suffolk Coastal District Council (Fair) ----------------------------------------- Suffolk Coastal did not provide any feedback, but they elect all their members every four years. 10 Breckland District Council (Good) ------------------------------------ Breckland also elect their members every four years. This is because it gives councillors a full four years to implement their policies. 11 Broadland District Council (Fair) ------------------------------------ Broadland use elections by thirds to elect their 47 members. Consultation was carried out about changing to a one-off cycle, but the desire for change was not enough to justify. As part of the consultation, Broadland considered the views from a variety of interested parties, including the Local Strategic Partnership, political groups, staff, disabled groups, Older Peoples Forum, businesses, young people, Citizens Panel and also through their website and Broadland News facility. The overall results were not absolutely conclusive: From 2,225 respondents in total: 2% had no reply 37% thought that elections should be held for half the council every two years 19% thought that elections should be held for a third of the council every three years 42% thought that elections should be held for all the council every four years 12 Great Yarmouth Borough Council (Good) ---------------------------------------- Great Yarmouth currently elects their members by thirds. Although they did not explain why they use this system, they did comment that they would be interested in our findings, which implies they are looking to change. They believe that by changing to whole elections turnout will increase. 13 Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council (Good) ----------------------------------------------------- West Norfolk also elects their members on a four-yearly, all-at-once basis. The main benefit is that the preparation for the election is all contained in that one year, and does not clash with any other major elections, except parish ones. A good number of experienced members are re-elected, although they admit they could end up with a whole council with virtually no experience, which they see as a rather scary thought. Furthermore, the induction process is a lot easier when it is done in one year. 14 Norwich City Council (Fair) ------------------------------ Norwich City Council elects their members by thirds. 15 North Norfolk District Council (Fair) ---------------------------------------- No response was provided by North Norfolk, but they elect their members all at once, every for years. 16 South Norfolk District Council (Good) ---------------------------------------- South Norfolk also elects their members every four years. Election officers are happy with this set-up as it give the election staff an occasional year off from elections and provides an opportunity to look at new systems / tidy absent votes / check on polling stations and all the other duties they have to carry out. South Norfolks members are very happy with the system and the election team have never had any suggestions changing it. This is because it gives the ruling party four years to carry out their polices. South Norfolk used to be a hung council and if the ruling party had changed every year, it would have made everybodys lives very difficult. Analysis -------- Using the information provided above, here is a quick analysis to see if there is any correlation between CPA rating and the type of election cycle used. The correlation between the two variables is not as clear for the Norfolk and Suffolk authorities compared to the analysis undertaken as part of the consultation process. Nevertheless, slightly more of those authorities that hold whole elections were rated as good than fair. Just to note, all county councils hold whole elections. Suffolk County Council achieved an excellent rating and Norfolk County Council good. A Policy and Performance Team Report November 2005 References: The Cycle of Local Government Elections in England Consultation Paper, by the Audit Commission (July 2003) Electoral Cycles in English Local Government, by the LGC Elections Centre (July 2003) The Cycle of Local Government Elections in England, by the Audit Commission (January 2004) Electoral Cycle Consultation, by Broadland District Council (October 2003)