MVC's London Elections results briefing

Make Votes Count have produced a comprehensive and unique take on the London Mayoral and Assembly election results.

View / download a copy online - click here.

You'll find details on turnout, spoilage rates, the d'Hondt allocation of seats; and systems commentary. But, more interestingly, there are figures on % of votes counting, proportionality on the Assembly, and gender representation. I have included a critique of the FPTP constituency section, references to the SV vs AV and Alternative Vote for the Commons debates, and a tie in with the Review of Voting Systems. There is also a section on MVC's response to the election of a BNP Assembly Member

Some key facts:

• Turnout was 8.3% higher than when these elections were conducted in 2004.

• Almost half of Londoners who voted cast one of their preferences for the winning mayoral candidate, and almost 90% had one of their votes count towards the overall result in the final round.

• 86% of Londoners who voted, did so for a party that gained seat(s) on the London Assembly. Nearly 9 in 10 voters are now represented by at least one London Assembly Member from a party they voted for.

• The number of rejected votes – and especially wrongly filled in or spoilt ballot papers – was much lower than in 2004. 4.2% lower in the case of the assembly ballots. Voters were not confused by the different ballot papers or voting systems used. Spoilage rates (excluding papers left intentionally blank) for the respective ballots were: mayoral 1.14%; assembly constituency 0.32%; and assembly list 0.38%.

Hopefully plenty of useful information for us all to use over the coming days and weeks. Download a copy and email it around.

Londoners understood that their votes mattered

Whoever wins the London mayoral and assembly counts later tonight, these elections have been good for voters, good for the parties and good for London democracy.

The high turnout figures in London, estimated at 45%, and in many places predicted to be above general election levels, show what happens when you get a competitive election and voting systems that give voters increased choice and the power to affect the result no matter where in the city they live. Londoners have understood that every vote actually can matter and have responded accordingly. This picture favourably contrasts with the local elections across the rest of the country, where turnout is significantly lower, at 35%, and far fewer voters would have felt they could have made a difference.

It may be the third set of London elections, but this is the first time that political parties, the media and civil society organisations have really got stuck in to explaining how the different systems work and how people can make the most of their votes. What we are seeing is the benefits of this education and attention.

The London voting systems encourage campaigning and ‘get-out-the-vote’ activity by parties in their heartland areas – those places and voters often marginalised during other elections. It appears these voters have responded to this increased attention and the rare opportunity they have to matter, and are likely to have had a significant impact on the result.