Local and national government websites could provide much better support for the democratic process, finds Socitm elections 2010 survey

Solihull, Preston, Huntingdonshire, South Lakeland, Newham, Camden, Manchester, Tamworth and Coventry among councils commended in the report.

Local and national government websites could do better when it comes to publishing information to support the democratic process, says a new report into online coverage of this years general and local elections.

Socitm, publisher of the annual 'Better connected' report on local public service websites, carried out a series of surveys before, during and after the elections held on 6 May 2010.

Forty-two council websites were involved in these surveys. They were selected for the sample because they were holding local elections on May 6 and were also subscribers to the Socitm Insight Website take-up service - giving Socitm access to data on actual usage of these websites during the election period.

The research follows Socitm Insight surveys into coverage of council elections in June 2009 (county and unitary councils), May 2006 (London councils) and May 2005 (counties).

This year's analysis of the council website election coverage was done in three 'rounds', timed to coincide with key dates in the election process:

Round one (10 April) coincided with the deadline for people to register to vote, and to register for a postal vote in both the general and local elections

Round two (4 May) was done two days prior to polling day and looked at how well councils were using digital channels to encourage people to vote

Round three (7 May) was carried out when the local election results were being counted and published by most councils.

An additional survey was carried out on Saturday 8 May to test how well councils' election pages were performing in Google searches. Socitm also recorded use of social media by the sample councils and also collated stories and statistics supplied by councils nationwide.

Overall, the surveys highlighted some excellent practice by individual councils, but also examples of where information was patchy, hard to find, out of date, or just missing.

Communication of the voter registration deadline was disappointing and seldom promoted
on the website home page. Those councils with a social media presence and, therefore, the potential to extend the message beyond the council's normal channels, were rarely doing so, although Solihull's exemplary use of Twitter for this purpose is highlighted in the report.

When it came to encouraging people to turn out and vote, 83% had a reasonably prominent item, but some sites still did not mention the date of the election on the home page, and clarity of candidate information was almost universally poor, with little attempt to present current candidates alongside any other data (whether they were standing for re-election, result of previous elections etc). It could also be difficult for voters to find out what ward they were in and therefore what candidates they could vote for.

Reporting of election results was varied in quality, but the report highlights examples of good practice from Huntingdon and Preston, and from other councils which had used social media to good effect in communicating general and local election results.

In a separate but linked exercise, Socitm looked at how easy it was, starting with a Google query, for voters to discover which constituency (general election) or ward (local elections) they were in, and from there, who the candidates were, and more about them.

While it was easy to find this sort of information from national online news media including the BBC and national newspapers, it was not easy to find this information from 'official' sources including national sites like Directgov and the Electoral Commission, and local government websites. The report highlights difficulties with the 'customer journey' to this information and commentary from, among others, the Electoral Commission on some of the problems encountered.

Finally, Socitm reports on the Open Election Data Project which it has been supporting to help councils improve access to, and re-use of, election data by encouraging all councils to publish election results in an open data format. If all councils were to follow this practice, creation of a freely available national database of local election results would be easy, something that does not currently exist. Twenty councils that were successful in achieving this goal are named in the report.

'At this time when attention is focussed in transparency and openness, our survey shows that public authorities could be using websites and social media much more effectively to encourage democratic engagement and participation' says Martin Greenwood, Programme Director for Socitm Insight. 'Additionally, given the significant effort and expense already involved in encouraging people to register to vote, it's disappointing that insufficient attention is given to the details of web publishing that cost little but could make all the difference as to whether voters actually turn out and use their vote.'

Registered site users from organisations with Socitm Insight subscription can view or download the report once logged in. People in non-subscribing organisations may buy the report for £25 + vat.

The results of the survey will be discussed at the Website takeup service subscriber event in Birmingham June 9.

Further information

Vicky Sargent, Socitm Press Office
Tel: 07726 601 139  email: vicky.sargent@socitm.net

Martin Greenwood, Programme Manager, Socitm Insight
Tel: 01926 498703 or 07967 383755  e-mail: martin.greenwood@socitm.net