Talk:Elections in the United Kingdom

Electoral Commission

Good page... small change needed. The Electoral Commission is not responsible for 'running' elections in the UK. It has a monitoring and best practice role, but it is local authorities in the UK that run elections. Votes are certified by the returning officer, who is invariably the chief executive of the relevant local authority. Local authorities also manage and have responsibility for the electoral roll although it is possible that this will be transferred to the EC or a new body in the medium term.91.106.231.216 (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this goes too far in discussing electoral reform issues which have not been and which the article suggests might never be. Such issues should be in an article on its own, and leave this to what has been and is. --Henrygb 22:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hustings

I am surprised that nothing is said about hustings. – Kaihsu 18:55, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

Eligibility

I think a specific point should be made about eligibility for each type of election. If they are all the same, this point should be addressed.

I agree. I'm pretty certain that the contention that "anyone who is a legal resident of the UK... is eligible to vote" is only the case for local elections, not general elections. 80.227.170.154 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As things get ever more complicated in Britain, I've just found this: "From 1st June 2007 people can now formally apply to be placed on the electoral register as anonymous electors. [this] means that the person’s name and address will not appear on the electoral register but they can still vote." It means that : "Eligibility... provided they are on the electoral register ..." might need to be amended a little.

Source:http://www.walsall.gov.uk/contrast/index/council_and_democracy/elections/anonymous_registration-2.htm Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Some other old practices

This needs info about (a) the practice of holding elections over multiple days, and (b) the practice of uncontested elections. As I understand it the elections were phased, so that one borough would hold the election one day, another borough a day later, and suchforth. So members would be returned in some constituencies before elections had even opened in others. Newspapers reported interim reports.

Morwen - Talk 11:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Most electoral systems of any country"

I removed text claiming that the UK's use of 5 electoral systems is the most of any country; this is incorrect. The United States, to my knowledge, uses single member plurality, plurality at large (bloc voting), cumulative voting, instant runoff, and multimember single transferable vote in elections, albeit some of these rather limitedly. It's possible there are other localities in the US using other voting systems (approval voting, for instance), however I'm not certain of them at the moment. Scott Ritchie 07:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Information on future elections

Hello, good page. As a voter I'd be interested to know where I can get information on the dates of future elections. I see there is a Electoral calendar but this is not specific to the UK (and doesn't have any UK dates on).
--RickiRich 19:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That is because the dates for parliamentry elections are not fixed in advance. General elections are held on a date chosen by the prime minister, who requests the Queen for a dissolution of parliament. By-elections are held when vacancies occur--Captdoc 22:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Suspension of elections during World War II

What statute was this done with? Tried to research this, got nowhere. Morwen - Talk 16:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• There were a series of Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Acts, annually extending terms and postponing elections. There were provisions for casual vacancies on local authorities to be filled by co-option. 1939 (2 & 3 Geo. 5) c. 115; 1940 (4 & 5 Geo. 5) c. 3; 1941 (4 & 5 Geo. 5) c. 49; 1942 (5 & 6 Geo. 5) c. 38; 1943 (7 & 8 Geo. 5) c. 2 and 1944 (8 & 9 Geo. 5) c. 3. --Gary J 18:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• • After further research I can confirm that the above acts did not affect the maximum term of Parliament. That was done by a series of Prolongation of Parliament Acts. 1940 (3 & 4 Geo. 6, c. 53) - amended s.7 of the Parliament Act 1911 to make the maximum term six years. 1941 (4 & 5 Geo, 6, c. c. 48) repealed s. 7 of the Parliament Act for the wartime Parliament, so the Septennial Act 1715 applied unamended to produce a seven year maximum term. 1942 (5 & 6 Geo. 6, c. 37, amended the Septennial Act 1715 to produce an eight year maximum term. 1943 (6 & 7 Geo. 6, c. 46) produced a nine year maximum term (and a six year term for the Northern Ireland Parliament, last elected in 1938). 1944 (7 & 8 Geo. 6, c. 45) extended the maximum term to ten years (and seven for the Northern Ireland Parliament). --Gary J 14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Queen's role

The Wikipedia article claims that "Only if the Prime Minister resigns can the Monarch then commission someone else to form a government." I believe that is obviously incorrect as the Queen also has the power to dismiss a prime minister and appoint a new one.

inglese/italiano

party system

Election results tables

I propose that all results tables should also include a column denoting the party leader at the time, as the Northern Ireland pages (2003 and 2007) do. This gives people a bigger idea of the personalities and issues at hand, amongst other things. For example, for the 1997 General election, a column should be added between 'Party' and 'seats', with columns stating (in order); 'Tony Blair', 'John Major', 'Paddy Ashdown', 'James Goldsmith', 'Alex Salmond', 'David Trimble', etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.210.111 (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Nearly a year ago and nobody effin agrees? OPINIONS PLEASE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.220.114 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Weaseled statements

The following statements, which can be found under the arguments against reform, are in need of improving due to the presence of weasel words:

"...Some think it would be irresponsible to give 'extremists' the opportunity to have political power. Others counter that in a true democracy, this is no argument."

-- Robnpov 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I just found another in the reform section:

"Some people assert that the electoral system ought to make such a connection, and therefore campaign for a change."

-- Robnpov 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New/ex-electors

Is there any source for the number of new people to the electoral roll, and the number of people who fall off it? Preferably for the individual constituencies?

I don't mean simply the net change of people on the roll, but the raw numbers of how many new electors? Or how many left the electoral roll? It would also be useful to find the number of people voting who didn't last time.

I think this would be very useful in analysing changing vote patterns: for example it would shed light on whether Labour voters are switching to Liberal or whether the Liberal voters are primarily new voters and the Labour voters are staying at home. BillMasen 18:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Eligibility section

This section is a little convoluted and could do with some clarification and expansion.

For example, what does "legal resident" mean in this context? Is it the same thing as a person with Right of Abode?

Also, what does a Commonwealth citizen have to do in order to be able to vote in British general elections? Commonwealth citizens do not necessarily have Right of Abode in the UK - does that matter?

Would an Australian citizen or an Indian citizen be able to travel to to the UK as a tourist for a week or two, add themselves to the electoral register, and then vote in a general election?

What about people who are British nationals (not subjects or citizens), but are not Commonwealth citizens (if that is even possible)? 217.155.20.163 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth voters

According to this article, British subjects are entitled to vote - this included the whole British Empire. Since the transformation of the Empire into the Commonwealth, its "citizens have retained the right to vote in the UK if they live in the UK". This makes sense for Jamaicans and Indians etc. But what's the status of citizens of Commonwealth countries that weren't part of the British Empire, e.g. Mozambique? Can they vote in UK elections? Bazonka 12:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Party nomination process?

I'm sure this is common knowledge to anyone living over there, but as an American I have no clue how a party's candidate is chosen to run in a general election in the U.K. Whoever knows the answer, could you kindly add it to this page? I think it's important to cover.--Reydeyo (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have the same question down below. Int21h (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Do smaller parties tend to get more votes under PR?

"Smaller parties receive many more votes (and seats) in the elections using a proportional system, which are the regional elections for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and London Assembly, and the European Parliament elections. Regional parties, such as the Scottish National Party or Plaid Cymru receive many more votes than at general or local elections, and at European elections, the United Kingdom Independence Party and Green Party of England and Wales perform better. It can be argued that in these elections, there is a multi-party system."

It's true that smaller parties tend to get more seats in PR elections, but that's mainly because the seats are allocated proportionally to the number of votes cast for that party. Is there any evidence that more people vote for smaller parties in PR elections than would in FPTP elections?

And also looking at the statistics, it seems the bit about SNP and Plaid Cymru doing better in regional elections than at general elections is completely untrue. It's hard to tell because there's never been a Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament election in the same year as a General. But for example, in the 2001 General election, Plaid got 195,893 votes, in the 2003 Welsh Assembly elections they got 180,185 consituency FPTP votes, and in the 2005 General election they got 174,838. So not much of a difference between regional and general elections at all.

Again, if we take SNP as the example, they got 464,314 votes in the 2001 general election, 449,476 constituency FPTP votes in the 2003 Scottish Parliament election, and 412,267 votes in the 2005 general election. So again, little difference at all. Jh39 (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

The title of this page is Elections not the most recent Election in each nation of UK. There should be an historical overview table. At the moment the article is very biased towards the most recent few elections. What is the justification for massive tables of fringe parties that stood but gained no seats on an overview page ? There is none. Leave that heavy detail for the detailed pages on each election.77.86.87.77 (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense?

"Of the 17 general elections between 1945 and 2005, four each were held in October, June, and May, and two were held in February" That only adds up to 14. 98.28.68.59 (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It still makes sense. "Of his 17 children, three were born in Hungary and five in Peru." Perfectly OK not to enumerate every single child's birth place. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This section also doesn't make sense: Section heading: "Elections to national parliaments and assemblies". There is only one national parliament. To say otherwise is to say that Parliament isn't the national parliament of The U.K., i.e. that the U.K. doesn't exist. (The Scottish Parliament always needs to stated in full when there's a chance of confusing the two.) Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

European Citizens

I was convinced that European citizens (in my case Greek) who are residents of the UK were not eligible to vote in UK general elections, a position that I have found elsewhere on the net as well as in this article. But last week I received my polling card and, having phoned the local council, I was informed that I was eligible and already registered to vote on 6 May in the UK general elections. When was this changed? I could not find a real announcement of a change like this anywhere. Iago2¹² 07:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, EU citizens resident in the UK have always been able to vote. I know they were at the last election at least. BillMasen (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently we are able to vote, but that is not what, e.g. this article says: In addition, while UK, Irish and Commonwealth citizens may register to vote in all elections, European Union nationals resident in the UK may register to vote in local, European, Scottish and Welsh elections. Iago2¹² 23:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've found this at Walsall local Council's site:http://www.walsall.gov.uk/contrast/index/voting_rights_of_european_nationals.htm

"Citizens of EU countries other than the UK, Cyprus, Malta and the Republic of Ireland cannot vote in the UK parliamentary elections."

And at the main government site:http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/Elections_Voting/DG_185706

"Who can vote at the elections?

You can vote in the UK general election if you are aged 18 or over on polling day and are either a British citizen, or a Commonwealth or Irish citizen resident in the UK. Some other groups - such as European Union citizens - can vote in local elections." Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Pennypenny, that's what I thought. But, as I said, I received my polling card, was told over the phone that I was both eligible and already registered and just went and voted. And I am not the only one. I know of at least one other person who voted and one more who also received a polling card. None of us are British, Irish or Commonwealth citizens. I am sure many votes were cast like that today. What do you think? Iago2¹² 19:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear about it. It sounds like the procedures for registering people might be quite lax, and I didn't know about this before. (Although once I went to the registration office and was told that someone I had never heard of was registered at my address. It might have been a previous resident.)

This letter in The Telegraph says the same as you:

"SIR – Arriving with photo ID at the town hall, as my postal vote did not arrive, I was told that as a Dutchman I could not vote in any but local elections. I have spent 31 years casting illegal votes. How many other criminals can boast so long a career and get away with it when caught?".

SEE (near bottom of the page):http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/7692655/The-urgent-need-for-economic-stability-means-that-the-worst-thing-would-be-to-hold-another-election-soon.html Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

→ Receiving a poll card is not necessarily an indication that you have a right to vote. Slip ups do occur, like the one that allowed a 14 year old boy to vote. Road Wizard (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid, Swansea City Council made it even easier. I never registered. I thought about registering right after I missed the deadline to register in time for last year's European elections. I knew that we would have UK general elections in 2010, but I was convinced I could not vote, so I never bothered registering. What Swansea city council did was that they apparently just took all data from the Council Tax register and sent polling cards to everyone on that list. As I said, I know of at least two more people who received cards, one of which did vote. I think this is more than just a small slip up.Iago2¹² 21:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay basically the registration system relies on a huge amount of trust and also dates from an era when the electorate was smaller, polling stations more limited and parties had resources to challenge entries and would-be voters. The register is compiled by the local agency each year sending a form to every residential address on its records requiring the "head of the household" to list everyone resident in the house over 16 (including dates of birth for 16 & 17 year olds) who is a British/Commonwealth/Irish/other EU citizen and specify each nationality. In following years the form will come preprinted with the existing details on it and the head of household has to either verify everyone is still there or else cross out and add on accordingly. (Voters who move mid year can also add themselves to the register by obtaining another form, filling in their details and sending it in.) It is very easy to get the details wrong on the form; especially if you're not well versed in electoral matters. It's also not always clear who the "head of the household" is, especially given changes in society, and so whoever actually fills in the form may not have all the details to hand. Further confusion arises in rented properties with some believing it's the landlord's responsibility to register the tenants, others believing it's the tenants and problems arise because of a) who actually gets their hands on the forms and b) expectations of universal practice confuse (a particular problem is that some universities register their residential students automatically but others don't). In terms of citizenship many landlords may not know the precise citizenships - especially dual nationalities - of everybody living in their properties (and don't need to so long as they're getting the rent every time. As a result I suspect a lot of EU citizens have wound up being registered for all elections. I'm not sure what Swansea Council is up to as there isn't supposed to be automatic registration of voters, though I think there's nothing stopping electoral services from using data held by the council to contact people missing from the register, albeit only to give them forms. Because the registration isn't done by the individuals themselves, many people don't know if they're on the register or not and can be surprised either way when they get a polling card or when they turn up at a polling station to find they're not on it. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Timing of elections

It would be nice if a little more could be added to the information about the considerations that go into this. For instance, why did Brown decide to call for an election now? Given that Labour seemed certain to lose power, why not hold onto power for another year? Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As to the reason why now the article does cover this by saying "parliamentary sessions last a maximum of five years". As the previous election was held in May 2005 the election had to be held by June this year. Davewild (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a confusion here. The 5 years is the length of the Parliament. It's obviously not unrelated to when the elections are held, but just limiting the period between successive elections to 5 years is not what this is about, because that would mean the Parliament could never run for its theoretical maximum period of 5 years, as it would have to be dissolved some weeks before the 5 years was up, to allow time for the election to be organised. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, I thought I'd read somewhere that the last election was four years ago. Still, I think it would be a helpful addition. Consider this quote:

David Cameron may offer Clegg a few concessions to gain his consent, but he will go to the country again before the pain of his economic measures are felt and as soon as the Lib Dem surge fades. He will want to win a proper mandate for a fully fledged Conservative government and then refine the first-past-the-post voting system, reduce the number of constituencies by 10% but in so doing redraw their boundaries to be fairer to the Tories and disqualify Scottish and Welsh MPs from voting on English issues.

Not knowing much about British elections, it took me a while to figure out what he was talking about. But as I understand it now, the writer is suggesting that Cameron would form a government with the Liberals, then call another election in a relatively short amount of time to try to consolidate power. If this is correct, it might be good to have a paragraph or so explaining considerations like this.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How are a party's general election candidates chosen?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can gather, the process for the general elections are thus:

1. Parliament is dissolved 2. ????? choose candidates for each party in each constituency 3. The electorate in each constituency chooses amongst those chosen candidates

Am I to assume the Queen chooses each party's candidate? Or is there some more transparent process? Int21h (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Int21h: - the process varies by party, the article makes brief reference to Labour and Conservative processes. Selections will normally be done way in advance of the GE (in some marginal seats candidates may be selected 3-4 years out), all that has to be done after parliament is dissolved is that the candidates have to fill in their nomination papers and submit them to the Acting Returning Officer by a given deadline. Only in a few cases (e.g. where a candidate has stepped aside at the last minute) will any selection processes occur after the dissolution. Frinton100 (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The process you describe appears to be missing crucial information, such as the conditions under which someone may submit nomination papers (and, by extension, fill them out first, by a given deadline, in English, using paper, and received physically within the UK), and how and who selects between those nominated. It appears the major UK parties use some sort of caucus system, but that's as far as I got. (I added that information currently in the article.) Is it that only a single person named by the party elite may submit nomination papers, as is done in North Korea etc.? Int21h (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Int21h: I think you are confusing two separate issues:

First, candidate selection is down to the individual parties. As far as I am aware in almost all circumstances Labour, Conservative, LibDems and UKIP operate a "one member one vote" (OMOV) process, where any member of that party can vote for their party's candidate at that election. This takes place in many cases years in advance of the GE. The processes vary in the way in which the shortlist of candidates is drawn up. In the Labour Party, any member can put themselves forward for consideration for a constituency selection. Branch Labour Parties (BLPs) and Affiliate Branches can nominate candidates (usually up to 3) from the list of everyone who as expressed an interest. The Constituency Labour Party's General Committee (a body comprising representatives of all the BLPs and affiliates) whittles down the names of people nominated to come up with a shortlist (typically 4 to 6 names) which goes before the full membership for the OMOV ballot. The process can be amended depending on the make-up of the CLP (not all CLPs have BLPs or a General Committee for example) and the number of candidates who apply (in some less winnable seats you may only get 2 people apply, in which case the selection will often bypass the nomination and shortlisting stage and move straight to the OMOV ballot). The other main parties obviously have different processes as their structures are different. The obvious exception is Conservative seats where there is an open primary open to al voters in that constituency.

The second issue is submitting nomination papers. Anyone who is entitled to vote at a parliamentary election (i.e. UK, Irish and Commonwealth citizens over 18 who are not members of the House of Lords) is entitled to stand at an election. Every candidate must complete their own set of nomination papers, which includes the appointment of an election agent, the signatures of 10 electors from the constituency who agree to their nomination and the candidate's own consent to nomination. Additionally at a parliamentary election you have to pay a £500 deposit, which is returned if you get over 5% of the vote. If a candidate is standing for a registered party (of whatever size - it could be a national party, a local "Ratepayers Association" type party, or one they have created for themselves), they need the signature of the party's nominating officer (or someone authorized in writing by the nominating officer) to be allowed to use the party name on the ballot. This is to stop people from claiming they are, say, the UKIP candidate, when UKIP have actually selected someone else. While the central party organization has a role to play in making sure all of their candidates have the appropriate forms to allow them to use the party name, the process of actually completing and submitting the nomination form is down to the candidate themselves, and their agent. The forms have to be submitted to the Acting Returning Officer in the individual constituency, rather than to the Electoral Commission or any other central body.

But the short answer to your question is that in order to stand in an election, anyone can submit a nomination paper, provided they can pay the £500 deposit and find 10 people to sign their form. Frinton100 (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Independent Candidates in 2010

Under "General Elections" the article states: "with only one independent elected in the 2010 election and only four independent candidates in the entire country gaining more than a hundred votes"

This is plainly wrong (there were 4 independents who got over 100 votes in Luton South alone!). I wonder if it should be 1,000 votes instead of 100, but even then 4 doesn't sound like a lot. Anyone have any idea about this, if not I suggest this part is just deleted. Frinton100 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Constituencies and residency

Should it perhaps be mentioned somewhere in the article that candidates standing for seats don't have to live in the constituency which they are running for? I'm not sure if UK citizens don't view this as notable, but there are plenty of countries in which this isn't the case. I know that in my state in the United States, a person running for a seat in the state legislature must be a legal resident of in that electoral district. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker:I don't think that's relevant. Candidates home addresses (or the constituency in which they live) are printed on the ballot paper, so any candidate's lack of residency or otherwise is completely transparent. Frinton100 (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You're confused. I'm not arguing the merits of it, rather that I think it's an important note to add, since in some countries residency is required and in other's it's not. --Criticalthinker (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: No, I'm not confused thank you very much. My view is it is not relevant to the article, hence my very clear response "I don't think that's relevant".

You did say "I'm not sure if UK citizens don't view this as notable" so I was explaining why I don't believe we view it as notable either. In other words, I was answering two questions that you posed 1. Is it relevant for this article? No. 2. Is it an issue for the electorate? No. Frinton100 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elections in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110128081658/http://www.re-constitution.org.uk:80/discover-the-facts/electoral-process/ to http://www.re-constitution.org.uk/discover-the-facts/electoral-process/#questions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Stripping out election results

The election results on this page have now all been superceeded by more recent elections. I propose that we strip out all the results on this page, and instead simply add more links in to the relevant individual pages. QuakerActivist (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Whizz40 (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Done QuakerActivist (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elections in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110117185354/http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk:80/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx to http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005002658/http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk:80/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx to http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

As I read in Free Derry#Background, listened in File:Ulster.ogv and added to sect #20th century, only ratepayers voted in NI in 1968&ss. This doesn't agree with 1949 Act. Why? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ ፧ (parlez)⁇﹖ 08:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Photo ID

Since the passing of the Elections Act 2022 photo ID is now required at UK general elections and English local elections, not just Northern Ireland as previously. I've added this to the article, though we still need a list of the photo ID types valid for elections in England, Scotland and Wales, similar to what we already have for NI. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)