Electoral Commission heavily criticise report into plans for 2012 London elections

The Electoral Commission has published a report laying out a series of detailed and powerful criticisms of the cost-benefit analysis carried out for the Greater London Returning Officer into the use of e-counting for the 2012 London Mayor and Assembly elections.

However, the Greater London Returning Officer (GLRO) appears determined to go ahead with electronic counting, having told a meeting he had made this decision before even hearing the Electoral Commission’s views and despite even the flawed cost-benefit analysis showing that e-counting is more expensive than manual counting.

The Guardian reported on Wednesday:

The Greater London Assembly … indicated last week that it will go with electronic counting systems for the May 2012 elections. This is despite having a cost-benefit analysis prepared by its own returning officers, (who preside over ballot counts) which calculates that manual counting will cost £3.6m, and e-counting £5.1m – making it 42% more expensive.

Yet Leo Boland, the chief executive at London City Hall, who took office in January, told the Open Rights Group and other attendees at a round table that he would go ahead with e-counting for the 2012 elections.

The true difference in cost is likely to be even greater than 42%, because as the Electoral Commission states in a report just published on their website:

Having studied the cost-benefit assessment, we are concerned that there are potentially a number of gaps that suggest the advantages of ecounting may have been overstated. For example, it was assumed that ecounting was free from human error. Conversely, the assumptions made about the speed and accuracy of manual counting seem overly negative.

Also, important safe-guards, such as preparing a manual count as a back-up and the manual checking of a random sample of ballot papers do not appear to have been considered when costing e-counting.

Therefore, we would suggest that a determination that e-counting is affordable and that the cost is not significantly or disproportionately more than that of manual counting cannot be made without undertaking further analysis of the costs and benefits which takes into account these and other points.

The Commission goes on to all but insist that the Greater London Returning Officer changes course:

We recommend that the GLRO should undertake the analyses described above before taking a final decision to award an e-counting contract. In the meantime, the GLRO should also make plans for a manual count, in case it is found that e-counting cannot be undertaken with sufficient transparency at an acceptable cost.

There are some signs that course will indeed be changed, for in an email to me yesterday the Greater London Authority said that, “While we are starting the procurement process for e-counting (and tenders should be received early next summer), we will re-calculate our CBA [cost-benefit analysis] at that time on the basis of what we then know so we can make a proper comparison”.

What’s perhaps most worrying about the story so far is way in which decisions have been made so far and the quality of the work being done to prepare for the elections (the flawed cost-benefit analysis). It suggests we are in for a very bumpy ride.

I certainly hope we are not in for a return to the bad old days of the 2000 elections, when the then Greater London Returning Officer decided they were a law unto themselves and refused to allow myself or the Conservative agent to check or query results before officially declaring them because he wanted to dash off to give them to journalists instead. That’s no way to run an election.

UPDATE: The Guardian has now covered the Electoral Commission’s report too.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in Election law and London.
Advert

2 Trackbacks

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarMark Robinson 27th Sep - 10:44pm
    Jock, I run a property investment business, regenerating town centres, I've been interested in getting to grips with LVT so will give this a read...
  • User AvatarSimon Shaw 27th Sep - 10:37pm
    @Tsar Nicholas "The most significant exhange of the evening was Trump’s condemnation of a switch in US policy to one of a nuclear first strike...
  • User AvatarRoland 27th Sep - 9:35pm
    @Bill - Just the use of the word 'partnership' instead of 'union' is to be commended! Just skimmed through the links, looks interesting because it...
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 27th Sep - 9:20pm
    grahame lamb Yes. It is rather a shame that the technical schools didn’t find more favour. It would be good to set up some technical...
  • User AvatarRoland 27th Sep - 9:02pm
    Re: "The BMA screwed this up" I found it a little irritating the article failed to distinguish between the BMA and the BMA's Junior Doctors’...
  • User AvatarAndrew McCaig 27th Sep - 8:35pm
    Clinton Cash is not a "documentary" BTW.. It is not exactly impartial, with the film funded by the CEO of the Trump campaign!