How many votes went missing in London? The Electoral Commission weighs in

In the immediate aftermath of this May’s London Mayor and Assembly elections, it became clear that some mistakes had been made during the count. Some Mayor votes in Merton and Wandsworth were omitted from the count, and in addition the checking process was flawed as votes were reported from more wards than exist in London.

Neither of these errors were serious enough to suggest the wrong people were elected, but the next batch of problems to come to light, thanks to a report by the Open Rights Group, were on a much more significant scale:

Although the glitches are unlikely to have changed the overall result of the mayoral race – Boris Johnson won by almost 140,000 votes after second choices were taken into consideration – today’s report lists a string of potentially serious problems with the counting procedures used in the mayoral and London Assembly elections.

Among the deficiencies highlighted in the report are the counting of blank ballots as valid votes, frequent jams in the scanning machines and a series of bugs and system freezes. ORG’s observers also reported that they were refused access to parts of the process at counts in London Olympia and Alexandra Palace.

In at least two cases, the margin of error was greater than the winning candidate’s margin of victory, leading the group to conclude that there was “insufficient evidence” for it to say that the results were accurate.

Now the Electoral Commission has weighed in with its report into the London elections that concludes:

We have significant concerns about the number and size of discrepancies between the number of ballot papers expected and the numbers verified as having been scanned. We do not have comparable statistical evidence to support an assessment of whether the figures for these elections are significantly better or worse than would be expected at a manual count … the electronic counting system used at these elections did not support the more detailed notes that might provide an audit trail. (p.6 of their report)

In other words, “the numbers don’t add up; we don’t know why; it might be bad, it might not be; but there wasn’t a proper audit trail so we’re all left clueless.” Not surprisingly, as a result (and to their credit) the Electoral Commission has made a series of recommendations for steps that should be taken if any future electronic counts are carried out.

They bear a certain similarity to suggestions I have made on behalf of the Liberal Democrats previously 🙂 But whilst previously none of the relevant authorities have been sufficiently interested in ensuring that electronic counting systems are accompanied by robust enough cross-checking systems to ensure that votes do not go astray, it looks like finally we may be making some real progress on this courtesy of both the London elections this year and also the fallout from last year’s Scottish elections.

The Electoral Commission also have some pugnent words to say about the striking of deals with counting equipment suppliers that forbade the making public of the testing carried out on the equipment. Again, it’s been a long time coming.

For example, for the 2004 elections after repeated requests I was finally given a copy of the review carried out to check that there were test plans in place, but the full details of the tests, let alone their result, were all kept secret in the name of ‘commercial confidentiality’. I don’t think the London election staff who had to withold test information were particularly happy about being placed in this situation, though it didn’t stop the same situation arrising again in 2008.

Let’s hope that this time the Electoral Commission’s criticisms ensure that in future elections are run for the benefit of the public, with open and audited systems, rather than for the convenience of the commercial firms who have bid for the work.

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

5 Comments

  • Justin Hinchcliffe 28th Jul '08 - 11:47am

    “Some Mayor votes in Merton and Wandsworth were omitted from the count”

    Boris’s majority would have been even bigger had they been counted! (-:

  • It is utterly disgraceful that so-called requirements of commercial confidentiality should be placed above the sanctity of the democratic process – and utterly typical of New Labour that they are.

  • As someone who was quite closely involved in these elections, and the preparations for them, I have to agree with Mary and Tony. I remain a fan of electronic counting though for I simply don’t see there being a way of conducting a manual count for such a large, single, election(s).

    In the run-up to these set of elections, the then London Assembly member Sally Hamwee raised concerns with the Greater London Returning Officer about how transparent the whole counting system would be.

    I think the Electoral Commission highlight the transparency well in the following extract from their report:

    “We recognise that commercial suppliers, including suppliers of election
    technology and suppliers of testing and assurance services, may wish to
    protect their commercial interests. However, such wishes should never take
    priority over the interests of electors and other participants, including political
    parties and candidates, in transparency and accountability for any actions and
    decisions made by Returning Officers in the course of delivering their public
    responsibilities.”

    What is needed is a Government, and the Electoral Commission to grasp the nettle and introduce legislation (if legislation is needed – maybe Mark Pack knows?) to ensure that the source code used by suppliers of the electronic counting machines is published so that we can tell the counting is ‘fair’.

    There must be other ways that the manufacturers of such equipment can protect their copyright. Without this transparency, questions will continue to be asked.

  • Hywel Morgan 30th Jul '08 - 5:53pm

    “I remain a fan of electronic counting though for I simply don’t see there being a way of conducting a manual count for such a large, single, election(s).”

    There are no more votes to be counted in the London elections than at a General election or (London wide) the European elections.

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

  • Fiona
    All good stuff - I can't disagree with any of it. It would be fantastic if politicians could put aside tribal bickering and posturing and got on with the stuff ...
  • John Marriott
    Addiction to drugs is an illness. It should not be treated as a crime. The current method of tackling the problem has been an abject failure. We need to decrimi...
  • TonyH
    I'm confused. For a party they constantly say is finished and irrelevant and an MSP who they say is a nobody, why devote an entire front page to us....? Politi...
  • Cassie
    I had the 'pleasure' of working with The National for a couple of years (circa 2015). I can confirm from my personal experience that no, they were not interest...
  • Brad Barrows
    It is a pity that Alex Cole-Hamilton has chosen to ignore the fact drug laws have been reserved to Westminster - he should have been bold and called for those p...