The tempting shiny object named ‘proportional representation’ (PR) could in many outcomes be a ploy to bring in electronic vote counting machines (e-counting) due to its reliance on multiple choice voting and/or fractional counting. The trending and modern form of PR being advocated for is a type of Ranked-Choice voting called Single-Transferrable Vote (STV), which according to publications by government and NGO commissioned experts very much increases the risk and recommendation for using electronic counting machines to count election votes.
In any form PR also increases the number of useless politicians spread over larger geographical areas, making it harder for independents (and lesser funded participants) to cover an area and democratically compete. In some iterations of PR only government approved parties are even allowed to participate, or advantageously benefit over independents thanks to fractionally shared (counted more than once) votes. It is extremely important for advocates of democracy and PR to note that election counting machines are not transparent, because you cannot see inside one and observe it counting.
In a conventional election counting system there is one candidate who wins in your area by earning the most votes. Every voter gets one equal vote. Hand counters are openly observed counting each ballot, with one option marked, in a speedy manner over one election night.
A vote counting machine…?
The establishment PR system of choice recently seems to be ‘Single Transferable Vote’ (STV), a style of ranked choice voting. It is being pushed across the world and experts are recommending it in their commissioned reports, as shown in Wales, who advised it is best implemented with electronic vote counting machines due to the complexities.
Anything that contains more than one option on a single ballot creates unnecessary dilemmas, complications, or problems from a democratic integrity perspective. It takes longer, and justifies arguments for counting by electronic machines.
The general public rejected a decision to turn our election system into this when they were asked in a referendum in 2011.
This has not deterred it’s ‘mission creep’ and the accompaniment of e-counting machines entering the fray of lesser profile council elections in Scotland. Also, in 2027, councils in Wales will have the option of choosing STV.
E-counting is installed and run by international corporations. Does that sound fool proof to you?
You could easily argue from hearing discourse among pundits, rightly disillusioned members of the public and political parties that the general mood for this seductively termed change has never been greater.
Explaining the different systems of PR
STV
As mentioned above it is the most likely version of PR to be implemented. It is the most complicated to count and therefore is the most likely to bring in e-counting machines. If no e-counting is utilised it can create a questionable election time-delay.
The D’hondt Method
Not as complex to count as STV (unless ranked choice voting is included), but as I have pointed out above it also comes with additional drawbacks. Elected seats are doled out in multiples, covering one much larger region, and based off the order of political parties pre-chosen lists. Even if ballots are adapted to include independents, this voting option will not go towards multiple seats being gained, as it is for parties. These factors serve to further reinforce the flaws with the party system, and lead to the loss of the individual and local connection.
Additional Member System (AMS)
This combines the traditionally counted elections, with a second added election of ‘PR’ counted regional seats. As combined elections are counted on the same day, AMS has the ability to bless both with the curse of e-counting machines.
A proportional heist
To Summarise
We are one of the last places in the world which has not yet succumbed to the ‘promise’ of PR in general elections! If we can share this information with an informed general public, then we stand a chance of handing down to our children free and fair elections.
‘Proportional Representation’ with STV and e-counting referencesThe Electoral Reform Society
1) Have been accused of the potential to profiteer off of electronic vote counting machines via a subsidiary company Electoral Reform Services Ltd. in the 2011 Alternative Vote Referendum (Ranked-Choice Voting):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MuOVXLuIlOA&pp=ygU5QXYgcmVmZXJlbmR1bSBlbGVjdGlyYWwgY29tbWlzc2lvbiB2b3RlIGNvdW50aW5nIG1hY2hpbmVz&t=1m14s
1.2) “Matthew Elliot, the campaign director of “No to AV”, claimed the “Yes” campaign had a conflict of interest in the referendum.
The Electoral Reform Society is one of two main backers of the “Yes” campaign, donating more than £1 million to the cause. The ERS receives a similar sum in an annual dividend from its commercial subsidiary, Electoral Reform Services Ltd.
Mr Elliott argued that a switch to AV will make the introduction of electronic voting machines more likely and that as the UK’s market leader in election management software, the ERS’s commercial operation would be ideally placed to benefit.
The reason we bring this up is because with the other preferential voting systems in the UK, be it London’s mayoral elections or certain Scottish local government elections, which use e-counting, those vote counting machines are supplied by Electoral Reform Services and DRS [Data Services Ltd],” he said.
“So we’re saying the biggest donor to the Yes campaign, Election Reform Services, is actually set to make a lot of money out of this change in the system if AV goes through.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12989168
1.3) A cross-party parliamentary motion was made by 35 MPs over concerns with the Electoral Societies conflict of interest in the 2011 alternative vote referendum:
“ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH YES TO AV”
“Motion text
That this House notes with deep concern the potential conflict of interest that the Alternative Vote `Yes’ campaign may be facing due to its links with and majority of funding from the Electoral Reform Society, an organisation that lacks accountability and transparency; notes that should the people of Britain vote for the AV system, the Electoral Reform Society stand to benefit from a potential bonanza in lucrative contracts to supply the running of the new system including through providing the new costly counting machines”
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/42583/electoral-reform-society-conflict-of-interest-with-yes-to-av
2) The Electoral reform society have been advocating for STV
“What are the advantages of STV?
Many campaigners say this is the closest to true proportional representation of any voting system currently in use and has previously been advocated for by the Electoral Reform Society.”
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/20092881.stv-voting-system-vote-counted/STV relationship with electronic counting machines, or taking longer to hand count manually.
1) It has been reported within this BBC article that STV hand-counting can often take longer to count, in N.Ireland since they stopped using vote counting machines to count.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-48352171
2) “The process of counting the results takes longer under STV, meaning that results cannot usually be declared on the same night as the vote takes place.”
https://uk-engage.org/2013/06/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-the-single-transferable-vote-stv-system/
3) “THE SCOTTISH government is spending more than £5 million on an electronic counting system for votes at next week’s local government elections.
On Thursday they issued the press with a fact sheet about the process and we pass it on for those who might be interested.
Why are we using e-counting?
The Scottish Parliament voted in 2004 for the introduction of the Single Transferable Vote system (STV) for local government elections and the system has been in use since 2007.
The form of STV used in Scotland means that E-counting is inevitable because a manual count of a full election would take 2-3 days to conduct. This would lead to greater staff and count venue costs in addition to the timing issue. Counting the election electronically allows the result to be produced in a few hours.”
https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2012/04/26/e-counting-the-facts/
4) “Elections in the 21st Century: from paper ballot to e-voting The Independent Commission on Alternative Voting Methods”
Page 62
“Conclusions and Recommendations
If the United Kingdom were to find itself in a position where elections or referendums were being conducted with increasing frequency, with greater numbers of choices, and with more complicated electoral systems, then the Commission believes that electronic counting could solve some problems.”
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/The-Independent-Commission-on-Alternative-Voting-Methods.pdf
5) New Zealand local election STV and e-counting
“How votes are counted
This diagram gives an at-a-glance view of how votes are counted under STV.
It’s a job for a computer
Votes are counted using specially developed computer software – the formulae involved are too complex for counting to be done by hand.
The computer program:
Works out the quota needed by each candidate to be elected
Keeps track of the preferences each candidate receives including transfers between candidates
Calculates the result.”
https://www.stv.govt.nz/counting.shtml
6) Electronic Vote Counting in the Scottish Local Government Elections 2017
“It’s easy to understand, given the explanation of the vote counting method, that this is a very complex process if done manually. This is one of the key reasons why the Scottish Local Government Elections are counted electronically. As we will see later, the lengthy manual process of transferring votes and calculating their value is hugely reduced in the e-counting system. In e-counting, once the initial count is done, the rest of the complicated calculations, which in a large count could quite literally take days, are done almost instantly, at the touch of a button.”
https://www.emb.scot/downloads/file/302/2017-ecounting-training-guide-v1-1
7) Leigh Egerton Electronic Vote Counting Systems – Northern Ireland Assembly
“Scotland
Electronic vote counting was used for the combined Scottish Parliamentary and Local Government elections in 2007. In 2007 Scotland moved from a First Past the Post system to the Single Transferable Vote System (STV) for its Local Government
elections. The change in voting system prompted the move to electronic vote
counting:
“Due to the added complexity of counting STV compared to the First-Past-
the- Post system, the Scottish Executive concluded that the traditional
manual counting of the ballot papers would not be effective for the 2007
elections and that electronic counting technology would be required.”
Electronic Vote Counting will be used in this year’s Scottish Local Government
elections on the 3rd May.”
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/Documents/RaISe/Publications/2012/ofmdfm/9112.pdf
8) “That’s why when we’ve introduced preferential voting in recent years – STV in Scotland; SV in London – the change was accompanied by the introduction of electronic vote counting. Likewise, electronic vote-counting machines are whenever AV is used in the US – As the head of the American pro-AV group, FairVote.org, admitted: “the use of machines is just a given”
(Australia does use vote counting machines…)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-av-will-cost-250-million/
9) “Anthony Mayer, the returning officer responsible for the London mayoral and assembly elections from 2000 to 2008, saying: “If the political classes want results early on the Friday after the 10pm Thursday closure of polling stations then with AV there is no choice but electronic counting. If the political classes are relaxed about results coming in over the weekend then manual counting is feasible, if more costly on account of more counting staff hours.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/yes-camp-rules-out-use-of-costly-counting-machines-2275162.html
10) From now on the London May 2024 Mayoral and Assembly Elections are switching back to manually hand counting votes, ending the counting of votes by electronic counting machines because they are switching from a form of ‘Proportional Representation’ counting system for Mayor to a traditional ‘First Past the Post’ counting system again.
From Page 77
“3.1 The rationale for counting the GLA elections electronically has always been the scale and complexity of the voting arrangements. These elections involve the counting of around 12 million votes, counting four votes across three ballot papers:
(i) first and second-preference votes for the Mayoral contest
(ii) a single vote for a constituency Assembly Member candidate under the’ first-past-the-post’ system
(iii) a single vote for a ‘London-wide’ Assembly Member candidate and/or party, chosen through a proportional representation calculation (modified d’Hondt) directly related to the results of (ii).
3.2 A manual count has previously been considered both too slow and resource-intensive by comparison with an electronic count (e-count). Every count since 2000 has been successfully delivered after a very long count held the day after polling day, although the declaration of the results has sometimes not been completed until the early hours of the following morning. The only exception was when the count was spread over two days in 2021, due to safety measures necessitated by the pandemic.
3.3 However, Election Bill amendments currently before parliament would result in the 2024 election to the Mayor of London being ‘first past the post’ for the first time, with the ‘second-preference vote’ removed. The Bill is expected to receive royal assent in May 2022. No change is planned in respect of the Assembly election process. This means that in 2024, there would be three different-coloured ballot papers to count with one vote each.
3.4 This gives rise to the possibility that a 2024 manual count could now be carried out in a timely manner at less overall cost than an e-count, something that has not been the case hitherto. More generally, the cost of the e-count has escalated in recent years, due to increased testing, resilience and cybersecurity measures. There is also the possibility of a coinciding General Election in May 2024 which would be counted manually starting after close of polls.
3.5 In September, LEMB agreed that a sub-group of borough electoral and GLA officers would meet to consider the extent to which the move to ‘first past the post’ for the Mayoral election, and the risk of a coinciding General Election, might swing the balance from a preference for e-counting to one for manual counting, and with what associated issues.”
They are also moving the vote counting back to each of the local boroughs, putting an end to the transportation and counting of ballots at three large central counting locations.
“The sub-group considers that the best configuration for manual counts, if adopted, would be at the level of either 33 boroughs or 14 GLA constituencies. The three large vote-counting centres at Alexandra Palace, ExCeL and Olympia London – which must be booked years in advance – would no longer be required.”
https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/londonassembly/meetings/documents/g7054/Public%20reports%20pack%20Wednesday%2012-Jan-2022%2010.00%20GLA%20Oversight%20Committee.pdf?T=10&#page=77
The Returning Officers signature approving the above recommended change:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/glro24-01_-_request_manual_count_final_-_v1_signed.pdf
11) Dr. Stuart MacLennan is calling for the use of electronic counting machines in Irish elections once again to speed up the election count.
www.stuartmaclennan.co.uk/2016/02/machine-counting-of-stv-elections-faster-and-fairer/
Back to articles
Return to homepage