The Electoral Commission today called for an end to trials of telephone and internet voting until the government has set out a strategy for modernising the electoral system and made it more secure.
The recommendation was one of several made in the Commission’s official evaluation of electoral pilots held at this May’s local elections. The elections watchdog said that, while a good deal has been learned from pilots in the last seven years, there is little merit in further pilots until the government has set out a clear plan for changing the way elections are run.
Thirteen local authorities in England ran pilot schemes commissioned by the Ministry of Justice. The reports, published today, examine pilots of electronic voting, voting in advance of polling day, electronic counting and signing for ballot papers at the polling station.
The Commission is recommending:
- No more pilots of electronic voting without a system of individual voter registration. There also needs to be further consideration of its wider implications and significant improvements to testing and implementation.
- No further pilots of electronic counting, and more robust procurement and testing processes when electronic counting is used in future elections.
- That the government makes a decision whether to allow voting in advance of polling day – further pilots are unnecessary
- That the government publishes a strategy for modernising the electoral process – including changes to improve security
- That the value of signing for ballot papers is limited in the absence of individual registration
Peter Wardle, Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission, said:
“We have learnt a good deal from pilots over the past few years. But we do not see any merit in continuing with small-scale, piecemeal piloting where similar innovations are explored each year without sufficient planning and implementation time, and in the absence of any clear direction, or likelihood of new insights.
“We welcome the recent government green paper on constitutional reform; and we believe this needs to be supported by a clear plan for modernising elections. We continue to believe that the security of our electoral process needs to be strengthened through a system of individual registration.”
Various forms of internet and telephone voting and electronic voting in polling stations were tested in Rushmoor, Sheffield, Shrewsbury and Atcham, South Bucks and Swindon. The Commission’s report raises concerns about low public confidence in the security of such methods; accessibility; and technical difficulties. The Commission recommends that electronic voting should not be pursued any further without significant improvements to testing and implementation and a system of individual voter registration.
Electronic counting took place in Breckland, Dover, South Bucks, Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick. Difficulties with the technology in Breckland, Stratford-on Avon and Warwick resulted in the electronic count being abandoned in favour of a traditional manual count. Electronic counting in the other pilot areas was completed although it was slower than expected and difficulties were reported in Bedford and South Bucks. The report concludes that the problems were mainly a result of limited testing and insufficient planning prior to the election.
The Commission recommends that since electronic counting has previously been used on a large scale in the UK there is no immediate need for further piloting. However, the report sets out a number of steps which must be taken in planning any future projects, such as substantial testing; and allowing a minimum of six months for implementation.
Advance voting, which allowed electors in Gateshead, Sunderland, Bedford, Sheffield and Broxbourne to vote on various days before polling day, was well implemented but actual take-up amongst the electorate was low. With this in mind, and the fact that there were few new lessons learnt this year, the Commission recommends that the Government comes to a decision on whether local authorities should offer advance voting.
Signing for ballot papers took place in Gateshead, Sunderland, Bedford and Broxbourne and operated without problems. However, the Commission continues to question the value of piloting this process because, in the absence of individual registration, there is nothing to check the signatures against and therefore no added security benefit.
Ends
