[EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines

[James Gilmour]

Raph Frank > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 11:01 PM
> > These disks have to be kept securely for four years  -
> > no access to anyone except with a Court Order.
> 
> What is the basis for granting access?

We do not have any precedents for access to the images of ballot papers because there were no challenges after the May 2007
elections.  So we have precedents only for access to actual ballot papers, going back many years.  An election court would grant an
order only if a petitioner (usually a candidate backed by a political party) had good grounds for alleging fraud.  So far as I know,
we have not had any problems of that kind in the actual counting procedure in UK elections but we have had proven cases of fraud in
the handling of postal ballot.  A court MIGHT also be grant access (order a recount) if a candidate had good grounds for alleging
that the Returning Officer has misinterpreted the regulations in a way that could have changed the outcome (winner) of the election.
Some party representatives did challenged the ROs adjudications on some ballot images and these disagreements were recorded in the
electronic system.  But none of the parties made any challenge after the elections, although in the Scottish Parliament elections
(MMP) the numbers of rejected ballot papers considerable exceeded the winner's margin in quite a number of the single-member
constituencies.

> There would probably be consensus on 99% of the ballots and 
> then the returning officer can check the last 1%.
> 
> A judge might be called in for 0.1%, if there still was a 
> dispute after the RO gave a decision on the disputed ballots.

This not how the process works here in the UK.  The RO adjudicates on "doubtful" ballot papers and there are discussions with the
candidates an their agents.  They may dispute the RO's decision, but if the RO doesn't back down, the election result is announced.
Then, after the official announcement, any aggrieved person can petition the court for an investigation which would in effect be a
recount.


> >> A blank ballot is one that has no writing on it, or one  that is not 
> >> used?
> >
> > "Blank ballot paper" here means one that came out of a sealed ballot 
> > box at the counting centre and had no vote recorded on it.
> 
> Ahh, it is a check that all ballot papers are accounted for?  
> I wouldn't see an issue with imaging them too.

Sorry if I didn't make this completely clear.  Every ballot paper that it put into a ballot box by a voter is "counted", where that
can mean being identified as "rejected" because it is "invalid" ("informal" in Australia) for any one of several reasons, including
"is blank".  The numbers of such rejected ballot papers are reported along with the numbers of valid votes and the candidates'
votes.  It is the total number of papers in the ballot box (blanks and all, before such blanks have been identified) that is used in
the reconciliation against the number of papers issued to the Polling Station, when the unused (unissued) papers and any spoilt
(replaced) papers are part of that reconciliation.  The numbers of unused ballot papers and the numbers of spoilt ballot papers are
not reported and there is no access to that information after the reconciliation at the opening of each ballot box has been
completed.  NB "Rejected ballot papers" and "Spoilt ballot papers" are completely different animals and are both very precisely
defined in the Election Regulations though the media (and some officials!!) use the terms interchangeably - which can cause great
confusion, as it did in May 2007 when there were unprecedented numbers of "rejected ballot papers" in the Scottish Parliament MMP
elections.

James

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1709 - Release Date: 05/10/2008 09:20