ERS: Report proves Government is missing the point with e-voting

Electoral Reform Society logo for press releases

Thursday, 02, Aug 2007 12:00

Abort. Retry. Fail.

Report proves Government is missing the point with e-voting.

The Electoral Reform Society has responded positively to the Electoral Commission’s indictment of the recent e-voting pilots.

The Commission has called for a halt to future pilots until adequate safeguards, including individual voter registration, are in place.

Dr Ken Ritchie, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society said:

“We back these recommendations from the Electoral Commission, but with one very big qualifier. With the technology as it stands we would have grave concerns even if individual voter registration was in place. The integrity of the voting system at the heart of our democracy simply cannot be compromised.”

“No one out there is opposed to getting more people voting. But if low turnout was rooted in the complexity of voting as we know it, we could solve the problems of democratic engagement at the click of button. Unfortunately for the Ministry of Justice, e-voting is no panacea.

“We believe that politics can be more relevant and more competitive – the method is frankly immaterial. And with the case for e-voting still unproven, there is no compelling case to put our votes at risk.

“The Commission has now called for a clear strategy outlining just how the government intends modernizing our electoral system. And we couldn’t agree more. Where our antiquated elections are concerned we hope that this new government will stop obsessing with the detail and grasp the big picture.”

Notes to editors

Key findings from the Commission report include:

• Voters in Shrewsbury & Atcham and Sheffield were only able to vote electronically in advance of polling day, whereas voters in Rushmoor, South Bucks and Swindon were able to vote both in advance and on polling day. Analysis of the e-voting profile shows that the most popular day for e-voting was polling day, where this facility was available.

• A large number of electors pre-registered but did not subsequently vote electronically, ranging from 66% of registrants in Sheffield to 42% in Swindon.

• It is difficult to make any firm statements concerning the impact of e-voting on turnout. In practice, the majority of those who voted electronically are likely to have voted anyway via another channel.

• There were wide variations in the costs of the pilots, with the additional costs for e-voting varying from approximately £600,000 to £1,100,000. The cost per registered elector also varied widely, from approximately £1.80 in Sheffield to £27 in Shrewsbury & Atcham. The cost per e-voter was extremely high, varying from about £100 to £600.

The Electoral Commission Report is available online:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/files/dms/Keyfindingsandrecommendationssummarypaper_27191-20111__E__N__S__W__.pdf

• The Electoral Reform Society’s position on e-voting is outlined in this document:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/Electronic%20voting%20POLICY.pdf