A LibDem councillor (and parliamentary candidate) represented by a former Tory MP went to court asking for the current postal voting setup to be declared “incompatible” with our human rights laws as the “free expression of the will of the people” would be denied.

It was a brave move and those behind this should be congratulated for trying to make a stand. Unfortunately the judge felt that the plaintiff had not actually been the victim of fraud yet so could not come to the courts. If after the election fraud was thought to have occurred legal remedies exist, or so the judge thought. A shame but an understandable outcome. BBC News report

I must say I'm surprised that they didn't go in with the secret ballot angle which is also in the human rights legislation and postal ballots plainly breach secrecy. I quote:

ARTICLE 3: RIGHT TO FREE ELECTIONS The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
– Human Rights Act 1998 Part II The First Protocol

Free elections are a bit hard to pin down legally but the secret ballot is fundamentally important and very clear to define. Does anyone know why this wasn't the approach taken in the courts? Am I missing something?

“The [electoral] system is wide open to fraud and any would-be political fraudster knows that.”

So said Judge Richard Mawrey as he quashed the results of two local council elections in Birmingham.

The trial has finally raised the lid on the dirty secret that the political elite have long known about: Postal voting is a mess and is open to massive abuse. It's a terrible shame we had to get to a trial before the problems could be properly raised. The media coverage from this case will dramatically undermine the faith voters have in our electoral system, potentially reducing turnout – the exact opposite of the intended effects postal voting was supposed to have.

As I say, the elite knew about the problems, and many voters instictively felt that postal voting wasn't quite right. For example Birmingham's Labour leader wrote to Blair:

“At present, in relation to the handling of postal ballot papers, the law is so general that almost anything is legal.”

Furthermore the judge totally smashed the image of the Returning Officer as the key person responsible for ensuring a proper and accurate election. On Returning Officers Judge Mawrey said:

“If something seems wrong with the postal ballot papers, you have no powers or resources to ferret around to see if the votes are legitimate.”

The simple fact is that no matter what techniques are used (hand delivery, pin codes, better electoral rolls) any form of postal voting eliminates the secret ballot. Thus voters can be coerced or sell their votes and we immediately see why the secret ballot is so important. Postal voting inevitably risks an election's integrity.

I've long had doubts over postal voting, and these were confirmed when I assessed the 2003 All Postal Ballot Pilot in Brighton & Hove which seriously lacked transparency and threatened citizens' ability to vote through lost or stolen ballots.

Despite many knowing of the problems, the Government has pressed onwards with electoral experiments. We even saw a committee of MPs calling to make postal voting easier. The cynical view is that Labour tends to do better with higher turnouts so tricks like postal ballots were popular. The less cynical view is that it's easier to play with e-voting, supermarket polling booths and so on than really changing how one does politics. A few small voices of protest have tried to stem the tide but to little success and meanwhile the Electoral Commission were saying odd things. This changed when the Electoral Commission came out with a major report on all postal ballots after the troubled experiments for the Euro elections. As a result of this report in 2004 the Commission bravely went into their first ever open conflict with the Government over the use of all postal in the regional assembly referenda.

The Comission didn't just want to stop all postal for the referenda but actually said that:

“All-postal voting should no longer be pursued for use at UK elections.”

Jolly good stuff I felt… The juggernaut of postal voting was finally beginning to slow. The Commission felt that despite most reported problems not being significant (a claim which I feel they couldn't justify) the negative impact on voter's confidence was enough to stop any further pilots. Additionally the Commission published guidance on how to handle postal ballots if canvassing, yet is seems the parties are happily ignoring this basic fig-leaf covering the entire system's flaws.

How this ends we cannot know. By the end of the election I forsee many challenged results in marginal constituencies.

What the media says

The Times has taken significant interest in this issue, shame on some of the other papers for failing to see its fundamental importance to the UK's survival as a serious and trusted democracy. A Times leader “Votes and Values” sets the tone well. The Daily Mail also has an excellent leader column, though I think it's a bit much to implicate the national Labour government in the local Labour political fraud.

The Telegraph asked why it's taken so long for a tightening of the electoral legislation to be drafted… well it hasn't actually been drafted yet and won't be until after the election. It's a good question which The Times also asked.

In summary

Alarm bells should be ringing with the news that:

• Six Labour councillors were found guilty of electoral fraud in Birmingham. BBC
• A further 1,000 uncounted votes have just shown up in Birmingham. Guardian
• A Labour councillor was found guilty of vote rigging in Blackburn. BBC
• Increases of nearly 500% have been seen in postal vote applications in some areas with marginal constituencies. BBC
• Apparently the Government is already preparing for the next round of e-voting with invites going out to suppliers. Silicon.com

This could be a disaster. I sincerely hope not.

I suppose beggars can't be choosers when a survey is reported as Brits voice fraud fears over high-tech voting but still I can't help but be suspicious when the results report that 51% of 'younger people' would vote if there was a dedicated website. What?

UPDATE: More coverage on Silicon.com

In other news the Electoral Commission have published their new code of conduct for candidates, canvassers and campaigners handling postal ballots. It's a long overdue process of stating the obvious but I'm afraid it's inevitably little more than a sticking plaster to the fundamental problems of postal voting.

Whilst there are pushes for a national e-voting system in Japan, a recent court judgement has voided the result of a July 2003 city council election. This is one of the few times I can recall a result actually being declared void due to e-voting results. I'm glad to see the Japanese legal system going against a 'technology is always right' view.

UPDATE: The municipal authority in Japan have shelved e-voting for the next election

Now this is remarkable… Michael Meacher, the Labour MP and former environment minister, has penned a detailed and coherent column strongly arguing against e-voting in the UK. He even rejects the fabled pro-turnout arguments we've so often heard recited in support of e-voting. Is the tide starting to turn?

Link

Wired News are reporting in their sidebar that Ohio's e-voting machines are replaced with optical-scan machines. Better late than never!

The full text from Wired:

Ohio may be the home of Diebold, the most prominent manufacturer of touch-screen voting machines, but the Buckeye State is jumping off the e-voting bandwagon, at least for now. Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell ordered all counties to be using optical-scan machines (which provide paper ballots) by next November's election, the Toledo Blade reported Thursday. Blackwell, who had threatened to pull the plug on e-voting machines prior to the presidential election, said he was acting because not one of the machines is “certified under Ohio's standards and rules.” A lot of Democrats are probably wishing he had pulled the trigger a bit sooner.

I find it absolutely astonishing how many people are falling for the utter drivel that is Scytl’s marketing guff. Their product does not verify that votes are accurately stored and counted as the voter intended. This is the essence of reliable, democratic voting and they don’t do it.

Scytl’s MD says “Whereas in physical elections you put your vote in a paper envelope, with Pnyx you put it in a digital envelope that provides the same level of security and privacy. Essentially we recreated the physical world in an online environment”. Hombre, that is a load of manure, the same level of security and privacy? Not a chance.

So you can imagine I’m delighted to hear that Scytl have won a European IST Prize. There’s a sucker born every minute it would seem.

That's basically what the Government has said in it's very very long awaited responses to the Electoral Commission's hard work.

Kable have a good summary of the situation with some extra quotes. I would love to dissect the Government's reports and report on the Kreminology of the whole affair but I'm moving at the moment and really can't spare the time. Ikea wardrobes don't build themselves you know!

The Times has a good article on the Government's obsession with boosting turnout hence their continuously trying to force postal ballots. As many of the people they quoted comment, it's a bit odd to undermine confidence in the electoral process in favour of a few extra percentage points of turnout.

Louise Ferguson has links to a Radio 4 piece on all-postal voting which I haven't had a chance to listen to but I'm sure must be good if Louise recommends it.

PublicTechnoloy has an article on the reports which leads on the need for a centralised electoral register. This project was once called LASER but now is known as CORE, if it ever happens then it will be another national ID database of sorts. Oh joy. The key point is that while e-voting is on hold CORE could re-awaken e-voting pilots once completed. Oh more joy.

The two government reponses are on the Department for Constitutional Affairs' website here and here

A bit unexpected but good news I think… there will be a Parliamentary inquiry into e-voting early next year. It will be run by the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee with a sub-committee of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Hopefully it will be an open and frank exploration of the issues. Submissions can be made until 14th January 2005 to odpmcom@parliament.uk

Reports: Industry Standard and TechWorld

A write-up has gone online about the recent 'E-voting: Policy & Practice' event in which I participated.