Correction
The article below states that electronic counting was to blame for the large number of rejected ballots. In a review of this election (link), the Electoral Commission recorded several technical problems with the electronic counting system. However, it concluded that legislative delays leading to poor ballot paper design were the main cause of problems, adding that it had "not found any evidence that the electronic count contributed to the number of rejected ballot papers".
___________________________________________________________
May 2007 saw Scotland electing its first Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) government, but the manner in which that minority administration came to power generated almost as big a story. The election saw some 140,000 votes – about 7% of those cast – going uncounted.
The cause was electronic counting scanners which were meant automatically to count ballot papers and the votes on them. As the number of unprocessed suggests, this did not go to plan. But despite the 2007 experience the technique is about to be used once more, this time in direct elections to health boards in Scotland.
Health board elections were an SNP manifesto pledge, framed in response to controversial plans – later reversed – to close two accident and emergency units in Scottish hospitals.
Direct elections will be piloted in two health board areas, Fife and Dumfries & Galloway, early next year, before nationwide use is considered. Although the relevant bill passed through the Scottish Parliament with Labour support, healthcare professionals have not universally embraced the plan. Nevertheless, Scottish returning officers have already begun the procurement process for an electronic vote, or 'e-counting', system.
The Electoral Commission is acutely aware of the task at hand. Andy O'Neill, its head in Scotland, said: "With electronic counting, it is important that those using it are trained in the processes, and that there is effective on-site technical support to address any problems that may arise. It is also essential to have an external audit mechanism in place, in case the results are queried."
In 2007 a successful joint bid by DRS Data Services and Electoral Reform Services (ERS) ran the show. DRS, which had substantial experience of running e-counts since the 2000 Greater London Authority (GLA) election, acted as the lead system supplier, while ERS, which runs votes for trade unions and political parties, provided the module to perform complex calculations for the Scottish local government vote, which was conducted for the first time under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system of proportional representation.
The package used this time round, also for elections conducted under STV, is unlikely to be much different, despite the teething troubles of more than two years ago. Ken Ritchie, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, says that the DRS/ERS package was essentially sound but suffered from a "capacity problem" in terms of the number of papers that required adjudication.
When it comes to next year's health board pilot elections, however, he is cautious for a different reason. "These health boards have a small electorate and will perhaps have an even smaller turnout," he says. "I would have thought it would have been easier just to do the counts by hand."
From e-counts to e-votes
That is not, however, the inclination of the Scottish Government, which appears content to follow the guidance of both the Electoral Commission and the Arbuthnott Commission that electronic counting should become the norm as soon as possible before 2011 – and that electronic voting should eventually follow.
Health secretary Nicola Sturgeon is a particular enthusiast, and claims that direct elections are "essential" in order to improve the public accountability of the NHS. Under her scheme, each health board would see local authority councillors and elected public members form a majority on boards, with anyone aged 16 and over eligible to vote. But importantly, opposition parties only backed the pilots on the basis that they would be properly evaluated before being rolled out across the country.
The British Medical Association in Scotland, however, warned money could be wasted and health boards could become politicised, while five of Scotland's 14 health authorities opposed direct health board elections outright. On the other hand Unison Scotland, the union that represents health workers and IT staff, was among the most vociferous supporters of increased accountability.
Dave Watson, Unison's Scottish organiser for policy, said: "The NHS board election pilots in Fife and Dumfries & Galloway are welcome steps on the road to a more accountable and responsive NHS in Scotland. That should mean that boards are more receptive to the needs of patients and staff." And far from being concerned about the potential impact of elected members for those working in informatics and IT on Scottish health boards, Unison sees little or no trouble in store.
The proof, of course, will be in the electoral pudding. Perhaps it will take the smooth running of next year's pilot elections to restore political faith in the e-counting process, while the Scottish Government will be hoping that more democratic health board management will restore public faith in NHS accountability.
