2022-7 NI Assembly elections
Tuesday, May 10, 2022 Parts of the NI ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS on 5.5.2022 were horrible. Inter alia, the rules for the conduct of elections in NI allow:
+ (a) political-party activists to continue campaigning on election day, even within the immediate proximity of the entrance of a polling station; and
+ (b) parties to appoint a polling agent to be present at each desk.
As a result of these rules, electoral abuses are sometimes several.
A OBSERVATIONS
A.1 To get to the entrance of some polling stations, voters often have to go through a gauntlet of party activists.
A.2 The individual voter’s identity – his/her number on the electoral register – is made known to a polling agent, (if and when the latter is present). This is legal, here in NI. Just as one would not want Mr Putin to know whether or not Ivan Ivanovich (a Russian Joe Bloggs) has voted, so too here, the NI party activist should not be provided with data on individual voters’ identities. Neither A.1 nor A.2 would be tolerated in an OSCE-run election.
A.3 The fact that voters’ numbers on the electoral register are read out to the polling agent means that the atmosphere inside the polling station is sometimes little short of mayhem, as numbers are announced, queried, repeated, corrected, confirmed… above the general chitter-chatter of the voters’ ‘whad-about-yers’.
A.4 Information on who has (and therefore who has not) voted is – sometimes – passed to activists outside, who can then round up any of their supporters whom they might regard as stragglers. To allow this data to get outside the polling station, while polling is still underway, is illegal, even in NI… but it happens (as when the polling agent puts ‘that other’ piece of paper into her handbag, just before being relieved).[1]
A.5 The inside of many a polling station, which is meant to be neutral, is often littered with ‘sample ballots’ and other items of party-political litter.
A.6 In effect, parties are able, not only to continue their campaigns on polling day, but also to conduct part of their campaign inside the polling station. This is only horrible. In an OSCE-run election are different, the abuses outlined in A.4, A.5 and A.6 would not happen.
B CONSEQUENCES
B.1 Some parties treat their supporters like ballot fodder, with ‘instructions’ or sample ballots for ‘these’ voters in ‘this’ part of the constituency to vote A1, B2, C3; for ‘those’ in ‘that’ part to vote B1, C2, A3; for ‘others’ over there to vote C1, A2, B3, and so on. As a result, in Mid Ulster for example, all three SF candidates got a high 1st preference score: 8199, 8215 and 10845. Such instructions rarely if ever suggest how subsequent preferences should be cast. (See paras C.1.)
C THE COUNT
C.1 PR-STV – one of the best electoral systems in current use – nevertheless contains some odd rules, which I have long since tried to highlight; in particular, transfers of candidates now elected are sometimes, to say the least, a little odd. In East Londonderry for example, in stage 9, Robinson (DUP), elected in stage 8, had a surplus of 824.00 votes to transfer. Nine candidates had already been excluded; his sole running mate had already been elected; so you might think that some of these 824.00 votes might just perhaps per chance well maybe be non-transferable. After all, the DUP (like SF) often ‘instruct’ their voters to vote DUP 1-2 or 2-1, and experience suggests that many voters follow such guidance; (para B.1). But what happened in East Londonderry? Lots of votes were indeed transferred, going to Sugden (Ind) 696.96, McCaw (All) 90.64 and Hunter (SDLP) 35.20, while only 1.20 votes were actually recorded as non-transferable. Only 1.20 non-transferable? Incredible. (This 1.20 is more likely to be a mathematical tidying-up, rather than a non-transferable total.)[2]
C.2 In other constituencies, transfers were conducted somewhat differently. In Strangford for instance, Armstrong (All) had a surplus of 204.00 votes; five candidates had by now been excluded, her sole running mate, Mathison, was still in contention, and he got 107.26 of them; three other candidates got a few votes each, and 66.86 votes were recorded as non-transferable – a credible figure.
C.3 The East Londonderry type of aberration may happen because, in certain circumstances, a candidate’s surplus is transferred, not as those of his/her voters had indicated in their subsequent preferences, but as if all 100% of the voters concerned had indicated a subsequent preference to the same parties and in the same ratio as those who did do so. In effect, sometimes, votes are transferred without the relevant voters’ knowledge let alone consent. This is one further part of the NI electoral process which deserves the description ‘horrible’; it is an infringement of those voters’ democratic rights.
C.4 I should add that this is not due to any misconduct of electoral officials, all of whom, it seems, endeavour to be scrupulously fair; rather, it is a quirk in the rules which I first highlighted over 20 years ago. Mr George Howarth MP agreed there was a case to be examined; Mr Douglas Bain was also sympathetic; other CEOs have not always understood the problem or paused to consider its ramifications; while the Electoral Commission’s promise to hold a seminar on this subject was never kept. Little wonder then that aberrations like the one in 2022 in East Londonderry continue to occur.
D RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS
D.1 All election campaigning should cease, at least 24 hours before polling day.
D.2 A polling station should be completely neutral. There should be no party-political posters of any sort within, say, 100m of the entrance to the polling station precinct, and definitely no activists within that zone, just outside the entrance or wherever. Activists may still accompany the elderly and others to the polling station, in totally unmarked cars, just as the rules allow frail voters to be assisted inside the polling station…[3]
D.3 Candidates on the ballot paper should be listed, not alphabetically as at present, but at random. (This would make it more difficult for parties to produce their sample ballot papers although, with postal votes, it may still become possible… unless postal ballots were also listed at random, but in a different draw and therefore in a different order.)
D.4 Polling agents (renamed perhaps party observers) may be allowed inside a polling station, not one per desk, but one per station. He/she may observe the process in the round, but should not be able to ascertain the identity of any individual voter, and should not have any access to the returning officer’s electoral register, at least until polling has ceased. Recommendations D.1 to D.4 are all based on current practice in OSCE-observed elections.
D.5 The rules for the conduct of PR-STV elections should be altered (and simplified), even if it does mean that rather more candidates are elected by default. Maybe consideration could also be given to the quota Borda system QBS, which is very similar to PR-STV as far as the voters are concerned, but much easier to count and understand.
E A FURTHER RECOMMENDATION
E.1 Posters on lampposts etc. should be banned. Instead, as happens in some countries, certain areas of each constituency – roundabouts, park entrances etc. – should be earmarked for all parties to campaign there, each (regardless of the party’s size in the previous Assembly) allocated ‘x’ square metres of billboard or whatever, each allowed up to ‘y’ individuals to be present at any one time, each limited to the same maximum of expenditure.
Peter Emerson
Polling Agent in 2022. Candidate in 15 elections under PR-STV (local council and Assembly), PR-list (1996 Forum elections) and FPTP (Westminster). Election observer for the OSCE in over 20 elections in Eastern and Central Europe, from 1996 (in Bosnia) to 2017 (in Mongolia), with other observations in Ireland (two elections, the most recent in 2016), Scotland (the referendum in 2014) and Taiwan (their election in 2020).
[1] Not for the first time, the author of this paper reported such an offence being committed to the returning officer.
[2][2] Whether or not an aberration of this type has ever led to the erroneous election of one or more candidates, and the equally erroneous elimination of others, would require further research on the ballots cast. This was requested some years ago, but not permitted.
[3] …but not by someone wearing a bright green ‘Votail Sinn Féin’ waistcoat (as happened at desk 043).
