Reviewing the 2015 UK General Election

The general election in the United Kingdom wrapped up early last month with Prime Minister David Cameron being selected for another term and the Conservative Party earning a majority in the Commons with 331 total seats. This was a shock to many political pundits and analysts, but more relevant to the context of this blog, much can be said about the continuing development and implementation of electronic voting technology in the 2015 UK election.

Leading up to the general election, there was much discussion about the future of elections in the United Kingdom particularly in terms of the adoption of electronic voter registration, electronic voting and even Internet voting. This continues to spark an ongoing debate about modernizing the democracy and bringing it up to the 21^st century. It has been said that the more widespread use of technology in the democratic process would encourage greater citizen participation, particularly among the younger demographic. Recommendations have included the implementation of a two-step verification process for voter authentication and the creation of a central voting website.

But these are looking ahead to the future with an optimistic outlook of implementation in time for the 2020 General Election. What actually happened with the 2015 General Election? The United Kingdom has made significant strides, particularly when it came to an online system for voter registration. A last-minute rush saw nearly 470,000 people register online in just a 24 hour period, breaking the all-time record.

Despite progress in enabling the people of the United Kingdom to add their names to the official voter roll via the Internet, such progress was not witnessed to the same extent in other areas of modernizing the British election.

For Britons who are currently living abroad, the process for casting a ballot is frustrating and time-intensive. It takes so long, in fact, that many such individuals could not participate in the 2015 General Election because their postal ballots did not arrive in time. This is despite registering as much as two months in advance for individuals living as nearby as the Czech Republic or Spain. “Large number of citizens abroad,” said expat voting rights blogger Brian Cave, “have not received any ballot papers for the election.”

A secure online voting system with proper voter authentication could have overcome this major problem.

Even when voting in person, the UK electoral infrastructure faced significant challenges. Some polling stations had to turn away many voters who indeed had their polling cards but were not showing up in the electoral roll due to IT glitches. The voting systems need to have the proper audits and checks in place so that such errors simply do not occur. An electronic polling station connected to the central database could have rectified such issues.

Another fatal flaw of traditional paper ballot-based voting is the increased likelihood for spoilt ballots. This was precisely the case in the recent UK elections as an estimated 27,500 ballots were rejected, mostly because these voters ticked more than one candidate. Because of the secret ballot, the voters whose ballots were rejected were never informed that their vote would not count. This “voter confusion” could be avoided with a well-designed direct-recording electronic voting machine, as the software would be configured to accept only the correct number of inputs from the voter.

Looking ahead to the next General Election in a few years, the electoral officials in the United Kingdom still have a lot of work to do. Thankfully, they have some time to work out these problems and to start developing and implementing better, more modern solutions for casting a ballot. Internet voting, which 63% of those polled by YouGov stated would boost voter turnout, should be seriously considered. The UK would also benefit from better systems for the electoral roll, as well as the move toward offering direct-recording electronic voting machines in lieu of paper ballots. Democracy can only work when the infrastructure is working at its best.

Should governments fight low turnout with compulsory voting?

Following the mere 36% voter turnout in May's European Union elections, many experts have asked how they can increase the number of people who make it to the polls. This is not only for future elections in the European Union, but also for local, regional and national elections all around the world.

Daniel Lobo

It's a common problem in many democratic nations and it's one that governing bodies need to address. There are at least two prominent strategies being discussed and both of these strategies can be used in tandem for the greatest impact. The first of these is to implement compulsory voting. 

If eligible citizens who do not exercise their right to vote are penalized in some way -typically through the application of fines- then the effective voter turnout rate should be practically 100%. In Belgium, where voting is compulsory, voter turnout is typically over 90%. Elected Government officials can then justifiably say that they represent the will of the people. 

When there is low voter turnout, as was the case with the EU, it can be argued that the elected officials are only representing the will of a select minority: those who actually made it to the polls to cast a ballot. 

On the other hand, the very spirit of democracy is based on the notion of personal freedom. If a free citizen is forced to vote, then he or she is no longer free. Indeed, the very act of abstaining to vote can be a political statement by itself.

The second big strategy being discussed is the increased adoption of technology in the electoral process, including e-voting technology for casting ballots, as well as the possible adoption of Internet voting. This would be particularly effective in reducing voter apathy among young people, as that demographic largely embraces e-voting. Members of the so-called Generation Y (or “Millennials”), as well as much of Generation X, grew up with technology being an integral part of their lives. They use the Internet and mobile devices on a daily basis to conduct the rest of their business, so why not include technology as part of exercising their democratic right to vote as well?

Indeed, Max Benwell of The Independent argues that these two strategies should be combined. He supports compulsory online voting as a means to “revolutionise the way our political system works.” If voting is mandatory, it may as well be convenient. “It would be quick and easy,” he writes, “with no more trudging down to your local polling centre.”

The use of Internet voting could be accompanied by a mobile app that can provide voters with more information about the platforms of each of the candidates. This way, they can make a more educated decision more easily. It is a sad state of affairs when more people (at least in the United Kingdom) are likely to vote on a reality TV talent show than they are to vote on who should represent them in government. A big part of that has to do with access and convenience. The democratic process needs to be secure, of course, but it also shouldn't feel like so much of a chore and a burden. Even if people don't want to vote, they should feel committed to do so. And maybe compulsory voting, perhaps with an option to cast a ballot online or by a more efficient and accessible e-voting system, is the way to improve the situation.