A degree in rocket science was not needed to discern the cause of the slow vote-counting at the last election. This, however, provided no guarantee that an array of taskforces, officials and cabinet committees would arrive at a sensible remedy. Sometimes, the simplest problem can prompt the most convoluted response. Fortunately, in this instance there is every indication that obvious conclusions have been reached and that the 1999 election chaos will not be repeated.
The confusion that night was unusual. Previously, election outcomes had almost always been known by 11 pm. The key difference was that two referendums were held with the election. Inexplicably, staff at many polling booths ignored the instruction to count election votes before those of the referendums. If there was a reason for this foolishness, it probably lay in the thinness on the ground of Department for Courts staff. These officials, central to the smooth running of previous elections, had been dissuaded by the department from acting as returning officers because it could distract them from their normal duties.
Fixing those peculiar problems should not be difficult. First, returning officers will be left in no doubt that referendum votes are of secondary importance. Second, every Government department, state agency and state-owned enterprise will be expected to chip in to help the Electoral Office with the running of elections. Effectively, a burden which the Department for Courts found too heavy will be shared. The collective muscle, mindset and experience of the public service will be brought to bear. Also, returning officers will be appointed earlier, thereby providing less opportunity for matters to be left to chance.
If the Government stopped there, a repeat of most of last year's confusion would be avoided. But it has also examined aspects of MMP voting that might have caused uncertainty. Were, for example, people confused by the arrangements for the party and electorate vote, and could this be answered by printing the ballot papers in different colours and asking voters to put them in different boxes?
Surprisingly, perhaps, independent tests suggested that separate sheets for party and electorate votes would be more likely to perplex than to help voters. If that suggests that most people have a reasonable grip on the mechanics of MMP, so much the better.
The Government, has, however, changed the counting of votes in one relatively minor way. From 3 pm, staff will be able to start counting votes cast before election day. Last year, however, fewer than 5 per cent of votes fell into that category. Having started down that road, the Government could have gone further and opted for the progressive counting of all votes. Other countries do this, and the security safeguards would be identical to those to be applied to early votes. It would seem an obvious way of hastening the result and diluting the stress under which counters operate. No longer would their work be concentrated in the hours from 7 pm.
Voters, at least, will find life a little easier through not having to re-enrol every three years. The process, which cost $9.2 million, was rooted in the past. An enrolment update form, to be sent before local body or parliamentary elections, should more than suffice for those whose personal details have changed.
A taskforce will also investigate wide-reaching structural changes and new technologies beyond the 2002 election. Computerisation will be a key focus. The first steps will begin at the next election with the likely use of technology to scan rolls to check for multiple votes or other discrepancies. Mechanised vote-counting would undoubtedly produce an earlier result. Before this is embraced, however, it must be shown that there will be savings in money as well as time. It must be chosen on its merits, not as a knee-jerk response to a problem which can, in all likelihood, be solved with relative ease.
Last year's debacle shook confidence in this country's election procedures. But the absurd counting delays and the weird spectacle of polling officers taking ballot papers home for "safe- keeping" did not signify the need for fundamental redesigns or far-reaching change. Substantial delays should already have been consigned to the past.
<i>Editorial:</i> Simple solutions to election problems
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.