Forum Topic

Why can’t Wandsworth Council count?

You may have seen news reports in the last few days about the General electionresult here in Putney.I thought I understood the result quite clearly. As a newly elected local Councillor Iwas at the count and saw the election result read out from the main stage in the earlyhours of Friday 5 th July.  Only that isn’t what happened at all. On Wednesday (17 th July) the council added anextra 6558 votes to what it announced as the result.It doesn’t change the outcome. Fleur Anderson clearly won, and I hope she does agreat job – regardless of who you vote for that’s in our collective interest.What has now emerged has left me shocked. For context the number of ‘extra votes’that have been added this week are more than the combined winning margin in 2019and 2017!Turnout has leapt up from 42,737 (59%) to a far more respectable 49,513 (68%).The number of votes each candidate received has now also changed even if therespective places of the parties has not.For almost 2 weeks 1 in 6 votes in Putney effectively didn’t count. They weren’tphysically lost. There was no hidden box or sack of voting slips.But Wandsworth Council have demonstrated they simply cannot count.The council’s highly paid Chief Executive Mike Jackson was the man in charge of theelections and within 24 hours has announced he’s going for what we are told aretotally unrelated ‘personal reasons’. I will take what he says at face value.But as a Putney resident and Councillor I think we need answers. What we have hadso far is a pretty muted apology and a vague promise it won’t happen again. MyCouncil colleagues have pressed for answers and tried to have the matter formallydiscussed. But rather than a full update and taking questions the Council sought toshut down debate.Openness and transparency are not the way this Labour run council operate. This isn’tFlorida and we ought to be able to quickly and accurately count paper ballots.A ‘spreadsheet error’ doesn’t explain why the system failed so spectacularly. After allthe votes cast should equate to the number of ballot papers issued. One sheet ofpaper, a pencil and a calculator should be enough.Having been so incompetent the Council needs to demonstrate it can do the basics.Next week we might learn a bit more. It will need to be impressive if voters can haveconfidence that when we get the result next time it wont then be overturned!

Nick Austin ● 564d51 Comments

If nobody voted the count would be easy. Crack on Barbara let's have a no vote party 😁😁

Andy Pike ● 560d

Well make sure they don't do it again. Typical reply letter.  How about nobody vote next time.

Barbara Stevens ● 560d

Dear AdamThank you for your email to the Electoral Commission.We are aware that not all counted votes were included in the initial results announcement for Putney at the general election. This was the result of a spreadsheet error. The (Acting) Returning Officer has confirmed that this did not impact the result or the order of the candidates.Accurate counting processes are vital to ensuring voters and campaigners can have confidence in elections and their results. We are continuing to work closely with the Returning Officer and their team to support them as they review their processes and to make any necessary improvements to ensure that voters, candidates and political parties can have confidence in the accuracy of election processes.Kind regardsMark NyackPublic Information

Adam Tripp ● 560d

Thanks John, that sounds like a fool-proof method of counting votes.So what actually happened? I hope the investigation is wrapped up soon and a full explanation given publicly by those responsible and with follow on questions.I notice that many of the contributors here preface their comments by saying they are happy/unhappy with the result. How can anyone be happy with a process where so many votes have gone AWOL, and no explanation has been given yet? First and foremost, we need to have complete confidence that the process is competently managed and the figures accurate. That’s it!Without confidence in the system, you’ve got nothing!

Gerry Boyce ● 561d

> Is it not incompetent to discount by 6000 when declaring an election result?Indeed. I would have expected there to be a paper and pencil check prior to declaring the results rather than blindly trusting whatever a spreadsheet says.A friend of a friend was a party observer in a different constituency. When I described the news article about Putney he said it could never have happened in the count he was present at.Simply put they get the numbers of ballots in each ballot box and these are entered on a sheet of paper. When they open the ballot box they count the number of ballots, prior to sorting, and this should match the count of ballots that were issued (and should be in the box). If there a discrepancy then they count things again. Counting is done by grouping ballots in bundles of 10 (I think) by a bulldog type clip on one corner. A verification count is done on each bundle, by a different person, counting the ballots from a different corner - this makes it more likely to catch instances where two ballot papers are stuck together in one corner.They then unbundle the ballots for a particular ballot box and sort them, and these are again bundled and then counted (twice in a similar method as above). The totals for each party (and number spoiled) can then be checked against the total number of ballots for that box. Any discrepancy and they count things again.Ballots from different ballot boxes are never mixed. They remain on separate tables far enough away from each other.At the end of it you should have, per ballot box, the number of ballots for each candidate and the number of spoiled ballots.Even if you enter this information into a spreadsheet there should be a very simple basic check before declaring the final result to ensure that the total number of ballots equals the total number of ballots that were in the boxes.Adding 60 (rough number of ballot boxes) numbers together (that represented the number of ballots in each ballot box) is something that can be done on pencil+paper with or without a calculator. It can be done by several people independently and considered good if everyone comes up with the same figure(s).It would then be very obvious that something is wrong if this hand derived number is ~6,500 different from the number on a spreadsheet. But it seems this is one of the important steps that was missed in the final verification.It would seem that this kind of check was eventually done, which prompted the council to investigate the discrepancy. Shame it wasn't done before the original declaration.Mistakes do happen, and it's important to ensure that they do not happen again in the future. I would be very surprised if the verification steps described above weren't part of the official process/guidance so it does sound like incompetence, and the buck would ultimately stop with the returning officer on the night. As others have said, it's lucky that the miscount did not affect the result of the election.

John Kettlekey ● 561d

Yes, Andy; although I'm very pleased to see Fleur Anderson reelected with a large majority this is about confidence in the results. It may be poor practice or incompetence, or just one of those IT errors that happen because of collective human mistakes. It's important to get to the cause and put in corrective controls so that it doesn't occur again or elsewhere. It's shouldn't be a political issue. As I said in another post, I could put together a case that the Crowdstrike error shows capitalism doesn't work (particularly as apparently they've had issues previously with a couple of Linux versions where data centre servers have been "bricked" - so non Microsoft users shouldn't be too smug) but that wouldn't help things. (And I wouldn't want to put any of my IT, Infosec or Cybersec friends out of a job :-))

Michael Ixer ● 561d

I think this thread has been about incompetence Clifford.Is it not incompetent to discount by 6000 when declaring an election result? This has absolutely nothing to do with left or right wing politics it has all to do with basic arithmetic.

Andy Pike ● 561d

Nick Austin - errors arise, and like erroneous football referee decisions one should get over them. And after the disastrous leaderships of the nasty party - thank goodness we now have a change at the top - I doubt you would agree with me but frankly I have had enough of the hubristic and incompetent right-wing politics that have wrought so much damage to this country.

Clifford Cowell ● 561d

The process is only called into question by some people when they don't get the result they want.Can't remember a similar outrage at the voting papers when Boris was getting elected.

John Kettlekey ● 561d

Andy, yes, all the votes seem to have been counted and there's no evidence any went astray. The real issue is we're guessing as to why the totals were wrong and why there wasn't a control to stop incorrect figures being announced at the election count.Let's hope that if the result had been closer a request for a recount would have uncovered the spreadsheet error. 

Michael Ixer ● 562d

Spot on, Andy.In addition, I think the furtive manner that the actual number of votes cast was corrected; if it is indeed now correct? Is completely unacceptable!Where are the adults here? Where is the transparency?Slipping out the revised figures on the day of the opening of parliament, two weeks after the election, with no explanation, is a bloody disgrace!

Gerry Boyce ● 562d

Barbara nothing went missing. But something went terribly wrong in the simplest of operations ...counting bundles and adding them to a spreadsheet.It could possibly be a single ward and if it is a  auto sum error on the spreadsheet it will likely be the first or last alphabetically.On the point of it happening elsewhere I suspect every returning officer on hearing about this issued instructions for a double check of their results.How did it come to light? After an election the statisticians pour over the figures looking for trends and patterns it could have been noticed then.The elected MP may have asked her people why the declared number for her was so low ( compared to expectations).When preparing the stats on how each ward voted it could well have been picked up then. Or someone did a simple check on the auto sum cells and realised one had been missed off. Easily done that one.It shouldn't happen and is worrying that it did happen and nobody noticed in the night before the result was announced.

Andy Pike ● 562d

Who suddenly found all the votes that went missing.  If that was your money that went missing you would soon be screaming and shouting.

Barbara Stevens ● 562d

Hi Victoria, I'm glad your interested as well, it's not a small amount of votes that went missing.  How do we not know if other areas of London and further afield may have had the same problem. This seriously needs looking into. Otherwise a lot of our votes aren't worth the paper there written on.

Barbara Stevens ● 562d

I'm just curious to know if it was a Ward that got missed, or exactly what areas the votes were missed from.

Victoria Diamond ● 562d

It's an easy mistake to make on a spreadsheet by simply missing a cell from the final calculation.The votes per se didnt go missing, they were all counted but someone didnt check their final spreadsheet. Someone also failed to do the most basic of checks.Now we face a procedure no doubt stretching to many pages telling people how to count.I suspect had the result been different the losing candidate or their agent would have demanded a recount as a simple view of the bundles usually gives an idea.Whilst a very stupid mistake it is a serious failure by the council and those in charge of the count as it undermines trust in the process.Perhaps we should have a close look at the councils published budget book to ensure it all adds up and no cells have been inadvertently missed from the final calculation.

Andy Pike ● 562d

I wonder what would have happened if the error did change the vote. How could such a large amount of votes go missing, then suddenly be found. Which of the Polling Stations did it go missing from. Or not calculated when all put together.  It wasn't just 40 votes.

Barbara Stevens ● 562d

"Some people are easily confused"Including me - but most of us can count up to 49,295 given a dozen days :)

Ed Robinson ● 563d

Thank you Adam.

Barbara Stevens ● 563d

I agree, Ivonne, root cause analysis, and recommendations for changes to prevent it happening in the future in Putney and elsewhere.

Michael Ixer ● 563d

Hello Adam,I am not too sure that people are making light of the issue.But it is somewhat of a relief that the result was not affected.  If it had, I am afraid that a new vote would have been required.But it would be helpful to know how the mistake arose.  This I think, is fundamental.

Ivonne Holliday ● 563d

Hi Barbara, this is a really important issue that they (WBC) appear to be sweeping under the carpet. We need to know if the  procedures were followed perfectly, in which case the EC must urgently improve the procedures to ensure it cant happen again. If the procedures were not followed someone needs to be sacked. In fact if the procedures were not followed they still need to improve the procedures to avoid human error. It is unacceptable to make light of the issue simply because the error didn't change the result.

Adam Tripp ● 563d

Wow Adam, good for you, makes a change from people being antagonistic and arguing about everything I put on here.

Barbara Stevens ● 563d

Spot on Michael

Andy Pike ● 563d

"We’re the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK. We work to promote public confidence in the democratic process and ensure its integrity."https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/about-us/contact-us/contact-us-onlineI have made a complaint - email the EC and ask for action, at the very least there needs to be an investigation

Adam Tripp ● 563d

This thread is beginning to make the Mayoral ballot paper sound like an integral IQ test and voting slip - but perhaps I'd better not pursue that theme ...

Michael Ixer ● 563d

The point is, if I'm correct, that the voting slips all have a reference number that's recorded against the voter's ID number.  If there's a suggestion of fraud then that provides an audit trail. My understanding is that can only be activated by a court order to ensure ballot confidentiality is maintained in normal circumstances. I'm sure Andy can confirm if I'm correct? I don't think that audit facility would be so easy to achieve with coloured counters,would it?

Michael Ixer ● 563d

Don't be a stupid boy.

Barbara Stevens ● 563d

Not some loads. That's why a lot were cancelled because they put a cross in the wrong box.

Barbara Stevens ● 563d

God forbid our ddmocracybrelies on people putting coloured discs in a box. Where is the audit trail on that. Someone still has tk count the discs and add all the boxes up. I shouldn't be surprised that you'd turn a general election  into a charity vote run by Sainsbury.

Andy Pike ● 563d

Some people are easily confused

Andy Pike ● 563d

Yes Barbara I have sat with them and they have no interest in who is voting for whom. just doing a job so that you and I can vote unhindered.

Andy Pike ● 563d

Andy about the ballot papers, which you say has been dealt with the Mayors vote was very confusing as you had 2 boxes next to each other, people were asking at the desk why are there 2 boxes next to each name. So if you have a good memory perhaps you have the answer. Because my cousin helped at the Sutton voting station, she said the same people were not sure what box to put the cross in.

Barbara Stevens ● 563d

Really Andy, have you sat with them.  If a machine can count all your money in Sainsbury's by putting loads of different coins in. Why can't they have coloured discs for each party and just drop them into the right box who you are voting for. Seems bits of paper are a bit tiring for the Volunteers as this isn't the first time there has been confusion. Shops used to give you discs, which you would put into a container for what Charity you would like to give to.

Barbara Stevens ● 563d

Thank you Andy.

Ivonne Holliday ● 563d

Barbara I thought we did this at that election.Rejected ballot papers include those that have been defaced by voters with comments written on like 'none of the above' or where people have simply filled them in wrong ie making more than the required number of crosses or simply writing on the papers.The numbers of ruined/ rejected ballot papers made absolutely no difference to the result of the election he won by millions of votes.As for claiming staff on the polling stations are dishonest is actually bloody outrageous.

Andy Pike ● 563d

IvonneThe counters  can be the same people but as you can do either or both it's too long a day for most to do both.Recounts are usually requested  by one  candidate or another when the result is close and they ask for a check to be done.The biggest delay is not the actual count but the verification process when the boxes arrive and before they are actually counted.

Andy Pike ● 563d

Thank you Andy,So, in practical terms, sections of the tables are "reserved" for each polling station?  I somehow have visions of ballot papers in one box becoming mixed up by accident with ballots of other boxes.  Who counts the ballot papers?  The same people who have been all day at the polling stations?But it is true that we have heared of recounts necessary in other parts of the country.

Ivonne Holliday ● 563d

I would not want to be with Roger, I can assure you.  Perhaps I just like the thought of people higher up, thinking about it as well. Obviously a problem.

Barbara Stevens ● 563d

Sounds like you're planning a protest, I hope you have cleared it with the police in advance... otherwise you could be spending some time with Roger.

Michael Brigo ● 563d

Well a lot were rejected, that they said hadn't been filled in properly, when we voted for the Mayor.  Seems to me more like a load of dishonest people in the voting stations,  making sure they get in who they want.  Changes needed.  Lets all demand another vote. Or don't pay your council Tax, till they do.

Barbara Stevens ● 563d

As the boxes arrive from each polling station they are emptied and simply counted and tallied with the list from that station of ballot papers issued.Hence very simple at the end to add thise lists together and compare with the total votes counted.Postal votes are treated as another'polling station'. Some boroughs sort them into candidate bundles during the evening before the main boxes arrive.It's all such a simple process it beggars belief that they could get it so wrong.

Andy Pike ● 563d

Thanks Nick for coming on here and explaining it all with such clarity

Nick Gulliford ● 563d

Hello Nick,Thank you for your reply.As a matter of interest, what does the process consist of?  I am not being obtuse; I have never been involved (thankfully).  But, as you said you were there, I hope you do not mind me asking!I have this picture of people counting votes at big halls on long tables.  The sealed ballot boxes are taken from the polling sdtation to the count centre (Council offices?) together with the relevant paperwork showing ballot papers issued and list of participating voters. Where do the postal votes come in?  As you were there, would you mind explaining what the  process really entails. How are the totals reached?  I find it difficult to visualize how the number of ballot papers issued and the results obtained can be matched as you no longer have a polling-station-by-polling-station information or proof as they have all been mixed up together. Ideally, the totals should match but, as in this case, they did not, how are discrepancies identified?Thank you.

Ivonne Holliday ● 564d

It does seem incredible that a simple cross-checking  of total votes was not done, or did not bring to light the issue that over 6.5k votes were missing.I fully agree that this needs to be explained, for many of us our vote gives us power and must be handled with care and with real seriousness.Anyone can make a mistake and obviously lessons need to be learned so that, hopefully, they are not repeated. However, this way of quietly revising the figures on the council website with no explanation and hoping no-one notices is a tawdry and underhand way of correcting an error. Why are they skulking around like guilty school kids?

Gerry Boyce ● 564d

Nick. Thanks for clearing up the point about the "acting" returning officer. I'm still intrigued as to how someone managed to operate a simple Excel spreadsheet correctly - surely all they have to do is to enter the correct values - and presumably have them checked by someone else for keying errors? I agree, we should be informed as to the nature of the error to avoid it happening again or elsewhere. Is the reluctance that it's too embarrassing for someone?

Michael Ixer ● 564d

Michael - the CEO is acting returning officer because the actual returning officer is the Mayor and therefore a elected member of the council with a political affiliation which is only laid aside for the year in which they serve as Mayor. This is for want of a better expression a ceremonial duty of the Mayor and the officers do the actual work.

Nick Austin ● 564d

Thanks - Ivonne I felt as some who was there and a part of the process I have a perspective. I’ve also been part of the team that we’re briefed. It is a manual count so no ‘IT’ issues this is about a simple Microsoft spreadsheet which wasn’t calculating the full amount due to human operating error.

Nick Austin ● 564d

I'd agree with Andy: I'm a little surprised that the procedure doesn't include some simple check that the total votes on the spreadsheet don't correspondence with some other control figures. I note that the returning officer was "acting": were they properly trained in the job? I assume that's the responsibility of employed council sta(ff not elected officials.)I can't see the point in arguing a political angle regarding this. You might as well say that today's Falcon update error and the global failure of may IT systems means the capitalist system has failed because Crowdstrike and Microsoft focused only on profit and growth but skimped on security and testing. Still, Russia's laughing because trade embargoes mean they have no instances of Crowdstrike - and I bet it's the first time Mr Kaspersky has smiled since the recent announcement his company's pulling out of the US …

Michael Ixer ● 564d

Nick,There already is a thread about this on the forum entitled: "Front page" (meaning front page of PutneySW15).There are some interesting posts there, particularly from somebody who works in IT and guesses as to what could have gone wrong.

Ivonne Holliday ● 564d

Spot on a simple check of papers issued v votes on the declaration would have thrown up this error immediately.

Andy Pike ● 564d