Which electoral formula is in force has an effect on how vote counting is carried out, what has to be counted, and where the counting is to be done is examined.
What has to be counted?
Following is a summary of the counting requirements for each electoral formula:
• First-past-the-post (FPTP) in single-member districts - count the votes for each candidate.
• FPTP in multi-member districts (the Party Block Vote) - count the votes for each party list.
• Limited vote - count the votes for each candidate.
• Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV) - count the votes for each candidate.
• Proportional representation (PR) with closed list, no panachage between list - count the votes for each list.
• PR list with panachage allowed - count the votes for each candidate. If voters are allowed to cast a single list vote instead of voting for individual candidates, also count the number of votes cast for each list.
• Two-Round System in single-member districts - count the votes for each candidate. If a second ballot is necessary, count the votes again for each candidate standing at the second ballot.
• Two-Round System in multi-member districts, with closed lists - count the votes for each party list. If a second ballot is necessary, count the votes again for each party list standing at the second ballot.
• FPTP in multi-member districts (the Block Vote), with panachage allowed, there are two possible ballot arrangements:
a. Each seat in the district is numbered in a distinctive way (Seat "A", Seat "B", etc.), with one distinct competition for each seat, and each elector has a vote for each seat.
- There is no distinct competition for each seat and the voter has as many votes as there are members to be elected in the district.
- In both cases, count the votes for each candidate.
• Two-Round system in multi-member districts, with panachage allowed. There are two possible ballot arrangements:
- Each seat is numbered in a distinctive way (Seat "A", Seat "B", etc.), with one distinct competition for each seat.
- No distinct competition for each seat, voter has as many votes as there are members to be elected. In both cases, count the votes for each candidate. If a second ballot is necessary, count the votes again for each candidate standing at the second ballot.
PR list when preference votes for individual candidates are allowed.
• Scenario A - Voters must vote for a single individual candidate, and this vote is also deemed to be a vote for the party sponsoring that individual. In this case, count the votes for each candidate.
• Scenario B - Voters may vote either for a party list or for one individual candidate within a party list. In this case, count the votes for each party list and count the votes for each candidate.
• Scenario C - Voters must vote for a party list and may, in addition, vote for one or many of the candidates within that list. However, individual preferences cast for the candidates sponsored by a given party will be taken into account only if 10 percent of the ballot papers cast for that party are so marked. In this case, first count the votes for each party list. Second, count for each party the number of ballot papers which bear preference votes for candidates. Third, count individual preference votes for each candidate.
• Scenario D - Voters must vote for a party list and they may vote for one of the candidates within that list. They may, in addition, cross out the name of a candidate within that list. In this case, first count the votes for each party list. Second, count the votes for each candidate. Third, count the number of ballots where the name of a candidate was crossed out.
• Alternative voting in single-member districts: Count only first preferences for each candidate. If necessary, count second or other subsequent preferences expressed on eliminated candidates' ballots (the latter count must be done at the electoral district level, though Australia provides for a preliminary unofficial counting of second and subsequent preferences at the lowest level).
• Alternative voting in multi-member districts: Each seat in the district is numbered in a distinctive way (Seat "A", Seat "B", etc.), with one distinct competition for each seat. Count the first preferences for each individual candidate for each seat. If necessary, count the second or other subsequent preferences expressed on eliminated candidates' ballots.
• Single Transferable Vote (STV): Count only first preferences for each candidate. If necessary, count second or other subsequent preferences expressed on eliminated candidates' ballots (the latter count must be done at the electoral district level).
• Mixed Member Proportional Systems: Count the votes for each party, and the votes for each candidate. If the two cannot be done simultaneously, count party votes first as these are the most decisive.
• Parallel Systems: Count votes for each candidate and votes for each party. If the two cannot be done simultaneously, start with the category of members that is the most numerous.
• Mixed Coexistence Systems: In each district, use the relevant counting procedure, depending on which formula is used in the district.
Where are votes to be counted?
Determining at which level of electoral administration, i.e. national, provincially or regionally, at electoral district level or at the voting station, counting will take place is determined by national legislation.
The simplest option is to count the vote at each voting station. This is generally recommended since the officials who perform the operation are already at the location and there is no need for transport of the ballot boxes, which supports transparency of the count.
Counting at voting stations also has an impact on timing: voters and candidates are anxious to know the results.
Votes can also be counted at counting centres, at the electoral district level or even nationally.
This necessitates safety precautions to overcome the security and public trust considerations mentioned above: ballot boxes must be sealed carefully so that their contents cannot be emptied or tampered with during transportation. Reliable officials must transport the ballots. A worthwhile precaution is to require representatives from the various parties to sit in, or when there are a number of party or candidate representatives to accompany, the vehicle transporting the boxes. In politically volatile countries, armed protection of the vehicles transporting ballot boxes and party inspectors may be necessary.
While counting the votes at a location other than the voting station is often not the best alternative, there may be sound reasons for selecting this option:
- Protecting voting secrecy: All voters, or a number of voters in a given voting station vote for the same candidate or party, in which case their vote is known to all. Counting the votes at another venue, where the contents of numerous voting stations are mixed together, minimizes the likelihood of such an occurrence.
- Protecting voters: if the elected party representative or candidate knows which voting stations supported him or her and which did not, there is a risk of retribution during his or her term of office against those parts of the district that voted "the wrong way".
- Protecting national or social cohesion: If electoral districts include communities sharply differentiated by language, social class or otherwise, making the results available for smaller subdivisions within each district may reveal sharp differences within the electorate. In highly charged political situations, this may lead to victimisation, by losing candidates, of a particular sub-group (for example, an ethnic or linguistic minority). Counting the votes at a location other than the voting station helps to conceal those differences and, presumably, to preserve national and social cohesion.
- Material considerations: Voting stations may be ill-equipped physically to count the votes. For example, if they are located in open-air spaces due to the unavailability of appropriate buildings, or are too poorly lit for the operation to be done in an efficient way. In such cases, it may be better to count the votes in larger counting centres located in public buildings (like schools or administrative offices) that are better equipped and better protected against intruders.
- Size considerations: In very small countries, it may be deemed easier to centralize counting in view of the small distances to be traveled.
- Ensuring that the rules governing the rejection of ballot papers will be uniformly and fairly applied: While counting the votes for individual candidates or parties is a simple and straightforward operation, which does not require high skills, deciding on the validity of each ballot paper demands higher qualifications. Even trained judges may have difficulty in deciding some specific cases. Further, the rules governing ballot validity may be understood differently by numerous voting station and/or counting staff. Presumably, making such decisions at the electoral district or national level ensures they will be made by trained officials and that the law will be applied the same way in all dubious cases.
- Electoral systems requirements: While national electoral legislation often differs on the location of the vote counting, electoral formulas impose minimal constraints to legislators in this regard. In other words, whichever of the above-mentioned formulas is chosen, it is possible for vote counting, as distinguished from determining the winner(s), to be done at voting stations, or at alternative locations.
Alternative Vote (AV) and Single Transferable Vote (STV) impose only one important constraint with regard to vote counting: while counting of first preferences can be done in voting stations, the transfer of second and other subsequent preferences must be done at the electoral district level.
It is only on the basis of the aggregate figures for the whole district that the decision can be made as to whether any transfer will be necessary, and as to which candidates, if necessary, will be eliminated and have their second preferences counted and transferred.
The crucial point to be ascertained before deciding to count second or subsequent preferences is whether or not a candidate has obtained a majority of first preferences in the electoral district. This decision can only be made on the basis of district-wide figures. If such a majority has been reached, counting stops there and second or subsequent preferences will never be counted.
If the opposite is found, then it is up to the officials for the electoral district to eliminate the weakest candidates, to count second preferences on the ballots where first-preference votes have been given to such candidates, and transfer them to the remaining candidates, until one candidate secures the required majority or quota.
This implies that the winner(s) of the election will be known later under both AV and STV. This is one of the drawbacks pointed out by the opponents of these formulas.
