Simultaneous Electronic Voting - replacement for 'appel nominal'

STATES OF JERSEY

r

SIMULTANEOUS ELECTRONIC VOTING: REPLACEMENT FOR APPEL NOMINAL'

Lodged au Greffe on 4th February 2003 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

(a ) to agree that a system for simultaneous electronic voting should be introduced to replace the appel

nominal' and that the Greffier of the States should, if requested to do so by any elected member of the States, announce the details of each member's vote immediately after the result of the vote is declared;

(b ) to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring forward the necessary amendments to

the Standing Orders of the States to give effect to the changes and to request the Committee, in consultation with the Environment and Public Services Committee, to take the necessary practical steps to bring into operation the new system as soon as practicable.

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE

Note:  The Finance and Economics Committee's comments are to follow.

REPORT

1. I n t roduction

1. F o llowing the controversy that  arose  after  the  voting for P.101/2002, the  Policy  and  Resources Committee's Population Policy, members have requested that the Privileges andProceduresCommittee investigate the possibilityof using electronic,simultaneousvotingto replace the appel nominal'.
   2. H  is tory

1. O n the 11th October 1994, the States were askedtoconsider a proposition broughtby Deputy J.L.Dorey for a new system to replace the appelnominal'. Therewasanamendment to this proposition brought by Deputy Duhamel, the final States decision being that; "voting on the appel nominal should be conducted by means of a system of simultaneous voting".
2. T h e then HouseCommitteeinvestigated this ingreatdepthandbroughtforward a proposition (P.115/95) requesting that the States approve the introduction of a simultaneous electronic voting system to replace the appel nominal'. This was subsequently debated bythe States onthe 24th October1995but rejected with 16votesin favour and 33 against.
   3. A  rg umentsforandagainsttheadoptionofsimultaneous electronic voting

1. A t the lastdebateon this subject in October1995, the arguments centred aroundthefollowing points -

( i) t h e  appel nominal' allows members and the public to know the direction in which individual

members vote;

( ii ) th e possibility and perception that members' direction of voting is influenced by the direction

taken by their colleagues voting before them;

(i ii ) t h e recording of voting direction in the standing vote.

2. T h e existing appel nominal' allows Statesmembers and the public the opportunity to hear the direction in whichindividualmembersvote.Thisis particularly importantfor the media and thosewhochooseto follow the businessof the Assembly on the radio. The Privileges andProceduresCommittee is of the opinion that this benefit in the existingsystemcouldbeextended to the proposednew system, bygiving members the option to request the Greffier to announce the record of individual voting following the casting ofthevotes. This wouldoccurwithoutdelay although, as stated above, it would only take placeat the formal request ofan elected member. It is suggested that printed versionsof the record should alsobe available to members and the media via printers located in a members' room andthe media boxes.The details of the vote would,of course, still be recorded in the States Minutes.

4. T h  e Standing Vote

4.1 T h e Committee is of the opinion that use of the standing vote should be retained as it is clearly more suited, and less time-consuming, for non-controversial, routine matters, such as the individual articles of draft legislation. The electronic voting system would, of course, be available for use just as, at the present time, any member can call for an appel nominal'.

5. T h  e ProposedSystem

1. V o tes would becastby activating oneof three buttons; Pour', Abstention, or Contre'. The wiring for the system already exists at eachmember'sseat but it will be necessary to install the votingbuttonsin the desk positions. Oncemembers have casttheirvotes,within a limited time period, the results would be displayed on a screen at the Greffier's desk andpossibly also at a repeat display at the Bailiff 'sdesk.The Environmentand Public ServicesDepartment has made allowance for a largeplasma screen display in the

Chamber which it has proposed to install in the alcove to the left of the Bailiff . However, a members' display

presents several problems. Firstly, in attempting to preserve the aesthetic appeal of the Chamber, there are limitations to the areas where a screen could be suitably sited. The proposed alcove would not allow a clear view of the results for all members. It is possible that a second display could be considered for the opposite side of the Chamber to alleviate this but, due to the design of the Chamber, would be slightly more intrusive. Secondly, the cost of each of the large screens is in the region of £9,000. The Committee is of the opinion that, as it has never been suggested that the present announcement of the result by the Bailiff is unsatisfactory, it would be difficult to justify the cost of screens and the aesthetic detraction simply to replace this aspect of the process for little or no advantage. Certainly, this would be of no benefit to the listening public, who would be reliant on the Bailiff 's or Greffier's announcement anyway.

2. T h e Privileges and Procedures Committee is ofthe opinion that it wouldbewise to makeprovision in the hopefully unlikely eventof a breakdowninthe electronic system. This will be considered and includedin the amended Standing Orderswhich,of course, will be subject to the approval of the States.

6. F i n ancialandmanpower implications

1. F u nding of £35,000has already been identified and included in thePhaseIIworkto the States Building approved by the Statesonthe 21st January 2003,Thisisbasedon costings received by the Environment and Public Services Department from the Department of Electronics who have researched suitable systems. In already identifying a potential saving of£9000by not havingthelarge display screen,itis expected that the finalfigure will belower than that allowed.
2. T h e on-goingmaintenance costs ofthesystem are understoodtobeminimal although there will be a need for minor expenditure on consumables such as paper and cartridges for computer printers. The proposition hasno implications for the manpower resources of the States.

7. C  o nclusion

7.1 In conclusion, the Privileges and Procedures Committee urge members to support this proposition for the following reasons -

(i ) t h e system would remove any possibility of the perceived effect of one member's vote influencing

another;

(i i) th e announcement of individual members' voting direction is retained on request, to the benefit of

the media and public alike;

(i ii ) t h e system will be more efficient and will save a small amount of time per vote compared to the

appel nominal'. Where there are a large number of votes during one meeting the time savings will clearly accrue;

( iv ) t h e system allows a secure recording of voting direction which would be available in a paper

version to those who may request it.