Lucie Goulet

Online voting may have done its bit in boosting the ballot count, but there remains some niggling problems in the efficacy of the system

From my experiences in previous years, after every election, there is a general apportioning of blame or praise to the Returning Officer and his performance. Following in the long line of critics over the years, I have some misgivings to offer regarding the conduct of this year’s Michaelmas Term elections.

The elections were marked by the use of electronic voting, taking it one step further on from what the previous Returning Officer, Adrian Beciri, had started last year.

First of all, let me clarify that I have no clue how successful this online voting scheme was, but that from what I heard, there were more people voting online on Wednesday than in the Quad. Apparently this phenomenon was confirmed after the closing of the ballot boxes. I guess that if online voting encouraged a greater number of people to cast their votes, then the operation was a success. However, I think that the fact that voting had to be done from a network computer (i.e. you had to be on campus, in halls or on your remote desktop to vote) was a bit of a disappointment.
Having had to fight against an essay deadline on top of my part-time working commitments, I was not able to come into the LSE on either Wednesday or Thursday. Since I was far from being well-versed in the art of setting up my remote desktop from home, I wasn’t able to vote.

According to a couple of members of the SU Executive Committee whom I spoke to, online voting could only be done on computers with access to the LSE netwoek due primarily to concerns over security. But surely if you can check your email, look up your exam results and even pay your fees online, then you should also be able to vote online as well? A quick search on the internet shows that various Students’ Unions in the UK, such as those of Cambridge and Imperial, allow online voting from anywhere. Network-based voting made this initiative, just like so many others in this SU, a mere half measure.

Online voting provides a great alternative for people who, for whatever reason, are unable to be present on campus to vote. I’m not only thinking about students who have to work on ballot day, but also about those who are away doing research, such as PhD students, who are full members of this Students’ Union, albeit less involved in its running and activities. Having to be on campus to vote online defeats the purpose of the exercise. The whole point of extending voting to the internet is to encourage greater election turnouts. The 1,145 ballots cast in this election are still far from the extremely ambitious figure of 40% participation set last year in the SU’s strategic plan, even though it’s a first step in the right direction.

Another downside to online voting is the repercussion it has on street campaigning. Having heard from friends who were present on campus on voting days, there was significantly less campaigning on Houghton Street for this election in comparison to the past. Candidates generally relied more on their manifestos.  Even though Michaelmas Term elections largely tend to be a dress-rehearsal for the Lent Term elections, the candidate hustings and leafleting is usually part of the election festivities and where all the fun is.