2 - Sequential Numbering: A Flawed Solution
Introduction
This blog is the second in a series exploring modern solutions for accessible voting. In this piece, we examine sequential numbering on ballots — a method proposed to assist blind and partially sighted voters — and explain why it falls short of delivering true accessibility. We’ll also touch on the legal framework governing ballot design and why modern assistive devices like the McGonagle® Reader provide a better solution.
Sequential Numbering: A Flawed Solution
Accessible voting isn’t just about providing tools. It’s about providing the right tools. One of the methods proposed to assist blind and partially sighted voters is sequential numbering on ballots. At first glance, it seems like a straightforward solution: numbering each candidate’s name, relaying this information to the voter and having them match their preferred candidate to the relevant number via tactile overlays. However, a closer look reveals that this approach is problematic, potentially counterproductive and, arguably, impermissible under the UK’s electoral law framework.
The History of Sequential Numbering
Sequential numbering of electoral candidates dates back to the 19th century. When the UK introduced the secret ballot with the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act 1872, numbering served a practical purpose in an era of manual vote counting. Numbers helped officials cross-check ballots and reduced administrative errors in an age of limited literacy and reliance on pen-and-paper systems.
Sequential numbering on ballots has since become redundant due to advancements in election processes and technologies. Modern vote counting systems have eliminated the need for manual cross-referencing, and the focus of ballot design has shifted from administrative convenience to voter accessibility and privacy.
The Accessibility Argument for Sequential Numbering
While advocates of sequential numbering contend that it provides a straightforward navigational system for blind or partially sighted voters, a closer look suggests that this approach can be redundant at best and actively harmful at worst. Numbers may seem neutral, but they can inadvertently convey unintended messages. For instance, a voter might assume that the candidate listed as “1” is an incumbent or endorsed favorite. Such misconceptions can be especially pernicious for vulnerable voters who already struggle with the complexity of the ballot.
This issue is compounded in jurisdictions such as Northern Ireland and Scotland, where ranked choice voting systems (also known as Single Transferable Vote, or STV) are used. In STV, voters rank candidates in order of preference on their ballot, and votes are allocated to first preferences before being redistributed if necessary. A quota, calculated using methods such as the Hare or Droop quota, determines the minimum votes needed to elect a candidate. Surplus votes are transferred to lower-ranked candidates, ensuring no vote is wasted. While this system is highly effective for reflecting voter preferences, it also introduces additional complexity for voters, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted.
Sequential numbering in this context can introduce significant confusion. Voters may mistakenly interpret the numbers as indicating a predefined ranking rather than a simple navigational aid, leading to errors or misunderstandings. For blind or partially sighted voters using assistive devices, this added layer of complexity—combined with the need to mark preferences for multiple candidates—amplifies the cognitive burden, further complicating an already intricate process.
When a sighted voter casts a ballot, the process involves visually aligning a candidate’s name with the corresponding box. Although that may sound simple, one must imagine the extra layers required if a voter cannot rely on sight. Sequential numbering demands that a blind or partially sighted voter engage in a two-step identification process: they must first match the candidate’s name to a particular number, then ensure that the device or template aligns with that number on the physical ballot. This dual-layered procedure amplifies the cognitive burden, increasing the risk of errors.
The complexity of ranked choice voting further heightens this risk. In such systems, voters may be required to match multiple names with multiple preferences, an inherently more intricate task. Adding a numerical overlay creates unnecessary friction, especially if the assistive device itself names candidates in a different order or uses alternative cues for navigation. In these scenarios, what is intended as a navigational aid may instead become a barrier to an independent, confident voting experience.
Legal Issues with Sequential Numbering
UK election law imposes strict regulations on ballot paper design. The legal basis for ballot paper design is contained in Schedule 2 of the Representation of the People (Ballot Paper) Regulations 2015, which states:
“Nothing is to be printed on the ballot paper except in accordance with these directions.”
This unambiguous language prioritises clarity, uniformity, and neutrality in ballot design, prohibiting any extraneous marks or features that could distract or confuse voters. Notably, sequential numbering of candidates is absent from the list of authorised items. There is no clause in the Regulations that explicitly endorses - or even references - the addition of candidate numbers. The clear inference, therefore, is that sequential numbering is not permitted under the Regulations.
Rule 29(3A) of Schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 addresses the need for accessible voting, requiring that polling stations must be equipped to assist disabled voters, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted by providing:
“equipment that enables or makes it easier for relevant persons, including those who are blind or partially sighted, to vote independently… (including in relation to voting secretly).”
The focus here is on function rather than form. The legislator’s clear intent is not to dictate the precise features of an assistive device or the ballot itself, but to ensure that voters can cast their votes without needing a helper to mark the ballot for them. This requirement upholds the principle of independent voting - protecting both the secrecy of the ballot and the dignity of voters who might otherwise have to rely on others.
Read together, Schedule 2 and Rule 29(3A) establish a carefully balanced framework: the ballot paper must remain streamlined and precisely regulated in its presentation, while polling stations must offer technologies that enable voters to cast their ballots independently. Any additional feature - such as sequential numbering - must serve a clear, functional purpose in improving accessibility. If it does not meet this standard, it is unlikely to be permissible under UK law.
Looking Ahead: What Comes Next
In the next blog, we’ll explore how assistive devices like the McGonagle® Reader are revolutionising accessible voting. We’ll take a closer look at the device’s unique features, its adaptability for different voting contexts, and how it addresses the challenges discussed in this piece.
