When an election is conducted online, one question often comes up after the voting system has been selected: Who checks that the election was actually conducted properly?

That is where an election scrutineer can play an important role.

A scrutineer provides an independent layer of oversight around the voting process. Depending on the organisation and the rules governing the election, their role can include observing the conduct of the ballot, checking how votes are handled and counted, reviewing the validity of votes, and reporting on the outcome.

The role becomes particularly valuable when the election is contested, the result is close, voting rights are complex, or members need confidence that the result was not influenced by the organisation running the election.

Online voting does not remove the need for scrutiny. In some cases, it makes having a clearly defined scrutiny process even more important.

What is an election scrutineer?

An election scrutineer is an independent person appointed to observe or scrutinise aspects of an election or voting process.

The exact role depends on the rules applying to the election. There is no single Australian rule that makes every election require a scrutineer.

For a company, the relevant requirements may come from the Corporations Act 2001, the company’s constitution and, for listed entities, the ASX Listing Rules. For an association, club, union or other member-based organisation, the constitution, rules, legislation or election procedures may establish the role.

For listed companies, the Corporations Act contains specific provisions dealing with independent reports on polls. Members meeting the relevant threshold can request an independent person to observe the conduct of a poll or scrutinise its outcome.

That distinction matters.

A scrutineer is not simply someone who presses a button to reveal the final result. Their value comes from providing an independent check on the process that produced that result.

What does an election scrutineer actually do?

There is no universal checklist that applies to every election. The scrutineer’s authority should be defined before voting starts.

Depending on the election, a scrutineer may be responsible for reviewing or observing several parts of the process.

1. Confirming the voting process is properly established

Before voting opens, the scrutineer may review the agreed election procedures and confirm that the voting process is consistent with the organisation’s rules.

This can include matters such as:

The purpose is not necessarily to rewrite the organisation’s rules. It is to make sure the rules being applied are clear and understood before the ballot begins.

That is much easier to resolve before voting opens than after someone challenges the result.

2. Observing the conduct of the ballot

A scrutineer can provide oversight while voting takes place.

In an online election, this may involve reviewing how the voting process operates rather than physically watching people place paper ballots.

For example, the scrutineer may need assurance that:

The scrutineer does not necessarily need access to every piece of voter information.

A well-designed process should give the scrutineer enough evidence to perform their role without unnecessarily exposing confidential or personal information.

3. Checking the counting process

Counting is one of the most obvious areas for scrutiny.

In a straightforward first-past-the-post election, this may be relatively simple. In a preferential or proportional election, the process can be considerably more involved.

The scrutineer should understand:

For a corporate poll, the calculation may also need to take account of voting entitlements rather than simply counting individual voters.

The Corporations Act, for example, provides different voting arrangements depending on the type of company and the voting method being used.

4. Reviewing the final result

The final result should be capable of being traced back to the voting process.

That does not necessarily mean exposing individual votes. In fact, maintaining ballot secrecy can be critical.

Instead, the scrutineer should be able to establish that the reported result is consistent with the applicable voting rules and the votes that were validly counted.

For listed entities, ASX Guidance Note 35 provides a useful example of the level of detail that may be expected where voting is required to be scrutineered. It contemplates reporting the votes for, against and abstaining, including appropriate breakdowns for votes cast in person, by proxy, attorney or electronically, as well as dealing with invalid proxies and voting exclusions.

That is a useful benchmark for thinking about what a defensible online voting process should look like.

How does a scrutineer work with an online voting system?

This is where online voting differs from traditional paper elections.

With paper ballots, the physical ballot papers, ballot boxes and counting process provide visible evidence of what happened.

With an online ballot, much of that evidence exists within the voting system.

The scrutineer’s job is therefore less about physically watching ballot papers being counted and more about independently verifying the controls and records surrounding the electronic process.

A robust arrangement should clearly separate three functions:

That separation is valuable because the person responsible for running the election should not necessarily be the only person deciding whether the election was conducted correctly.

What should a scrutineer be able to verify online?

A good online voting process should make the important parts of the election auditable.

Depending on the scope of the appointment, a scrutineer may need evidence covering:

Voter eligibility

The system should have a clear basis for determining who is entitled to vote.

For example, an association election may use a membership register, while a corporate election may involve shareholder entitlements or other defined voting rights.

Authentication

The organisation should be able to explain how voters were authenticated and how unauthorised people were prevented from voting.

Authentication does not necessarily mean that the voter’s identity should be attached to their ballot. Those are two different concepts.

A properly designed secret ballot can authenticate a voter while maintaining the confidentiality of their voting choice.

Vote integrity

The system should provide confidence that a submitted vote cannot simply be changed by an administrator or altered without detection.

This is one reason audit records matter.

Counting

The counting method should match the election rules. Automated counting can reduce manual errors, but automation does not eliminate the need for proper governance around the count.

The scrutineer should be able to understand how the system translated valid votes into the reported result.

Audit records

There should be sufficient records to reconstruct what happened if the result is later questioned.

The level of information retained will depend on the election and applicable privacy, legal and governance requirements.

Scrutineer vs returning officer: are they the same?

No.

The two roles can overlap in some elections, but they are conceptually different.

A returning officer is generally responsible for administering and managing the election. Their responsibilities may include nominations, voter eligibility, ballot preparation, voting arrangements, counting and declaration of results.

A scrutineer provides oversight or scrutiny of the election process.

Think of it this way:

The returning officer runs the election. The scrutineer independently checks the election process or result within the scope of their appointment.

Some organisations may appoint an independent election provider to perform the returning officer function while also arranging independent scrutiny. Others may have separate people performing each role.

The important point is to define the responsibilities clearly before the election begins.

Does every online election need a scrutineer?

No.

There is no blanket Australian requirement for every online election to have a scrutineer.

Whether one is required depends on the organisation, the governing legislation, constitution, rules, election procedures and, in some cases, the terms of the particular resolution or election.

For listed companies, however, the Corporations Act has specific provisions concerning independent persons and reports on polls. The current Act includes provisions dealing with members’ rights to request an independent observer or scrutiny of a poll and associated record-keeping.

The practical lesson is simple:

Don’t assume a scrutineer is either always required or never required. Check the rules applying to the particular election.

Where the rules do not require a scrutineer, an organisation may still choose to use one because the additional independence can strengthen confidence in the result.

Why independent scrutiny matters in online elections

An election can be technically secure and still become difficult to defend if the process is poorly documented.

Imagine a committee election where the winning candidate receives 51% of the votes. A member later asks:

If nobody can answer those questions clearly, the organisation has a governance problem.

A scrutineer does not magically solve every problem. But independent scrutiny can provide another layer of evidence that the process was conducted according to the agreed rules.

That can be particularly valuable for:

Online voting and the importance of independence

Independence is often misunderstood.

Using an external voting provider does not automatically mean the election has been independently scrutinised.

The provider may operate the voting system, manage voter communications, provide technical support and count the votes. That can create an independent administration process, but the organisation should still establish what independent oversight is required.

The strongest arrangements are explicit about who does what.

The exact arrangement will vary, but defining these responsibilities avoids confusion when a dispute arises.

Privacy matters too

Scrutiny does not mean giving the scrutineer unrestricted access to voters’ personal information.

Online voting systems can contain names, email addresses, membership details, authentication information and other personal information.

Where the Privacy Act 1988 applies, organisations covered by the Australian Privacy Principles must take reasonable steps to protect personal information from misuse, interference and loss, as well as unauthorised access, modification or disclosure. They also need to consider when personal information is no longer required and whether it should be destroyed or de-identified.

That creates an important design principle for electronic elections:

Give the scrutineer the evidence needed to perform the role, but avoid unnecessary access to identifiable voting information.

In a secret ballot, for example, it may be appropriate to verify voter eligibility separately from the ballot record so that an individual voter’s choice cannot be reconstructed.

Privacy and auditability are not opposing goals. A well-designed system should address both.

Online AGM voting and scrutineers

Scrutineers can be particularly useful for AGMs where voting is conducted electronically.

For companies, the Corporations Act provides rules concerning voting at meetings, polls and member participation. ASIC also expects companies conducting virtual meetings to provide members with a reasonable opportunity to participate, including the ability to vote.

This becomes more significant when an AGM involves:

For listed companies, ASX Guidance Note 35 specifically discusses scrutineering and notes that where ASX requires voting on a resolution to be scrutineered, it expects the vote to be conducted by poll rather than by show of hands so that the scrutineer can properly assess the validity of the vote.

That is a useful reminder that the voting method and the scrutiny process need to be designed together.

Common mistakes when appointing an online election scrutineer

Treating the scrutineer as an afterthought

The scrutineer’s role should be agreed before voting opens.

Trying to work out what they can access after the result is disputed is far more difficult.

Failing to define the scope

Does the scrutineer check voter eligibility?

Do they observe the count?

Do they verify the final result?

Do they issue a written report?

Does their appointment cover electronic votes only, or all voting channels?

These questions should be answered in advance.

Giving the scrutineer too much access

Independence does not require unrestricted access to personal information.

Access should be proportionate to the scrutiny function.

Assuming software alone proves the result

A voting platform can automate counting and produce audit records, but governance still depends on the rules, configuration, voter data, procedures and people operating the election.

Mixing voting channels without a clear reconciliation process

Hybrid elections can involve online votes, paper votes, proxies and votes taken during a meeting.

Each channel needs clear rules, and the final count must ensure that votes are not duplicated or incorrectly combined.

Failing to preserve evidence

If an election is challenged two weeks later, the organisation should not be relying on someone’s memory of what happened.

The relevant election records should be retained in accordance with the organisation’s obligations and the agreed retention arrangements.

A practical checklist for organisations

Before launching an online election, ask:

If those questions can be answered before voting starts, the election is usually on much firmer ground.

How Vero Voting can assist

An online voting provider can take much of the operational complexity out of an election, but the governance requirements still need to be understood first.

Vero Voting’s election voting services support elections from nomination and voter setup through to voting, counting and results. Vero also provides returning officer services and can support elections involving board directors, committee members, office bearers, associations and other member-based organisations.

For AGM and meeting voting, Vero Voting’s AGM voting services support nominations, elections, proxy voting and preferential voting, with processes designed around an organisation’s constitution and voting requirements.

The key benefit is not simply that votes are counted automatically.

It is having a voting process that can be clearly structured, independently reviewed where required, and supported by appropriate records.

For organisations dealing with a sensitive or contested election, that distinction matters.

Key takeaways

An election scrutineer provides independent oversight of an election or voting process. The exact role depends on the rules governing the election.

For online voting, effective scrutiny should consider more than the final number of votes. It should address voter eligibility, voting controls, counting rules, exclusions, audit records and the integrity of the reported result.

A scrutineer does not replace good voting technology. Likewise, a secure voting platform does not replace sound governance.

The two work best together.

For organisations running an important election, the goal should be straightforward: make the result not only correct, but capable of being demonstrated as correct.

If you are planning an online election, AGM poll or member ballot and need help designing the voting and scrutiny process, contact Vero Voting to discuss your requirements or request a demonstration.

Sources