Programming error is the cause of incorrectly calculated party strengths
Published: Friday, Dec 22nd 2023, 12:40
Updated At: Friday, Dec 22nd 2023, 12:40
العودة إلى البث المباشر
In the national elections in October, votes were mistakenly counted several times and party strengths were calculated incorrectly. According to an administrative investigation, this was due to a programming error. The report on the investigation recommends standardized data deliveries from the cantons.
After the elections on October 22, the Federal Statistical Office (FSO) published incorrect figures on national party strength and only corrected them three days later. Interior Minister Alain Berset commissioned an administrative investigation. The Federal Council took note of the results on Friday.
Collecting, processing, publishing
The FSO is responsible for collecting, processing and publishing the election results. According to the investigation report, a programming error in a read-in script for the canton of Glarus and the cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Appenzell Ausserrhoden was the reason why votes there were counted more than once.
According to the report, the script for these cantons was programmed to read the election results from an Excel file into the automated FSO system. The error was identified two days after the election Sunday and corrected one day later. The three cantons each have one seat in the National Council.
Voter shares for the SVP, the Center Party and the FDP were initially too high. And the correction revealed that the FDP and not the centrist party achieved the third-highest voter share at national level. However, neither other cantons nor the number of seats were affected by the error. This meant that no elected officials had to hand over their seats to someone else.
System used for the first time
Following the announcement of the correction, FSO Director Georges-Simon Ulrich spoke of a human error in the data import program. The system used to transmit the count data from the cantons had been used for the first time. It was built to be faster in order to provide real-time information.
In their comments, the media described the incident as an embarrassment, debacle and fiasco. Trust in democracy is at stake, the commentary columns said. "The model country of democracy should actually be able to calculate such results correctly," wrote Tamedia, for example.
According to the investigation, no obvious duties of care were breached at the FSO. On the other hand, the FSO's Politics, Culture and Media Section (Poku), which is responsible for the election results, would have needed more staff to carry out extensive tests and quicker follow-up checks before election day.
The fact that too few staff were available for an election year caused "dependencies on individual persons, increased the susceptibility to errors - due to the greater time pressure - and hindered the safeguarding of important quality assurance measures", the report states.
Standardization recommended
For the elections on October 22, the 26 cantons used no fewer than 13 different data standards. The FSO had to develop a separate import or import script for each one. Today, the cantons are not bound by specific data standards.
The report also recommends standardized data deliveries from the cantons to the FSO. If necessary, a legal basis should be created for this. The inconsistent data formats pose a challenge for the production of statistics, especially if they are generated automatically, it said.
In addition, the Federal Office should review and adapt the personnel organization in the section concerned. The report recommends a re-evaluation of the software. Should this reveal that a new IT system needs to be set up, additional staff would be required, at least in the development phase.
According to the investigation, the hardware used on election day also did not meet the requirements for "smooth and secure implementation" of automated statistics production. The report also points the finger at the dependence on individuals in IT matters.
On behalf of the Department of Home Affairs, the FSO must now examine how it intends to implement the recommendations.
©كيستون/إسدا
Arabic 
English 
German 
French 
Spanish