Elections are, like our cars, phones, computers, other technological devices and so much else in our lives, something most of us simply take for granted. We know they are important but we don’t really fully understand how they work. The problems arise when something goes wrong. And then it can be quite hard to diagnose the problem(s) and to determine the solution.

Elections and election processes are important as they are the means by which a group of people choose who will represent them and act on their behalf. Even if most members of the group don’t fully understand all the mechanics they need to have confidence that the processes are good democratic ones with a sound legal basis and that they are being followed properly. When that fails to happen serious problems can arise. That’s obviously true in national elections (think, to take just one recent example, of the Capitol Riot on 6^th January 2021 in the US) but it also applies at much smaller levels. This could be a community group or a club or an academic society electing its committee, or employees choosing those who will represent them in meetings with employers, or a church choosing its PCC members. There is therefore a need for transparency as to how the election is run and how an outcome has been reached so that the election and its outcome can be explained to anyone interested in how the result was arrived at. This is in order that people can have confidence in the system, that those who wish to do so can understand its workings and what has happened in any particular election, and, where necessary, people can raise concerns about failures in electoral processes (whether by accident or intentionally) and hold those responsible accountable.

This article explores some of the multiple ways in which an election can go wrong, using the recent election of a Vacancy-in-See Committee (ViSC) as an illustrative case study.

The election of the Archbishop of Canterbury & Canterbury ViSC

The news of the death of Pope Francis has led to various explanations in the media as to how a new Pope will be elected. The Church of England is also in the process of choosing a new Archbishop of Canterbury and its processes too are both complex and significant. There are significant implications not just for the diocese of Canterbury but for the whole Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion and indeed the country as a whole given the Archbishop has a place of right in our legislature and is the highest ranking non-royal in the Order of Precedence. 

As explained in more detail previously, the body making a nomination to the King (the Crown Nominations Commission or CNC) is itself composed of no less than 5 different groupings. One of these groupings, as in all nominations of diocesan bishops, is representatives of the diocese. They are in turn chosen by the Vacancy-in-See Committee (ViSC) of the diocese. The ViSC also does the important work of making clear what the diocese believes it needs in its new (Arch)bishop. The composition and hence the election of the ViSC is therefore also of some significance, especially as 3 of its members will ultimately join 14 others in choosing the Archbishop of Canterbury in a process where a group of only 6 members can block an appointment.

The ViSC is comprised of ex officio members who are involved in the senior leadership of the diocese or represent the diocese on General Synod and then a number of people elected by the members of the Diocesan Synod (in addition to those elected, up to 4 can be nominated by the Bishop’s Council). The rules relating to the ViSC including the running of its election of members are set out in this recently amended regulation (though it apparently lacks the full force of law). 

The electoral system:  The Single Transferable Vote

The election process takes place, as in other Church of England elections, by use of the electoral system known as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) whose quite complex details are set out in this set of rules. This and the ViSC Regulation provide the key legal structures for the proper running of the ViSC election.

At the heart of STV is the principle that although multiple candidates will be elected by the voters, each individual voter has a single vote. This vote is, however, not simply attached permanently to one candidate (as in our Parliamentary elections where “X” marks the spot). Each elector’s single vote is in principle transferable to another candidate in whole or in part. It is transferred in an order determined by the voter who ranks candidates in their order of preference (1, 2, 3 etc….). Once the voter’s single vote is no longer of use to their top-ranked candidate because that candidate is removed from the race (either by being elected or being eliminated) it is transferred to their next preferred candidate. It may be transferred at full value (if none of the vote has yet been used to elect someone, usually this means their top preference is eliminated because they are bottom of the poll or cannot be elected for some other reason) or it may be transferred to another candidate at a reduced value. The latter happens if some of the vote has already been used to elect someone, i.e. their top preference at some point has been elected but with more votes than they needed to secure election. This then leaves some extra, un-needed votes (what is known as the surplus of their total votes) which transfer to other candidates on the basis of each voter’s preferences.

As will become clear, this system (which is already more complex than our normal electoral system) becomes even more complex when factors other than the voters’ preferences are also brought to bear on the counting of votes and awarding of seats. These factors, known as constraints, could include requirements such as a certain number of people having to be clergy or laity or female or living in a certain geographical area. Each and every constraint means that who gets elected is no longer simply a matter of voter preference. The people elected also have to pass various tests such as “at least half of them must be lay people” or “a least one must be a woman”. These requirements are required even if the voters’ actual preferences would lead to electing all male clergy.

Thirteen tips for running an election badly

The ViSC election for Canterbury provides a model for running an election badly (some features being applicable to any election, others only to STV elections). From it we can identify at least the following 13 helpful tips on how not to run an election.

Election Timing

1. 1. Call the election under severe time pressure and against good practice, by extraordinary means, if possible in the context of confusion and errors in relation to recent previous elections.

Brenda from Bristol became famous in 2017 when her reaction to Theresa May calling a surprise general election was “You’re joking. Not another one. Oh for God’s sake I can’t honestly, I can’t stand this”. A similar reaction would be understandable in relation to elections to Canterbury ViSC.

There should have been no need for an election in the first place. This is because the ViSC is meant “to be established at all times” (ViSC Reg Para 3(1)) and to begin its work, without even electing people to fill any vacancies on it (Para 7(3)), when a bishop announces they are stepping down. 

The ViSC in place at the time of the Archbishop announcing his resignation on 12^th November 2024 did indeed begin its work in December 2024 as reported as late as 20^th January 2025, leading to the expectation that all CNC members would be known by mid-March. It, however, then stopped its work as it was discovered that when elected in 2022 only members of the diocesan Synod had been allowed to stand for it in a breach of the rules. 

That ViSC was due to be replaced at the end of 2024 through a fresh election by the newly constituted Diocesan Synod. This duly took place and a ViSC elected for 2025-2027. It was, however, deemed not to be appropriate for this body to do the work either. This was it seems because at the time of its election it was stated that it would not be dealing with the current vacancy as the former ViSC was fulfilling that role. 

Eventually, para 16 of the Regulation was invoked by which “the Archbishop…may, where difficulties arise, give whatever directions the archbishop considers appropriate for removing those difficulties” in order to call for this new ViSC election over two months after the vacancy arose. It is effectively doing the work that should have been the work of the ViSC elected in 2022 and nearing the end of its term when Archbishop Justin announced his resignation. This perhaps also explains the oddity that the membership of the ViSC working on the current vacancy is misleadingly listed on the diocesan website under a link which reads “The Results of the 2022 – 2024 Vacancy in See Committee Elections”. This is despite the fact those elections ran from opening of nominations on 10^th Feb 2025 to counting of votes on 25^th March 2025. In order for the Canterbury CNC to be able to meet for the first time as planned in May, the newly elected ViSC has since late March had to do in barely one month, including Holy Week and Easter, the work that would normally take probably 4-6 months. 

Election Rules

2. Change the rules for running the election while the election is underway.

The nominations opened as the General Synod opened and at the end of that week, on the final day of Synod, there was discussion of proposed changes to the ViSC Regulation. These changes had initially been brought to the House of Bishops back in September 2024. There it had been noted that “Whilst there is not time to change the Regulation before the next triennium of ViSCs being elected, it is proposed that this should still be addressed for the longer term”. Some of these proposed changes were passed and they came into effect from 14^th February. Reportedly on legal advice, the new rules were then applied to the Canterbury ViSC election that had already begun, effectively changing the election rules mid-election.

3. In those rule changes institute new rules that go against clearly stated good practice and ensure that in so doing the new rules also fail to provide sufficient guidance as to how to run the election given the new rules.

As noted above, STV which is designed to enable the outcome to enact as well as possible the preferences of voters is complicated whenever there is the introduction of “constraints”. This is why an appendix to the STV rules clearly states

Central to the changes introduced mid-election (para 6A entitled “restriction on election and nomination”) were a totally novel set of constraints. These are based on what was called a “relevant connection” between individuals on, and/or individuals seeking to be elected to, the ViSC. 

There was, however, no explanation given in the rules as to how these constraints would relate to any other constraints being applied when it came to running the election (for example constraints based on needing a certain number of clergy or lay people or people from a particular Archdeaconry) or to the preference of voters between candidates who shared a relevant connection.

4. Make up—but never declare or explain—a new rule to fill the gap in the rules and make sure it ignores the wishes of the voters in determining how to count the votes.

In the ViSC election a difficulty arose once the nominations were closed because of the interplay of the following constraints. The election was required to:

• Elect 4 lay people from Ashford Archdeaconry out of 4 candidates (a diocesan imposed constraint not in the national Regulation);
• Elect 2 clergy from Ashford Archdeaconry out of 4 candidates (a diocesan imposed constraint not in the national Regulation);
• Elect only 1 of the two candidates from the Ashford Archdeaconry (in this case 1 clergy and 1 lay) with a relevant connection to each other (a new constraint in the national Regulation); and
• Elect therefore either a clergy candidate with sufficient first preference votes (10) to be duly elected but thereby only elect 3 not 4 lay people or a lay candidate with only one vote (presumably their own) and thereby eliminate the connected clergy candidate.

It was decided—though it is unclear by whom (or perhaps by a computer, it being unclear whether or how the software used to count votes was redesigned in the light of this new rule) or when in the process or even if there was an awareness of the significance of what was being decided—that it was more important to have 4 lay candidates elected than to respect the wishes of the voters. It was therefore decided to eliminate the candidate with 10 votes (a clergy woman) and so more votes than needed to be elected rather than the candidate connected to the same very large and theologically diverse parish with 1 vote. 

5. Be willing to ignore some of the public rules in how you run the election and also add in some distinctive rules of your own which are not public.

As noted below there are at least two aspects of the Canterbury ViSC election which have disregarded rules concerning how the election should be run (see tips 11 and 13). On drawing attention to this fact and raising concerns about election rules being ignored I was astonished to discover that part of the explanation for what had happened was “there are also Canterbury-specific rules, passed by Archbishop’s Council here many years ago, that also have significant impact”. I have not been able to find these rules anywhere and my enquiry as to whether they are public or can be made public (as would seem appropriate for a public election) has not been answered.

How many people need to be elected?

Read it all in Psephizo