Run the vote with one vote per person, confirmed by email, and publish the rules before voting opens: who can vote, how often, the closing time and what happens to votes that break them. Check the counts daily.

Hundreds of votes overnight

A community paper's readers' choice awards have been open online for a week, with a form on the paper's site and a category for everything from bakeries to mechanics.

One morning, a cafe that sat in the middle of its category jumps to first place with hundreds of new votes overnight. Almost all of them came from a handful of network addresses.

The other nominees notice within hours. So do readers, and from then on every winner the paper announces carries a question mark.

Why an open vote rewards pushing

A form with no limits counts submissions, not people. Whoever asks the most supporters to vote the most times wins, and a simple script can submit votes faster than any supporter.

Nominees are not villains for campaigning. A readers' choice award is worth something to a small business, so some will push as hard as the rules allow.

The trouble is that an open form allows everything. The paper then has to choose between a result it does not believe and removing votes under rules it never published.

What a fair vote needs

A vote readers can trust rests on a few decisions made before it opens:

None of these stops a determined supporter entirely. Together they make stuffing slow, visible and clearly against rules everyone could read.

One vote per confirmed address

The voter enters an email address with their choices, and the system sends a link. The vote counts only when the link is clicked, and each address votes once per category.

Limiting votes by network address instead is tempting but unfair. A whole office, a household or everyone on a cafe's wireless network can share one address, and a phone changes address as it moves.

Say on the page what the email addresses are used for, and keep them for the vote alone. Readers who want the paper's newsletter can sign up separately.

Rules before the first vote

Publish the rules on the voting page itself: who can vote, how often, the dates, how nominees were chosen, and that votes breaking the rules will be removed.

Say what nominees may do. Asking customers to vote once is fair campaigning; offering a discount for votes, or voting repeatedly, is not.

Rules written after a problem look like favouritism, however fair they are. Rules on the page from the start give the paper grounds to act and the nominees nothing to dispute.

What to watch while it runs

Check the counts by nominee every day, at the same time. A steady climb is normal. A jump of hundreds overnight in one category deserves a closer look.

Look at when the votes came in and from where: bursts within minutes, many votes from one network address, or confirmation addresses that follow a pattern.

Keep a short log of what was found and what was done about it. If a nominee questions a decision later, the log shows it was made by rule.

When a nominee goes too far

Contact the nominee privately first. Many stop once they see the rule written down, and the votes outside it can be removed quietly.

Remove only what the published rules cover, and note it in the log. Disqualifying a nominee outright is a last step, kept for deliberate, repeated rule breaking.

If supporters break the rules without the nominee's knowledge, say so in the log, and treat the votes, not the business, as the problem.

A worked example

A cycling club in the Cowichan Valley runs an annual riders' choice vote on its website, for favourite coffee stop, bike shop and climb, and announces the winners in its winter newsletter.

Last year, one coffee stop rose from the middle of its list to first place overnight. Most of the new votes came from three network addresses, one of them the cafe's own wireless network.

The cafe had invited customers to vote as often as they liked. The club had no published rules, so removing the votes looked arbitrary, and leaving them looked worse.

This year the rules sat on the voting page from the first day, with one vote per category for each confirmed email address and a plain line on campaigning.

A volunteer checked the counts each evening and logged anything unusual. Nominees were told the rules when nominations closed, so every one of them knew where the line was.

Each vote now traces back to one confirmed address, and any vote that is removed breaks a rule that was on the page from the first day.

Announcing the results

Publish the winners with a short note on how voting worked: one confirmed vote per person per category, checked daily, with votes outside the rules removed.

That note answers the question readers asked last time before they ask it again, and it tells future nominees what to expect.

Keep the vote counts to the paper unless the rules said they would be published. A close second place printed beside the winner can embarrass a nominee who did nothing wrong.

The counter-case

A light poll with nothing at stake, such as a favourite trail or the cover photo for the next issue, can stay open and simple. Nobody gains enough from winning to push.

The calculation changes when winners can put the award in their window or their advertising. Then the vote is worth gaming, and it needs rules.

Confirmation by email adds a step for honest voters, and a few will not bother. That is a fair price for a result readers and nominees can believe.

Before the voting opens

  1. Choose one vote per person per category.
  2. Confirm each vote by email before it counts.
  3. Write the rules on the voting page.
  4. Tell nominees what campaigning is fair.
  5. Check the counts at the same time each day.
  6. Log anything removed and why.
  7. Explain the method when the winners are announced.

Step three makes the rest possible. A paper that published its rules first can remove stuffed votes calmly; one that did not is left arguing about fairness after the fact.

Writing house rules down before the first problem, for comments under articles, is covered in a comment policy before the first angry thread.

Frequently asked questions

How do we stop one nominee stuffing the vote?

Allow one vote per person per category, confirmed by email, publish the rules before voting opens, and check the counts daily for sudden jumps from a few addresses.

Why not limit votes by network address?

Offices, households and cafe wireless networks share one address, and phones change address as they move. Limits by address block honest voters and miss determined ones.

What should the voting rules say?

Who can vote, how often, the opening and closing times, how nominees were chosen, what campaigning is fair, and that votes breaking the rules will be removed.

Can nominees ask customers to vote?

Yes, if they ask for one vote each. Offering discounts for votes or encouraging repeat voting should be against the published rules.

What should we watch while voting is open?

The counts by nominee at the same time each day, bursts of votes within minutes, many votes from one network address, and confirmation addresses that follow a pattern.

Should we explain how the winners were decided?

Yes. A short note on the method, one confirmed vote per person and daily checks, answers readers' doubts and tells future nominees what to expect.

West Coast Media Solutions Inc. provides web design, web development, hosting, digital marketing, and business consulting to organisations across Canada, drawing on more than twenty-five years in the field.

Readers' choice vote coming up?

Tell us how your current voting form works, and we will suggest how to confirm votes and publish fair rules.

Start a Conversation