STV-counting software is frequently validated empirically by comparing the results of election counts to those generated by independent implementations. See, for example, [[1–5]](#references). The table describes the empirical validation performed on OpenTally to date.
| Method | Election | Comparator | Included test case |
| Church of England | Joe Otten/eSTV ballot papers for the ERS97 model election | [eSTV 1.47](https://web.archive.org/web/20040607021930/http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/estv.htm) | ✓ |
2. Wichmann BA. Validation of implementation of the Meek algorithm for STV. London: McDougall Trust; 2000 Apr 28. <http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/RES/MKVAL.pdf>
3. Koopman P, Hubbers E, Pieters W, Poll E, de Vries R. Testing the eSTV program for the Scottish local government elections. Nijmegen (NL): Radboud University; 2007 Mar 30. <https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/testing-the-estv-program-for-the-scottish-local-government-electi>
4. Conway A, Blom M, Naish L, Teague V. An analysis of New South Wales electronic vote counting. *ACSW '17: Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week multiconference*. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2017 Jan. [doi: 10.1145/3014812.3014837](http://doi.org/10.1145/3014812.3014837)
5. Abate P, Dawson J, Goré R, Gray M, Norrish M, Slater A. *Formal methods applied to electronic voting systems*. Canberra: Australian National University; c2003. <https://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~rpg/EVoting/>