As one man commented caustically on the BBC website, it wasn’t rocket science.
No, but neither was it exactly straightforward. In the polling station last
Thursday morning, confronted with two ballot papers, three different columns
of names and the requirement that I use crosses and numbers in different
places, I readily confess that the new Scottish voting system made me pause
in my tracks.
If I’m having to think about this, I pondered, how will other people cope?
Does that sound dreadfully arrogant? But there was I, one of the mistresses
of the written universe, able to negotiate the most intricate of bank
overdraft requests, surprised by how unsure I was; and there was I seeking
reassurance from the officials before putting pen to paper.
As indignation (and a sense of national humiliation) grows over the polling
fiasco in the elections, several friends have admitted, a little
shamefacedly, that they really weren’t sure what to do, either. These
weren’t stupid people. One of them, remarkably, was the political editor on
a Scottish newspaper, and if he had doubts, then perhaps that says it all.
More than 100,000 people – around one in 20 of those who voted – had their
ballot papers rejected in the election: a figure so scandalous that
analogies with hanging chads don’t really begin to describe it. Their votes
were rejected because the forms were too confusing for them (let’s leave
aside the tiny minority who spoilt their papers as a form of political
protest). What is now crystal clear is that the poorer and more ill-educated
the voters were, the more likely they were to put the wrong marks in the
wrong places, and unwittingly invalidate their forms.
In the constituency of Glasgow Shettleston, an area in the east end of the
city that routinely tops all the poverty and deprivation indices for the UK,
there were 2,035 rejected ballots, representing almost 12 per cent of the
turnout. The percentage was similar in Glasgow Baillieston, an area of near
similar deprivation, where there were 1,850 rejected papers.
In the election of 1999, using the more standard voting form, the number of
spoiled papers was under 1 per cent, a figure that Dr Ken Ritchie, the chief
executive of the Electoral Reform Society, believes has now increased
tenfold.
This time round, across the industrial heartland of the West of Scotland,
rejected ballots averaged about 1,000 per constituency. In Glasgow
Anniesland, there were 1,736 rejected papers, a figure almost as big as the
number of successful votes cast for the Lib Dems and the Conservatives put
together. In Airdrie and Shotts the number of rejected papers (1,536) was
larger than the majority by which the Labour candidate won, which was 1,446.
These, whichever way you look at them, are simply shocking figures.
Naturally, the reverse holds true. In areas of greater affluence, where people
are wealthier, healthier and better educated, the trend was reversed. In
Roxburgh and Berwickshire, for instance, which was taken by the
Conservatives, the number of rejected papers was just over 400. On the
traditionally mannered Western Isles, the number was around 500.
The conclusion is unavoidable: the ballot forms were simply too much for the
country’s least favoured citizens. Unintentionally, in going to the polls
the way it did, Scotland asked its people to sit a national intelligence
test, and an awful lot of the disadvantaged failed. This, at the very least,
is a desperately sad indication of how detached the bureaucratic classes are
from reality. The ill-designed ballot papers disgracefully disenfranchised
those who are already the most powerless and voiceless in society, leading
one to suggest that, if the much touted “best small country in the world”
aspires to be a model for democracy, then it urgently needs to find a way
that its people – all its people – can express their wishes.
Those who are least likely to vote, will, given this experience, be even less
likely to do so in the future. In Shettleston last week the turnout was only
33 per cent, two points down on 2003. And this against a national trend
suggesting a much bigger turnout on Thursday than in 2003.
The need for an inquiry is urgent. We face a situation of historic uncertainty
as the Scottish National Party, with a wafer thin majority of one vote – and
who knows if that could have been nullified by more user-friendly ballot
papers? – tries to form a coalition or start minority government.
Suggestions are swirling around of legal challenges to some of the election
results because of the rejected papers. And undoubtedly the almost total
annihilation of independent, pensioner, Socialist and Green party candidates
this time round, removing the zany, rainbow-coloured element in the Scottish
Parliament, can be laid partly at the door of the wasted votes. Given these
factors, we would be unwise to ignore the prospect of another election
happening sooner rather than later.
There is no point in blaming the e-counting machines for the breakdown in
democracy. Yes, there were malfunctions on the night, but so what? We are
all now alert to the empty promise of efficiency that computerising anything
brings. And, yes, the ballot papers were designed for the scanners, rather
than the voters, and that didn’t help. But it wasn’t the key issue.
The blame for the contemptuous treatment of the voters lies with the Scotland
Office and Scottish Executive, who between them decided to defy the
recommendations of the Arbuthnott Commission review of the voting system
(appointed, let’s not forget, to make polling in Scotland fairer and
simpler) and hold both the Scottish parliamentary elections and the local
authority elections on the same day.
Hence the two ballot papers, one requiring crosses, one numbers; hence the
confusion. Voters were not helped by the rules that allowed the Nationalists
to put “Alex Salmond for First Minister” instead of “SNP” on every ballot
paper, muddying the water between personal and party votes. Bewildering?
Imagine how Scotland’s thousands of elderly and barely literate felt.
In response to comments by Dr David Green, Northern Ireland has had the best state education system in the UK for decades, since it has kept all its grammar schools. Unfortunately, that happy status is shortly to end as NI goes comprehensive -then its citizens will be as poorly educated as those in the rest of the UK (apart from those lucky few who can afford to escape the state education system by going private).
Richard, Kidderminster, England
I think the Nationalist ploy of listing their candidates as representating " Alex Salmond for First Minister" were misleading. The vote was not for a national leader, it was for a constituency MSP, therefore the political preferences of the canditate shoud have been clearly expressed on the ballot paper.
Brian McCormick, Dunoon, Scotland
I agree that this shambles was due to poor education, but I think it unwise to correlate that directly with income, as Melanie Reid does.
As PDQ points out, the voting system itself is difficult to explain. I was asked many times why we were voting for a consitutency *and* for a region. "But which is my MSP?" - well they both are! I think this is why the small parties were destroyed. When faced with uncertainty, voters headed straight for one of the big parties, and voted for it on both the constituency and regional forms.
I think it would have been better if, after every one of the many party political broadcasts, a compulsory 30 second slot had been run explaining not just *how* to vote, but *why* we were being asked to vote in this way.
Epimenides Smith, Dundee, Scotland
"For something as serious as voting, PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION DESIGNERS SHOULD BE INVOLVED in the design of the ballots," was the lesson learned in Miami. It's not a matter of dumbing things down for the voters, but investing in clear and unbiased communication when things count. It shouldn't be a bragging point, as many of the comments posted here are, to say that you successfully navigated the voting system. Whether or not one is able to figure out the ballot should be a non-issue. It should be intuitive enough that one wouldn't think twice about it. That's not dumbing it down, it's wising up.
Corrine Ellsworth, MFA, High Wycombe, Bucks
I wonder how many of the 100,000 would have failed to fill in their benefit forms correctly?
It is Scotland's shame and we now have 4 years of a 'good old rammie' to look forward to.
Heaven help us!
George McGhie, Ayrshire
George McGhie, Maybole, Ayrshire
I have to say it is quite remarkeable that a Government which tires to rig everything in its one favour should intentionally disenfranchise its own supporters!
Or, are is the writer being just a tad condesending to suggest that those unable to complete the ballot forms would have voted Labour and overturned the SNP victory?
Run the damn thing again I say
Paul Allkins, Chelmsford, Essex
The instructions could not have been clearer, being printed in bold type at the top of each form. People who are unable to follow simple written instructions have no business presuming to tell the rest of us who should be in power.
On the contrary, there should be a very short and simple randomly-generated mutiple choice test at the start of each ballot paper. Examples of the questions could be:
1. Who is the Prime Minister? A) George Bush B) John Major C) Tony Blair
2. Which is further away, the sun or the moon? A) The sun B) The moon C) About the same distance
3. What is the capital of France? A) Paris B) Rome C) Germany
If the voter can't answer ALL of these correctly, why should the rest of us take any notice of his political views?
Dr. Keith Anderson, Durham, England
Part of the problem is, as Melanie says, The SNP being allowed to call themselves Alec Salmond for First Minister. This ensured that it got listed, yellow pages style at the top of the party list.
Voters, scanning the paper (as you do first, to find out what it is all about) were effectively presented with two columns, BOTH apparently headed up with people. I agree that you really had to look twice and really check what you were doing, and I was supposed to know what to do.
I was a polling agent for the day, and was at the Count in Perth (suspended till noon the next day). It was a total shambles. The counting machines worked well, but they were slow. The software that was supposed to show the progress of the vote never worked all night. I watched the spoilt papers being adjudicated, and while basic errors were able to be corrected, the ones with 2 crosses in the left hand column for Holyrood, and the ones with 2 crosses on the Council paper had to be thrown out
david, Perth, Scotland
I am almost too embarrassed to post this. I am a consultant cardiologist, my wife is a GP and my son a medical student. My son thought he was voting for a 1st minister confused by the Alex Salmond 1st option. My wife ended up not voting for the party she thought she was voting for. I couldn't understand why i had the option of 2 SNP counsellors on my local authority ballot. No-one has been able to explain that to me.
I tried to explain the voting system to my other children and realised i couldn't. I asked 9 of my consultant colleagues only 1 of whom understood the voting system. This is not democracy or al least not an educated democracy
iain findlay, bridge of weir, scotland
Melanie
Couldn't agree more, Took an eternity to actually read the instructions (even after superb advice from the polling officer). Another problem (for me) was the amount of candidates on the voting forms, Do these chancers have to pay a deposit, if not then it;s time they did
David Gillespie, Glasgow, South Lanarkshire
Ah well if you can't work out a voting form then maybe you don't have the IQ to cast a vote
Chris, Lye, UK
Our political elite have pushed hard to include disabled people in all areas of Scottish life and rightly so. Why then, in a nation with a large number of stroke victims do they require them to write numbers on the ballot paper? These unfortunates are unable to write and co-ordinate with anything like the precision required. A friend's father in law was trying to explain the system and help his stroke victim wife to complete her paper and was stopped by a zealotous official. There was no way that the official could have helped her and thus her vote joins the "spoilt" papers.
Even simpler was the fact that left handed voters were unable to write on the right side of the page because the strings on the pencils were not long enough to accomodate their left handed traits.
These elections should be declared null and void, just like the rest of Mr Blair's legacy to the United Kingdom's voters.
Peter Wright, West Kilbride, Ayrshire
Some extraordinary and worrying comments here - for example
"competence to vote" - how about the reality that a properly registered UK adult has the RIGHT to vote, even if one doesn't approve of their choice, or their competence?
The reality of this Scottish election, even saying that many spoiled votes were maybe fraudulent or deliberate, leaves enough genuine voters to fill a decent-sized town disenfranchised - this is a disgrace.
So is allowing Postal Voting unless the individual has real grounds for absence:personally, I have missed 3 or 4 votes in over 40 years: but it is not rocket science to understand that Postal Voting may induce coercion within certain communities, whereby it becomes a Block Vote: far from increasing democracy, it gives power to minorities, as I believe has already been proved.
Voting should be based on "Lowest common denominator" not bureaucratic convenience: X should mark the spot.
MikeM, St. Albans, England
I can't believe what is unfolding here. There must be a rerun of the election. The people of Scotland deserve nothing less. To whom can one call on to demand another ballot?
Concerned citizen, Edinburgh,
Seems to me that no result can be pronounced or parties engage in coalition talks until ALL the voting papers that were rejected (for whatever reason) have been re-examined and checked for invalidity.
I have heard that parliamentary votes have been rejected in cases where "1, 2,,3" were written in the columns; and that papers were rejected by the machines where only one column (constituency or list) was filled in.
In bothese cases it is clear what the voters' preferences were and should be accepted.
This is particularly VITAL in those wards where the number of rejected papers exceeds the majority as announced.
Only after this process can the parties begin, with integrity, to discuss how to continue.
If I were a judge in a contested case I could not allow any appeal until a recount and close examination of all rejected votes.
I voted: fortunately I had a postal vote and so had time to read the instructions carefully - not so easy when off to work and with a queue building up aster
Peter P, Isle of Skye,
It might be because I read the info posted to all voters and displayed at polling stations and stuck in all polling booths and.... like 95% of those who voted in Scotland I actually managed to register my votes.
It is amazing what can be done with a pencil if you read the instructions for its use before you pick it up. Simple really.
Who says society is dumbing down?
Dave from Edinburgh
dave, Edinburgh, Scotland
Some extraordinary and worrying comments here - for example
"competence to vote" - how about the reality that a properly registered UK adult has the RIGHT to vote, even if one doesn't approve of their choice, or their competence?
The reality of this Scottish election, even saying that many spoiled votes were maybe fraudulent or deliberate, leaves enough genuine voters to fill a decent-sized town disenfranchised - this is a disgrace.
So is allowing Postal Voting unless the individual has real grounds for absence:personally, I have missed 3 or 4 votes in over 40 years: but it is not rocket science to understand that Postal Voting may induce coercion within certain communities, whereby it becomes a Block Vote: far from increasing democracy, it gives power to minorities, as I believe has already been proved.
Voting should be based on "Lowest common denominator" not bureaucratic convenience: X should mark the spot.
MikeM, St. Albans, England
Melanie puts forward an interesting hypothesis suggesting numbers of rejected ballot papers on 3rd May correspond to economic and educational deprivation. Now which would you say enjoyed more deprivation, Scotland or London?
Over 550,000 votes were rejected in the 2004 London election, conducted with exactly the same mix of 3 different voting systems as 3rd May. Imagine how London’s thousands of elderly and barely literate felt.
I would challenge Melanie to explain to the readers of this column how votes cast under STV and AMS used in the 3rd May election are allocated. It is not simple.
"Alex Salmond for First Minister SNP" was the description on the Regional List. Far from "muddying the waters", this gave many voters a very simple explanation for the purpose of their vote on the Regional List. I bet you £100 that it's simpler than explaining how AMS votes work! Tommy Sheridan thought so - he copied this idea too.
PDQ, Edinburgh,
Nevertheless the English will have to keep picking up the bills.
Terry Motion, London, ENGLAND
An important point that needs to be made: voters had much less difficulty with the STV local government ballot paper, where they had to number candidates in order of preference (spoilt ballots for this poll were no more than they were in previous elections), than they did with the AMS Scottish Parliament ballot paper. If the same system had been used for both ballots, the confusion would have been even less.
Hopefully this experience will lead to what the Arbruthnot Commission failed to recommend: a single electoral system for all Scottish elections.
James Graham, London, England
Hasn't anybody thought that Labour would have been quite happy to see this happen, it certainly took the conversation away from how appallingly they had done, didn't it?
judy, Liverpool, england
Thomas Goodey writes:-
"The basic point is: if a person is not capable of filling in a simple
form, as commonly required nowadays, why should that person's
opinion on such an important matter as who should run the
country, be accorded any weight?"
Surely it's because they live in it.
Jon Barker, glasgow, UK
Whatever happens I suppose the English will have to pay for it.
Roger Sherrin, Sherborne, Dorset
Perhaps the fact that the vast majority of voters seemed able to fill in the ballot papers correctly indicates that the problem lies with the abilities of those seemingly unable to read , follow instructions and work out what to do , rather than the forms themselves.
Unless Ms Reid is suggesting the rather un PC idea that those living in deprived areas have less innate abilities than humans living elsewhere I wonder if the real reason for this inept display lies with the quality of the local education system and those charged with providing it?
Bob Green, Essex, England
If what Melanie Reid says is true - that the ballot papers for the Scottish elections were too difficult for the least educated to fill in - then let's make the ballot papers even more complicated. Disenfranchising the ignorant? That's definitely the way forward!
Time for a change. Western democracy just does not work.
EW, Cambs, UK
I understood the voting system very well. However, in all conscience I could not vote for any of my Constituency Parties so left the right hand side of the ballot paper empty. I did vote for a minority party under the Regional List system. Four years ago the Constituency and the List were on separate ballot sheets and it did not matter if you did not vote for one of them. Now I am wondering if my vote has been declared null and void due to the absence of a vote for the Constituency. If this is the case I am shocked as it means to get a minority party into Parliament I would be forced to vote for a Party I had no belief in.
Can anyone enlighten me on this?
Rosaleen Healy, Glasgow,
I don't see what the problem was. The method of electing our MSPs was the same as the one used in the previous Scottish elections. Okay, it possibly didn't help having Alex Salmonds name at the top, so some people may have voted for him without realising they were voting for the SNP to govern. The only new thing was the form for electing local councillors, but the instructions (put 1 by your first choice, 2 by your second etc) didn't sem too onorous. If a supposedly well educated, modern country like Scotland can't cope with this, how on earth are countries like India, with several hundred options on the ballot paper and an illiterate population expected to cope. Or could it just be that they are better eductaed than we are, and that we are not nearly as good as we thought.
David Leslie, Perth, Scotland
Perhaps this might caution Gordon Brown against a snap or any General Election in England after years of NuLabor dumbing down of our education system.
Perhaps as in the Labour Party current Leadership selection process he'll want to opt for the 'One Candidate' style General Election to avoid spoilt ballot papers?
DMM, Eastbourne, UK
I had no trouble voting. A happy face against the candidate I wanted to vote for and sad faces against the ones I wanted to reject. What's so hard to understand about that?
Billy, Glasgow, Scotland
The rules that allowed (if that really is the case) the SNP party entry to say "Alex Salmond for first minister" are idiotic. That was not explained anywhere in the literature that came through the mail in the preceding days and weeks. I found myself wondering in the polling booth why Alex Salmond's name was in the regional list column.
Dan Davidson, Aberdeen, UK
I am a pensioner and have spoken to many other people, pensioners and non-pensioners. No one found the papers difficult. Please do not make out that we Scots are dumb idiots who cannot fill in a form. The machines 'ate' most of the papers. I think, however, it is disgraceful that so many papers were rejected - perhaps even mine, although I know I filled them in correctly.
Frances Jacobs, Glasgow, Scotland
Present-day education systems place multiple-choice questions at the heart of all testing. It's not surprising that people who can't handle school tests also flunk the election papers.
wokrightinn, Rudkøbing, Denmark
The ballot papers had clear and simple instructions. Those who did not read them have only themselves to blame, not the new system. Those who did not understand them should reconsider their competence to vote.
Tom Fallowfield, Braemar,
I suppose it is rather like bringing back the university vote to ensure the educated get to influence governance more than the poor who cannot read or write. Still rather machievellian for New Labour to achieve this by making the voting slips too complicated for the average Scotsman!
Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines
These are the people who would naturally have voted Labour. Labours education policies have bitten back.
Paul, Rochester, UK
I'll also admit to having to get second ballot papers. Wanting to split the first past the post constituency vote, and the top up list vote - I hadn't immediately spotted that they had reversed the order of the questions ....
David Nicol, Bridge of Allan,
If voting changed anything they'd.... make it too complicated for anyone to understand how to do it.
You have to hand it to the Scottish Executive - they've finally found a way to abolish the causes of voting without actually abolishing elections.
Stuart Robb, Hitchin, Herts
I agree with Melanie Reid, and with Cathy from Bristol.
But surveying the antics of Defra, the Dept for Health, the Dept for Education and the Home Office, it seems to me that the arrogance and being out of touch with reality are endemic in Whitehall.
bob wilkinson, milnthorpe, cumbria
Our fiasco could surely have been prevented by clearer instructions prior to the poll. Unfamiliarity is not stupidity. An A5 colour explanatory leaflet with the poll card? Posters in polling stations? A full page ad in the press? A TV ad showing what the papers looked like and how to complete them. The Scots who are slow learners are those in charge.
Christine Macrae, Glasgow,
Yes, these systems were more complex than we had in England - but could still be understood by reading the instructions. Having seen the papers in the newspaper, I don't see how much simpler they could be. If voters can't understand these forms, what hope of them making the infinitely more complicated judgements required to assess which of the candidates in front of them best suits the Scotland they want to see?
Those who couldn't be bothered to read the instructions were indeed disenfranchised - but only as disenfranchised as the vast majority of English voters who are stuck with a system in which most votes are wasted.
John, Nottingham, England
I'm rlieved to note that other not so stupid people found the
voinf forms puzzlling .I'm a graduate of both Oxford and Cambridge ,and eighty years of age but have to confess that I spoiled one paper and went back to the polling clerks to check up because I had used both a cross and a number .They cheerfully issued me with two new papers and I managed to comply ih the insructions second time around .
john_inglis , Glosgow, Scotland
The postal ballots were not too clever in england either. The instructions were confused and in fact the enclosed instructions were from the ballot used last year before the signing panel changes.........some people had return envelopes addressed to a completely different council in Southern England........."printing error" according to the Council.
Why can't they organise a ballot paper properly ?
TomTom, Leeds, England
I think they should hold a new election in Scotland. The results are a shambles and I cannot believe the arrogance of Mr Salmond in declaring moral authority to govern based on such uncertain results. Until the voting system is improved, the previous firs minister should remain as first minister until the votes are recast in a few weeks or months time.
Max, Manchester,
Melanie puts forward an interesting hypothesis suggesting numbers of rejected ballot papers on 3rd May correspond to economic and educational deprivation. Now which would you say was more deprived, Scotland or London?
Over 550,000 votes were rejected in the 2004 London election, conducted with exactly the same mix of 3 different voting systems as 3rd May. Imagine how London’s thousands of elderly and barely literate felt.
I would challenge Melanie to explain to the readers of this column how votes cast under STV and AMS used in the 3rd May election are allocated. It is not simple.
"Alex Salmond for First Minister SNP" was the description on the Regional List. Far from "muddying the waters", this gave many voters a very simple explanation for the purpose of their vote on the Regional List. I bet you £100 that it's simpler than explaining how AMS votes work! Tommy Sheridan thought so - he copied this idea too.
PDQ, Edinburgh,
This article is an eloquent argument for making the ballot papers more complicated and more puzzling, not easier. Perhaps it would be ideal for people to be subjected to a formal intelligence/education test before being allowed to vote - Heinlein suggested that they should have to solve a simple quadratic equation - but this will do for a start. It has now been officially proved that voters for the "independent, pensioner, Socialist and Green party candidates" are the stupider ones; this is a great scientific discovery! And note the assumption in the article that, if all the votes from the stupid would-be-voters had been counted, the SNP might not have received its "wafer-thin majority". Translate: more of the stupid vote for Labour; more of the clever vote SNP.
The basic point is: if a person is not capable of filling in a simple form, as commonly required nowadays, why should that person's opinion on such an important matter as who should run the country, be accorded any weight?
Thomas Goodey, Cuxton-upon-Medway, UK
There seems to be a major problem in Britain regarding the reading of instructions. As seen in Scotland, 100 000 people did not read or comprehend the instructions. This needs to be adressed.
Dumbing down the ballot paper is not going to help the future of Scotland.
Chantel, UK,
I agree with this article. This is yet another example of the sheer incompetence and arrogance of those in positions of political power. It does seem that the election should be re-run along different lines. What a mess - to be laid directly at the door of our political representatives.
Cathy, Bristol, UK
I regret to say that my fellow-Scots are slow learners when it comes to using different types of voting systems. Voters in Northern Ireland have been using the same varied systems for over 20 years now without any major difficulties; indeed, sometimes the Northern Irish have taken so keenly to the varied systems imposed on them by Westminster that they have voted too early and too often! Perhaps the Scottish education system is not all that it's cracked up to be? Whatever the case, it would appear the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is safe for at least another generation. That's the main bright spark on a night of shame for our fellow-Scots. The difference between the efficiency of the French electoral system and the Scottish electoral fiasco could not have been more marked last evening.
Dr David Green, Athens, Greece
What id those who spoiled papers did so deliberately - not wanting to vote for the Jike McConnell crew, but not wanting to vote against him either. Next tactic in an election where your preferred party has no hope is to spoil your ballot and get sufficient numbers of others to do likewise
Miles Better, Flasgow, Scotland