It was a defining moment in Scottish politics, but perhaps for all the wrong reasons.

As the first results of the Holyrood election were revealed at sports centres and town halls across the country, it was not the names of winners and losers that brought gasps from the waiting crowds but the staggering number of spoilt ballot papers.

A total of 1,736 in Anniesland, 1,850 in Baillieston, 1,717 in Cathcart. With every declaration came more news of rejected papers topping four-figures.

By the time that the Scottish Nationalist Party was declared the winner, after a marathon count plagued with technical failures and delays, it was feared that up to 100,000 people — an unprecedented 10 per cent of total votes cast — could have been deprived of their vote.

The combination of three different voting systems and failures in the new electronic counting system caused chaos and confusion throughout the election, as Labour and the SNP sat neck and neck in the race for power. However, before Alex Salmond could even claim victory, the Electoral Reform Society was calling for an inquiry into the “shocking” number of spoilt papers.

Ken Ritchie, chief executive of the society, said: “We need a full and open inquiry into why so many votes were spoilt in these elections.

“It is clear, however, that the fault is not a consequence of the voting system. When the system was first used in 1999, the number of spoilt ballots was less than 1 per cent.”

Although the Scotland Office blamed “serious technical failures” with the new scanning machines for the delay in results, some of which were not announced until last night, Mr Ritchie said that something else lay at the root of Scotland’s election embarrasment.

“While the counting equipment has experienced teething problems in some areas, it is not the equipment that has caused people to make mistakes in the completion of their ballot papers.

“Although many local government elections are still being counted, it appears that, with the new single transferable vote system, the level of spoilt papers is very much lower, showing that Scottish voters are quite capable of using different voting systems.

“It is possible that holding two elections with very different voting systems on the same day was a mistake. Holding future elections on different days is an option.” Sophia Coyle, the SNP candidate for Airdrie and Shotts, said that she was considering her options after the number of spoilt ballots outstripped the number of votes between her and Karen Whitefield, the winning Labour candidate.

She said: “I am angry and disappointed. Those votes could have made a huge difference to the result and now I will never know.

“It might be a possibility to get all candidates together and see what we can do collectively to reassess the result.”

Concern is growing that many voters fell foul of two big changes that were made to this year’s election. Instead of the traditional two ballot papers, one for constituency candidates and a second for regional seats, voters were asked to use a single paper with two different coloured columns. In this paper they had to use crosses, but in the new single transferable vote system used for the local government, voters were asked to number councillors in order of preference.

According to returning officers, one of the most common mistakes involved voters marking two crosses in the first column and leaving the second blank, in the mistaken belief that the joint ballot paper featured one continuous list. Others accidentally used crosses, instead of numbers.

Douglas Alexander, who as well as being Transport Secretary doubles as Scotland Secretary, has ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the Scottish elections. Last night his aides were pointing out that it had been a Scottish Executive decision to hold the two elections on the same day.

The changes

What was different about this election?

The Scottish Parliament election combined polls for the regional list vote and the constituency vote. Three different vote-counting systems — list, constituency and single transferable vote — were being used. Crosses and numbers were required. It was also the first time electronic counting was used

Why the changes?

The electronic systems were intended to accelerate the process of counting

Why did it go wrong?

Voter confusion, caused by three different voting systems at the same time. DRS Data & Research Services, which implemented the system, said it had problems with the “consolidation” of the votes.

Who is DRS and what is its track record?

DRS has conducted electronic voting for ten years in Norway, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Hong Kong. It claims the ecounting technology is only designed to count clear votes

What happens next?

An inquiry has been ordered to investigate the system. Candidates may demand a recount

Voters' views

Voters’ views

“The whole process was a shambles. I also cannot believe that over 100,000 people could spoil the papers. The system is now totally discredited and the company providing the technology should be sued” Steve Ferrier, Dundee

“The ballot papers were extremely poorly laid out and very confusing. The papers should have had the name of the candidate and the party they represented, not jingoistic slogans such as “Alex Salmond for First Minister” Donald McTavish, Glasgow

“This is ridiculous. There were two straightforward forms, both with instructions clearly marked at the top. If, as a Scottish voter, you can’t get the hang of that, maybe you should think again about whether you have the mental capacity to be voting in the first place” Jason, London

“Pretty sad reflection on the Scottish electorate that they couldn’t figure out how to vote. Guess it’s one way of stopping stupid people from voting” Jiro, Edinburgh

“Heaven forbid we should have a Florida chads-type situation. Yes, while I myself certainly found the papers simple enough to understand, for some elderly, or people new to voting, or people who are in some way learning disabled, I can see it could have been confusing” Marina Gray, Dumbarton

“The tradition is to go in and put an X on who you want — then go. Simple and effective. Suddenly realising you have to put numbers in is not difficult — but introduced confusion. One hundred thousand mistakes suggests it was confusing. This is an election, not a market survey” Chris Lamb, Edinburgh

“I’m getting pretty annoyed at people saying they didn’t understand how to mark two crosses and write some numbers. The news of this shambles is going around the world and it is deeply embarrassing” Colin Taylor, Glasgow

Times Recommends

• Charles blazes trail as sun king
• Thalidomiders win payout 50 years on
• Libel gag on talk of 'medical hurricane'