Parties invariably discuss electoral systems and the rules surrounding them in terms of democracy and fairness but party interest is always a consideration. There are, of course, many people who have a dispassionate interest in these matters. But it would be naive to ignore the role of party interest. This is not to suggest impropriety.

The story of the new ballot paper is a good example of how partisan interest com-bined with a disinterested desire to clarify the voting system to create a problem.

The Arbuthnott Commission was appointed by Alistair Darling to try to make voting in Scotland simpler and fairer. It was concerned the original way of voting for Holyrood (the additional member system) could be seen to involve voting preferentially.

The language that was of "first" and "second" votes, with the easy elision into first and second preferences.

Labour members were concerned this mistaken belief was resulting in an attrition of its vote from the "first" constituency vote to the "second" list vote. The extent to which this actually happened has never been convincingly shown.

Creating a new single ballot paper (rather than previous two) which placed the regional list vote on the left - thus removing its appearance as a second preference - while placing the more familiar constituency vote on the right of the ballot paper seemed a smart way of overcoming this problem.

The SNP response to rebrand itself, in the list vote, as "Alex Salmond for First Minister" was audacious. As with the decision to have a single ballot paper, this could be tenuously presented as conforming with the Arbuthnott Report. However, the idea of the list allowing us to choose a government while constituencies gave us local representatives was always flawed logic.

The partisan interest is obvious though the extent to which it made a difference is difficult to gauge. In other words, all parties are at it when it comes to working within the rules.

More troubling, however, are the consequences of the confusion that has arisen from what appears to have been the decision to use a single ballot paper. This was obviously not intended. It is simply impossible to know how people might have voted had they not spoiled their ballot paper by accident. In some cases, it may be obvious to infer that a voter sought to cast a different vote for the constituency and the list but impossible to know which was meant for which.

Statistical analysis comparing the levels of spoiled ballots in 2003 and 2007, along with a comparison of the different socio-economic profiles of different constituencies, suggests there is no evidence of an obvious socio-demographic bias.

The enduring memory of these elections may be that these were the ones in which so many voters were effectively disenfranchised. Inevitably, that too will be embroiled in partisan interest. Whichever party feels it has lost will seek to emphasise this scandal, if only to shift the focus away from the final result and implicitly to suggest the result might have been otherwise.

As the results were coming in, it was clear we would have to wait for a winner.

But what became all too clear after only a few results was that something had gone fundamentally wrong. There has been much speculation. In an election that was producing a truly historic result, whether Labour lost its position or not, the big news seemed to be that Scotland's democratic procedures had been damaged.

Professor James Mitchell is professor of politics at Strathclyde University.

12:01am Saturday 5th May 2007

Print   Email this

Post this story to: Digg | del.icio.us | Furl | reddit | NowPublic | Yahoo!

Archive