Comment | Read Comments (22)

It was a guddle, yes. But whose guddle?

Scotland's shambolic elections sparked widespread anger yesterday as counts were delayed and tens of thousands of ballot papers spoiled.

But there was surprisingly little finger pointing. Why? Because nobody could quite agree who was actually in charge of the polls and they way they were run.

The Electoral Commission yesterday said it would carry out a review of Thursday's events. No surprises there. The body, which monitors but does not manage elections, has a statutory duty to investigate their conduct. The review, the commission said, will be "focusing on the reasons for the high number of rejected ballots, the electronic counting process and the arrangements for postal voting".

Such a review is unlikely to pin down blame for the fiasco on Thursday night and yesterday. After all, no single body is responsible for elections.

Individual returning officers - usually the chief executives of local authorities - are handsomely paid for overseeing local parliamentary and council votes. Did they set aside enough papers for postal voting? Not all of them, suggested some politicians yesterday.

At least one local council, West Dunbartonshire, managed a series of misprints on its polling cards, telling residents in Argyll and East Dunbartonshire to place their votes in West Dunbartonshire.

Returning officers, too, were ultimately responsible for deciding whether to use new electronic counting systems. True, the systems had already been given the joint approval - and joint funding - of the Scottish Executive and Scotland Office, the arm of Westminster government responsible for reserved matters north of the border. That's because the exec is in charge of council elections and the Scotland Office of Scottish Parliament elections.

Returning officers, of course, had no say in the date of the elections and whether the council and Holyrood votes should have gone ahead on the same day. That was a matter for the Scottish Executive. A mistake, argued many at the time of the decision, and more so in hindsight.

Nor did they have any say in a decision to print two voting forms - for the list and constituency ballots for Holyrood - on a single paper. That, however, was agreed by all the main parties after what one insider called "glacially paced" consultations.

Only the Scottish Senior Citizens' Unity Party raised an objection to the system, which was modelled on similar New Zealand arrangements.

Innovations, including the electronic counting of votes, all had a single inspiration: a report from a committee chaired by Sir John Arbuthnott, the chairman of the boundary commission.

The Scotland Office bought into proposals for e-counting and a single ballot paper for Holyrood, which was within its powers. The Scottish Executive, despite some muted reservations from the opposition and contrary to the Arbuthnott report recommendations, decided to hold council and Holyrood elections at once, mostly because of fears for turnout in council elections.

The Electoral Reform Society - a major advocate of proportional representation - yesterday demanded action.

"We need a full and open inquiry into why so many votes were spoiled in these elections," said its chief executive Ken Ritchie. "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 spoiled ballots was less than 1%. We need to understand what has gone so wrong as to increase this number more than tenfold.

"This year there have been two major changes that might have affected voters. First, instead of two ballot papers, one for constituency candidates and a second for regional seats, a single ballot paper with two columns was used. There is some evidence that the design of the ballot paper and accompanying instructions might have caused some confusion.

"Secondly, Scottish Parliament elections, which required people to vote with two "Xs", were held alongside the local government elections in which people were asked to vote with numbers. 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 must be considered."

Fiona Booth, chief executive of the democracy think tank the Hansard Society, said: "We welcome innovations to make voting easier and more accessible, but widespread education and thorough testing is clearly necessary."

Millions were spent carrying out Thursday's election - nearly £9m on the count itself, much of that going to a private firm called DRS. But money was also spent explaining the ballot to the electorate.

A campaign called VoteScotland was co-funded by the Scottish Executive and the Electoral Commission to the tune of £2m.

A spokeswoman for VoteScotland, asked to justify the scheme yesterday, listed its efforts ahead of the vote.

"The VoteScotland campaign was aimed at increasing awareness of the Scottish Parliamentary and local council elections, as well as giving information on how to register and vote.

"On election day, information officers were on hand in many polling places to help people and voters were also able to ask the polling staff for assistance. Information pop-up stands were also at each polling place which contained instructions on how to complete the ballot papers.

"VoteScotland leaflets were sent to every single home in Scotland explaining how the voting system works and other essential information about the elections on May 3."

Douglas Alexander, the Secretary of State for Scotland, last night acknowledged problems with the ballot.

He said: "I share the public's concern about the high number of spoiled ballot papers.

"It is important that an inquiry looks, as a matter of urgency, into delays in postal ballots, the high number of spoiled ballot papers, and the performance of the electronic counting machines.

"I have today spoken to Sir Neil McIntosh, the Scottish Commissioner on the Electoral Commission and established that his review will cover the key issues of concern. Separately the Scottish Executive have asked that the Electoral Commission's review should cover all aspects of the local council elections.

"Last night, the SNP demanded an inquiry. This morning the inquiry got under way. Now Alex Salmond has said that he wants to see an additional inquiry to replicate the one undertaken by the Electoral Commission.

"I am not convinced this is necessary and believe the Electoral Commission - the independent election watchdog- should be allowed to carry on its inquiry without interference."

12:01am Saturday 5th May 2007

Print

Email this

Comment

Add your comment

Name:
Email: *
Location:
**
	e.g. 123-123
Comment: Please note: All HTML tags will be ignored. Format Text:
By posting a comment, I confirm that I have read and agree to the terms of use. Comments are not moderated but we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention and we may delete inappropriate postings. Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory. Remember, you are personally liable for what you post on this site. If you wish to complain about a comment, contact us here.
* Your email address will not be displayed ** To avoid register now or login