2012 Scottish Local Government Elections Report & 3 May 2012 | Prof

2012 Scottish Local Government Elections Report & 3 May 2012 | Prof. John Curtice Analysis The Electoral Reform Society Thomas Hare House 6 Chancel St London SE1 0UU Email: [email protected] Phone: 0207 928 1622 2012 Scottish Local Government Elections Report & 3 May 2012 | Prof. John Curtice Analysis Acknowledgements Malcolm Harvey and Juliet Swann of the Electoral Reform Society Scotland undertook the very substantial and painstaking task of creating the database of election results upon which much of this report was based. The author is also grateful to Hugh Bochel and David Denver, who have published full details of the first preference vote for every candidate (Bochel et al., 2012) for their willingness to exchange information on apparent discrepancies in reports of the results. Many a returning officer is also to be thanked for answering various queries. Professor John Curtice Contents 4 Foreword - STV’s second outing 6 Introduction 6 What is the Single Transferable Vote? 7 The 2012 Elections 9 Candidates 9 How much choice did voters have? 10 Under- and Over-nomination 12 Votes 12 Turnout 12 Rejected Ballots 13 Expressing Preferences 14 Pattern of Transfers 16 Alphabetic Voting 20 Proportionality and Power 20 Proportionality 22 Impact of Transfers 23 Power 26 Conclusion 28 References 30 Appendix Prof. John Curtice 2012 Scottish Local Government Elections 4 3 May 2012 Foreword: STV’s Second Outing 1. Women’s In 2007 Scotland began using the Single “male, pale, and stale” until we see real progress representation in 1 local government Transferable Vote (STV) for local government from parties on candidate selection. went up from 21.8% elections. The First Past the Post system - in 2007 to an all time high of 24% once used for all public elections in mainland Yes, more action is needed but the system is in 2012. See Less Britain - was consigned to history. ensuring that more voices are being heard on Male, Pale and more councils than ever before. Stale? Women and the 2012 Scottish May 2012 marked the second outing for the Local Government system, and the first since elections to the There are clearly lessons for those in England Elections, Meryl Kenny and Fiona Scottish Parliament were ‘decoupled’. and Wales who believe their local democracy can Mackay. Scottish and should be better. Affairs, no. 80, summer 2012. We have sought to understand what that change has meant for Scotland’s voters, to see how Willie Sullivan, the public and the parties have adapted, and Electoral Reform Society Scotland if expectations – of both supporters and critics alike – have been borne out. The first STV vote clearly saw massive changes in how elections and local democracy worked in Scotland. Voter choice more than doubled, uncontested seats became a thing of the past, and the rotten boroughs that once plagued Scotland were undone. 2012 has shown modest, but measurable improvements. What we are witnessing is evidence that both voters and parties are becoming more adept at making the most of the possibilities presented by STV. We are seeing a new system bedding in. But, as expected, the first local elections since decoupling did see a dramatic drop in voter participation. Turnout in this election was 39.1% - a 14% drop from the last election. That figure may remain head and shoulders above the 31% that turned out in English authorities that year, but that will be of little comfort to anyone with concerns about the health of our democracy. STV in Scotland has not been a silver bullet for all the ills of local government. Only modest gains on gender balance mean councils will remain Prof. John Curtice 2012 Scottish Local Government Elections 3 May 2012 5 Expanding voter choice 2003 (FPTP) 2007 Getting something for your tr (STV) 201 2 (STV) 2003 2007 ouble Ballot Paper VOTE IN ORDER OF PREFFERENCE VOTE FOR AS MANY OR FEW CANDIDATES AS YOU WISH (FPTP)( 1 Anderson Ballot Paper Ballot Paper Anita 2 Hepworth VOTE IN ORDER OF PREFFERENCE Barbara VOTE FOR AS MANY OR FEW CANDIDATES AS YOU WISH STV) (STV) 2012 3 Jones Alan 1 Anderson 1 Anderson Anita Anita 4 O Driscoll 2 Hepworth Anthony 2 Hepworth Barbara Barbara 5 Smith 3 Jones Alan Emily 3 Jones Alan 6 Smithson Michael 4 O Driscoll Anthony 7 Syd ney 5 James Smith Emily 6 Smithson Michael 7 Sydney James 3.4 7. 4 7. Average number of candidates standing per1 ward 52.3% 74.0% 76.7% Percentage of voters giving their FPTP vot Eliminating Uncontested Seats successful candidate 2003 (FPTP) e . 61 wa rds 2007 (STV) 2012 (STV) Total number of uncontested w ar 0 ward 0 war ds ds s Prof. John Curtice 2012 Scottish Local Government Elections 6 3 May 2012 Introduction On May 3rd 2012, Scotland’s voters went results alone, most notably any ability to identify to the polls to elect all of the country’s 1,223 the political and demographic characteristics local councillors. For only the second time of voters who behave in a particular way the elections were conducted using the Single (Curtice and Marsh, 2008). The data needed to Transferable Vote (STV) in multi-member wards. undertake that kind of research has, however, Moreover, as the first STV election in 2007 was been collected as part of the 2012 Scottish held alongside a Scottish Parliament election Social Attitudes survey and they will be the (where a variant of the Additional Member subject of future publications designed to cast System was in use), this was actually the first further light on how STV worked in practice in occasion on which the system was deployed 2012. in a standalone election that was not at risk of being overshadowed by a more high profile parallel contest. Given too that Scotland’s local What is the Single elections are the only ones on the British side of the Irish Sea where STV is currently in use, what Transferable Vote? happened in the 2012 elections is an invaluable source of evidence on how British parties and Under STV voters are invited to place the voters respond to its introduction, with important candidates on the ballot paper in order of implications for the debate about whether the preference by placing a ‘1’ against the name of system should be used in other elections in the the candidate they prefer most, a ‘2’ against the UK. candidate who is their second preference, etc. Voters are free to choose how many candidates This report examines the lessons of this first they rank. To be elected a candidate needs to use of STV in a modern standalone election garner sufficient votes to meet the ‘quota,’ that anywhere in Great Britain. After outlining the is one more than the figure obtained when the overall result, it addresses three key questions: number of votes cast is divided by the number of seats to be filled plus one. If the total number 1. How much and what kinds of choices did the of first preferences cast for any candidate parties present to voters? is greater than the quota, that candidate is 2. What kinds of choices did voters express on immediately elected and their surplus vote (that their ballot paper? is the difference between their share of the first 3. How were the votes cast by voters reflected preference vote and the quota) transferred to in the seats won and power secured by the the remaining candidates in accordance with the parties? second preferences expressed by that successful candidate’s voters. If after this process fewer We address these questions by undertaking candidates have been elected than there are a detailed examination of the ward by ward seats to be filled then the candidate with fewest election results themselves. As in 2007, the votes is eliminated and their votes transferred STV ballots were counted electronically and, to the other candidates (still in the count) in as a result, rather more information about the accordance with the next preference expressed choices expressed by voters has been made by the eliminated candidate’s voters. This available than would otherwise be the case, most procedure is repeated as necessary until as many notably in respect of the number of preferences candidates have satisfied the quota (through a every voter cast. There are, though, still some combination of first preference votes and second limitations as to what can be gleaned from the and subsequent preferences transferred from Prof. John Curtice 2012 Scottish Local Government Elections 3 May 2012 7 other candidates) as there are seats to be filled. For further details see Renwick (2011). The 2012 Elections Where an election is conducted on partisan The 2012 elections were held just twelve lines, STV tends to produce results that are months after the Scottish National Party (SNP) approximately proportional to first preferences achieved an outstanding success in winning an won, though where a party is particularly adept overall majority in the 2011 Scottish Parliament at winning voters’ lower preferences they may election, a result that meant that Scotland was secure rather more than their proportionate headed for a referendum on whether or not share of seats. However, the proportionality of it should leave the UK. Much of the political the outcome is constrained by the number of interest in these elections thus lay in whether seats to be filled; the fewer seats there are to be they would be graced by a repetition of that filled the less proportional the outcome is likely SNP success or whether, instead, Labour would to be, both in an individual ward and across a demonstrate that it was on the road to recovery.

Load more