Evidence submission to the Independent Review into the 2007 Scottish Elections from the Electoral Reform Society 1. Introduction The Electoral Reform Society welcomes this independent inquiry into the Scottish elections of 3 May 2007. We hope that the Inquiry will be able to throw light on: What went wrong in the conduct of these elections; What needs to be done to reduce the risk of the same problems arising in future elections; What other changes should be made to our electoral arrangements. Although in many ways the elections of 3 May were a step forwards for Scottish democracy, serious problems were nevertheless encountered. If with hindsight it is concluded that there were deficiencies in the planning and preparation for the elections, we hope the focus will be on the changes that need to be made before the next round of elections and not on the apportionment of blame. In our work in Scotland over the past year, we have not encountered a single person with responsibility for the elections not totally committed to making the elections a success and not entirely professional in their approach. The Society has already contributed materials to this Inquiry, including research notes on ballot rejection in: • Rejected ballots in UK General Elections • Rejected ballots in Welsh and Scottish elections • Rejected ballots in London elections. We draw on these in this submission, and attach copies of the research notes for ease of reference. We would be delighted to provide further copies of any other Society publications on request: many are available in both electronic format and as hard copies. 2. The Role of the Electoral Reform Society The Electoral Reform Society promotes voting systems that lead to representative institutions (both in terms of party and the diversity of society) and which offer the voter the widest choice and most influence over the result. The Society holds the view that STV as the system that best achieves these ends. The Society therefore took a keen interest in Scotland’s moves towards a better voting system for its local elections and when opportunities arose advanced the case for STV. The Society took the initiative in establishing Fairshare, a campaign group in Scotland with representation from all major parties and others with special interests in electoral reform. It has provided Fairshare with funding and assisted it in obtaining funding from other sources and it continues to play a major role in Fairshare, although it should not be assumed that the views of Fairshare and of the Society coincide on all issues. Following the decision to use STV in the local elections of May 2007, the Society opened an office in Edinburgh with six staff to run educational campaigns to prepare for the new system, aimed at political parties, the media and voters in general. Our activities are described in section 8 below. The Society has prepared reports and press briefings about both the Scottish Parliament and local government elections. In particular: Our report on the Scottish Parliament elections is at present being printed and a draft copy is enclosed; Our final report on the Scottish Local Government elections will be a much more detailed one and at present we anticipate a launch date in September. Our preliminary report has, however, been made available to the Inquiry. This submission will address all the issues that the Inquiry is investigating. However, the Society is an organisation that campaigns for changes that will improve our democracy. Our contribution on matters of policy is therefore fuller than on matters logistical, managerial and operational. 3. Legislation Amidst packed timetables at both the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments, many legislative changes were made in recent years which affected the 3 May 2007 elections. Each change required research and consultation. Many required subsequent secondary legislation in either or both Parliaments before implementation was possible The Electoral Reform Society welcomes many of the changes that have taken place - in particular, the change of voting system for the Scottish Local Government elections. The key questions appear to be: Was legislation on the redesign of the AMS ballot paper enacted early enough to allow sufficient time for the development and testing of voter information materials? Here we need to consider whether the information campaign would have been more effective if the ballot paper design had been agreed earlier and voter information materials produced earlier. That the ballot paper designs were not finalised until January 2007 was certainly a problem for the Society, but we understand an even greater one for the Commission. Although the Scottish Executive and Electoral Commission took the view that voter information would be much more effective if delivered close to the election – a view from which we did not dissent – the legislation was much later than would have been desirable. It is possible that a longer voter education campaign might have reduced the number of spoilt ballots, but we are not convinced that this was a major reason for the high number. Did the legislative changes, and in particular those made to the arrangements and timetable for postal voting, result in voters being disenfranchised through them not receiving their postal votes in time? Here the answer is almost certainly ‘yes’. We refer the Inquiry to the report from the Association of Electoral Administrators (‘Official Post Election Report, May 2007 elections’, AEA, July 2007). Although this report is on elections in England and Wales, Scottish electoral administrators clearly experienced similar problems (see section 6 below). While politicians would be wrong to accept the advice of groups such as the AEA without serious questioning, one can ask whether sufficient weight was given to those with professional experience of electoral administration. Did the number of legislative changes put unacceptable pressure on returning officers resulting in errors in the administration of the elections? It appears that the number of changes did put great pressure on electoral administrators but, other than the problems in the printing and distribution of postal ballots, we are not aware of any evidence to support the view that the number of changes in itself resulted in errors in electoral administration or in spoilt ballots. 4. Combined Elections The Electoral Reform Society argued that, with plans for the introduction of STV, the Scottish Parliament and local government elections should be held on separate days. The combined elections see most media and public attention focussed on the contests for the Scottish Parliament. Local government and the issues for which it is responsible are given scant attention. Holding the elections on separate days would encourage the media and the public to attend to each separately, thereby giving more scope for local councillors to be held to account on their records. We are of course aware of the problems of voter turnout. Combining the elections produces a higher turnout, particularly for local government elections, and that is a significant benefit. Nevertheless, our preference would be for separate elections where different electoral systems are used. Whether combining the elections contributed to the level of spoilt ballots is an issue that the Inquiry will want to consider. In a separate paper (appendix 1) we have compared levels of spoilt ballots in Scotland and Wales. The evidence appears to suggest: 1. Holding two elections on the same day is likely to lead to some increase the number of spoilt ballots. However, combined elections have not always produced a significantly greater level of spoilt papers, and in the past the relatively small percentage of voters completing their ballots incorrectly has not been sufficient reason to abandon combined elections where they are perceived to bring other benefits. Spoilt ballots were not a major problem in Scotland’s combined elections of 1999 and 2003. Although the level rose in 2003, this was perhaps because voter information campaigns focused on encouraging people to vote while in 1999 the emphasis had been on how to vote. In Wales the percentage of spoilt ballot fell in 2003 when the local elections were separated from those of the Assembly, but this might have been a consequence of the relatively high level in 1999 when voter interest in a devolved Assembly was not as high as in Scotland (unfortunately we have no information on whether the focus of information campaigns changed as it did in Scotland). With a single election in Wales in 2003, the level of spoilt ballots was still higher than in Scotland where combined elections were held. 2. Holding two elections on the same day using different types of electoral system is likely to increase the level of spoilt ballots. Much of the voter information campaign in Scotland aimed to alert electors to the need to use numbers rather than a cross on the local government ballot paper, and it is not surprising that at counts throughout Scotland we saw voters also using numbers on the AMS ballot paper (as well as crosses on the STV paper). A voter education campaign that needed to explain two quite different systems was necessarily going to be complex and some voter confusion was perhaps inevitable. This suggests that to reduce the level of spoilt ballots in future elections, either: a) The elections should be held on different days, even if this reduces turnout for either or both elections; or b) Both elections should use the same electoral system. However, even if elections were held on different days, either a year or two years apart, it is still possible that the level of spoilt ballots would be higher if the two elections used different systems. When deciding whether it is best to hold the Scottish Parliament and local government elections on the same day or on separate days, there is a judgement to be made between maximising turnout and minimising rejected ballot papers.