The voter was "treated as an afterthought" in the planning and organisation of the 3 May 2007 elections in Scotland. This is the central conclusion of the Scottish Elections Review established by the Electoral Commission to report independently on the conduct of the elections.
The report states that there is no intention to assign blame to individuals or institutions and that any criticism has been raised so that roles can be clarified and strengthened for future elections, but Canadian elections expert Ron Gould, who lead the review, said: “Our consultations showed that the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive frequently focused on partisan political interests, overlooking those of the voter and the operational realities of the election timetable.
“Changes were introduced with the expectation that they would simply fall into place. However, there was no effective planning process connecting legislative and operational timescales.
“We recommend that those involved in future elections consider voters’ interests above all other considerations.”
A key finding is that the division of responsibility for the combined elections between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government leads to fragmentation of legislation and decision making. The report recommends exploratory discussions to assign responsibility for both elections to one body, suggesting that the Scottish Government would be the logical choice.
The review also finds that the present legislation for Scottish parliamentary and local government elections is so fragmented and antiquated that it interferes with the timely and effective management of the process, and that roles and responsibilities for planning, organising and conducting the elections are extremely fragmented. The report says that this hindered the ability of those responsible to achieve problem-free elections at every stage, and recommends the establishment of a Chief Returning Officer for Scotland who would be responsible for overseeing the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections and ensuring a consistency of approach. That person would have a clearly defined role in relation to Ministers and other stakeholders, and that should such a position be created, the Electoral Commission should lose its operational role to focus on its regulatory and advisory roles.
The analysis of rejected ballot papers viewed by Returning Officers provided strong evidence that combining the Scottish parliamentary ballot papers on one sheet was primarily responsible for the high levels of rejected ballot papers. The report recommends that the interests of voters would best be served by separate ballot papers in future elections – irrespective of whether the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections are held on the same day.
In order to prevent future confusion, the report recommends that registered names of political parties rather than descriptions should appear first on all regional ballot papers for the Scottish parliamentary elections and that a lottery should be held to determine ballot paper positioning.
Although the review finds that there is little evidence to indicate that the simultaneous local government election using STV contributed substantially to the higher rejection rates in the Scottish parliamentary elections, it concludes that combined elections are a disservice to local government and candidates. It argues that separate elections will better enable voters to engage with the campaign in a meaningful way and make a knowledgeable decision.
The report acknowledges the need to rebuild confidence in all areas of electoral administration. It suggests considering options such as returning to folded ballot papers to ensure the secrecy of the vote and involving parties and candidates in the sealing of ballot boxes and the recording of seal numbers for enhanced security.
Gould adds: “Although the report may appear critical, we should not lose sight of the many positive aspects of the elections and the fact that by far the majority of voters understood the new aspects of the process in spite of its complexities.”
Sam Younger, Chairman of the Electoral Commission, said: “We’re grateful for the enormous amount of work Ron and his team have put into this Review process over the past months. It is now the responsibility of all involved in the administration of elections in Scotland to give proper consideration to its findings and recommendations.”
Electoral Commissioner Sir Neil McIntosh added: “The report identifies lessons to be learnt for all of us so we can address the issues that arose in May’s elections. Above all, we believe this work will help ensure that future Scottish elections are run smoothly, efficiently and with the voters’ interests at heart. Where room for improvement has been identified, we’ll take on board the recommendations. Where good practice has been noted, we will look to extend this.”
First Minister Alex Salmond, responding to the report, said: "I welcome this report into how the problems experienced on 3 May came about. It raises extremely serious issues.
"In the organising of the election, Ron Gould concludes that the Scotland Office and the then Scottish Executive frequently focused on 'partisan political interests', and overlooked those of the voter, which is a damning indictment.
"And he recommends discussions to assign responsibility for Holyrood and Council elections to one body in the future, and suggests that the Scottish Government would be the 'logical choice'.
"Another issue is ensuring that local issues get a chance to be heard in elections to local government, by decoupling Council from Scottish Parliament elections.
"The Cabinet will discuss the Gould Report in detail this afternoon, in order to take the many important matters in the report forward."
No one has commented on this article.
Related news items:
|
