Spoiled papers gave deprived areas less say in May elections
 |
| REJECTION: A high percentage of ballot papers were rejected at last May's elections |
Voters in Scotland's poorest communities were twice as likely to have their votes rejected in last May's ballot fiasco as the average for Scotland.
The astonishing finding has come from Strathclyde University research, which suggests that Glasgow was by far the worst affected.
Social deprivation - including low educational attainment, poor health and unemployment - was the biggest factor leading to variation in rejection, even after other factors have been calculated out of the complex equation.
Glasgow had eight of the 10 constituencies with the highest number of spoiled papers. In Glasgow Shettleston, 12% of votes cast were spoiled.
Dr Christopher Carman, a specialist in voting systems at Strathclyde University, has submitted his findings to the independent inquiry led by Canadian expert Ron Guild into the major problems at this year's Holyrood and council elections.
He believes 85,643 constituency votes were registered as "spoiled" and therefore not counted. A further 60,454 regional votes were treated the same way. Some constituencies had as few as 2% of their votes affected, but 16 constituencies had majorities smaller than the number of rejected ballots.
There are other reasons why there could be large numbers of spoiled ballots, including the design of the ballot paper, which was particularly unclear in Glasgow and Lothian.
There was also a slightly higher chance of rejections in large count centres, which
also meant Glasgow and Lothian faced a bigger rejection than other parts of the
country.
Dr Carman concluded: "The biggest predictor of the rejected ballots is social deprivation. The thing we found most problematic about it was that the constituencies with the highest levels of deprivation happen to be in Glasgow and that had a ballot paper that was hardest to figure out."
He argued this undermines the claim of the election result to be representative, in that it indicates not all sections of society had an equal role in shaping the outcome and choosing the MSPs.
Tommy Sheridan, joint leader of Solidarity, who lost his Glasgow seat in May after two terms in Holyrood, said he looks forward to the definitive version of what went wrong when Ron Gould's report is published next month.
But he added that the design of the ballot paper had worked against his campaign: "Solidarity clearly lost proportionately more votes than any other party. The number of people who ticked Alex Salmond and then Tommy Sheridan in the same column ran into the thousands and those were the votes that were discounted.
"That first column was the source of the problem. The anecdotal evidence is that I secured enough votes to be elected."
Links
www.scottishelections
www.review.org.uk
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Oscar on 11:01pm Fri 21 Sep 07
[italic]The number of people who ticked Alex Salmond and then Tommy Sheridan in the same column ran into the thousands and those were the votes that were discounted.[/italic]
So FM Salmond should have had even more votes then?
The number of people who ticked Alex Salmond and then Tommy Sheridan in the same column ran into the thousands and those were the votes that were discounted.
So FM Salmond should have had even more votes then?
Posted by: Gr8 on 11:36pm Fri 21 Sep 07
Is this not also pointing out that their EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION policies have completely failed as those less well off cannot fill out a simple election ballot? I believe the former EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION minister should be sacked... or they should provide photos and a short video and spoon feed us information on filling out a piece of paper... is that not how education works these days? People get spoon fed and can no longer study or think by themselves.
Is this not also pointing out that their EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION policies have completely failed as those less well off cannot fill out a simple election ballot? I believe the former EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION minister should be sacked... or they should provide photos and a short video and spoon feed us information on filling out a piece of paper... is that not how education works these days? People get spoon fed and can no longer study or think by themselves.
Posted by: Jason4queen, Ayrshire on 11:59pm Fri 21 Sep 07
If the spoilt Ballots is the reason that Tommy Sheridan lost out, then something good did come out of it.
GR8.
Most political pundits etc. claim that the younger people do not vote in high numbers. Therefore your claim that after 10 yrs of Education, Education, Education is simply a snipe that is pointless. Anyone even starting School when Labour came to Government would be 15. Or 16 in primary 2, 17 in primary 3. Which means they would have to have been in primary 4 or higher in 1997 to be of voting age before May 3RD.
And ofcourse even the SNP could not bring in plans to change lives on their first day of Government. To change Education etc. takes several years. This would then mean the voters at School would be in Secondary School before the changes came into force. Hardly enough time to completely educate anyone if they had had (as you say) 7 years of wasted education up until then. Or are you saying that with the SNP in charge of education in Scotland, that our children will become the best in the world over night?.
If the spoilt Ballots is the reason that Tommy Sheridan lost out, then something good did come out of it.
GR8.
Most political pundits etc. claim that the younger people do not vote in high numbers. Therefore your claim that after 10 yrs of Education, Education, Education is simply a snipe that is pointless. Anyone even starting School when Labour came to Government would be 15. Or 16 in primary 2, 17 in primary 3. Which means they would have to have been in primary 4 or higher in 1997 to be of voting age before May 3RD.
And ofcourse even the SNP could not bring in plans to change lives on their first day of Government. To change Education etc. takes several years. This would then mean the voters at School would be in Secondary School before the changes came into force. Hardly enough time to completely educate anyone if they had had (as you say) 7 years of wasted education up until then. Or are you saying that with the SNP in charge of education in Scotland, that our children will become the best in the world over night?.
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 12:01am Sat 22 Sep 07
Its because people in deprived areas are thick and are held back by the negative attitudes of their unambitious, poorly educated families.
Its because people in deprived areas are thick and are held back by the negative attitudes of their unambitious, poorly educated families.
Posted by: Eric, Glasgow on 12:14am Sat 22 Sep 07
At least it filtered out all the extreme marxist , trotsky, swingers and treehugging parasites that pass for modern political parties.
Next time make the ballot even more difficult for them to understand.
At least it filtered out all the extreme marxist , trotsky, swingers and treehugging parasites that pass for modern political parties.
Next time make the ballot even more difficult for them to understand.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 12:43am Sat 22 Sep 07
Election by those smart enough to filter the goverment gobledygook and therefore do a very simple thing vote for the candidate of their choice. Yet by hook or by crook the voting system was so unexplained to voters that one in 8 who tried to vote failed to vote. It is likely that this represents the lowest intelligence quotient people who only vote cause their dad used to or fought a war for voting. Folk who look at immigrants as competitors for state hand outs rather than restaraunt owners supplying kebabs to drunk scotsmen. I am a higher form of intelligence to these sorts of people I would only vote for a man who did not put himself forward as a candidate someone who I personally admire. This ensures my vote will not be counted and nobody can blame me when the candidate they voted for turns out to be a jobs for his henchmen type of politician.
Election by those smart enough to filter the goverment gobledygook and therefore do a very simple thing vote for the candidate of their choice. Yet by hook or by crook the voting system was so unexplained to voters that one in 8 who tried to vote failed to vote. It is likely that this represents the lowest intelligence quotient people who only vote cause their dad used to or fought a war for voting. Folk who look at immigrants as competitors for state hand outs rather than restaraunt owners supplying kebabs to drunk scotsmen. I am a higher form of intelligence to these sorts of people I would only vote for a man who did not put himself forward as a candidate someone who I personally admire. This ensures my vote will not be counted and nobody can blame me when the candidate they voted for turns out to be a jobs for his henchmen type of politician.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasow on 12:46am Sat 22 Sep 07
I would make party politics illegal and the death sentence reintroduced for govt jobs for the boys selling of honours and anything else that might be considered treason. The political parties are the largest shower of crooks since eufa.
I would make party politics illegal and the death sentence reintroduced for govt jobs for the boys selling of honours and anything else that might be considered treason. The political parties are the largest shower of crooks since eufa.
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Glasgow on 1:34am Sat 22 Sep 07
[quote][bold]Oscar[/bold] wrote:
[italic]The number of people who ticked Alex Salmond and then Tommy Sheridan in the same column ran into the thousands and those were the votes that were discounted.[/italic] So FM Salmond should have had even more votes then?[/quote] If you take that thinking further, Oscar, then Alex Salmond’s trick of engineering his name to the top of the list may well have saved Scotland from Independence.
The thing the good Doctor seems to avoid is any connection between the two lists, tending to miss that having ticked two boxes in the Regional List (Sheridan & Salmond); the unwitting voter may then have left the Constituency List blank. That will be an important stat to get – how many unmarked Constituency List votes also have the Alex Salmond box ticked.
I can accept that some voters would wish to have Sheridan and the local SNP candidate as their vote, but having ticked Tommy’s box they naturally gravitated back to the Salmond box as their “SNP Vote”. In doing so, not only did they bugger up the Regional Vote but having made their two ticks they could have left the Constituency Vote blank. Also the areas where there were the most spoiled votes were also the areas where the national trend towards the SNP was bucked. There is the distinct possibility that by adding his manipulation of the ballot paper to the other problems, Alex Salmond and the SNP should have received more votes and a very possible clear majority. [bold]He may well have saved Scotland from Independence,[/bold] ‘cos the next time there will be no Blair factor, no Iraq, no cash for peerages and of course the Scottish Budget will have been unable to live up to all his promises by then.
Just think we could all be sitting in our grey suits by now, peddling our bicycles to keep the dynamo going so that we could post these fantastic theories on the internet (that’s if Central Office allowed us access).
Oscar wrote:
The number of people who ticked Alex Salmond and then Tommy Sheridan in the same column ran into the thousands and those were the votes that were discounted. So FM Salmond should have had even more votes then?
If you take that thinking further, Oscar, then Alex Salmond’s trick of engineering his name to the top of the list may well have saved Scotland from Independence.
The thing the good Doctor seems to avoid is any connection between the two lists, tending to miss that having ticked two boxes in the Regional List (Sheridan & Salmond); the unwitting voter may then have left the Constituency List blank. That will be an important stat to get – how many unmarked Constituency List votes also have the Alex Salmond box ticked.
I can accept that some voters would wish to have Sheridan and the local SNP candidate as their vote, but having ticked Tommy’s box they naturally gravitated back to the Salmond box as their “SNP Vote”. In doing so, not only did they bugger up the Regional Vote but having made their two ticks they could have left the Constituency Vote blank. Also the areas where there were the most spoiled votes were also the areas where the national trend towards the SNP was bucked. There is the distinct possibility that by adding his manipulation of the ballot paper to the other problems, Alex Salmond and the SNP should have received more votes and a very possible clear majority.
He may well have saved Scotland from Independence, ‘cos the next time there will be no Blair factor, no Iraq, no cash for peerages and of course the Scottish Budget will have been unable to live up to all his promises by then.
Just think we could all be sitting in our grey suits by now, peddling our bicycles to keep the dynamo going so that we could post these fantastic theories on the internet (that’s if Central Office allowed us access).
Posted by: Gr8 on 3:08am Sat 22 Sep 07
No Jason I am making no such statement, but from having the number 1 system in the world to having people struggling with ballot papers clearly shows that they did not work on education, they have just dumbed it down so no one feels like a failure but then they have difficulty getting to and being in, university as they have no real grasp of what real studying is and how to work hard. People expect things, they no longer work for them and yes, I blame this predicament we find ourselves on voting for the Labour party for 50 odd years and having them in local councils, etc. The fact is they promised education and all they have done is adversely affect the system. When I graduated, 5 highers from 5th year was needed for entry into medicine at uni 4 A's and a B but I know people who actually got in on 3 A's and 2 B's after doing well in sixth year, now they have to sit their 5 highers and even when they get all A's then sit 3 to 4 more sixth year subjects... that's not advancing education, that means highers are no longer as valued after 10 years of Labour. We have people sitting exams at school and receiving bits of paper that no longer mean very much after 10 years of Labour. Teachers are now scared of the children they teach after 10 years of Labour. Education has suffered severely with these past 10 years of Labour.
No Jason I am making no such statement, but from having the number 1 system in the world to having people struggling with ballot papers clearly shows that they did not work on education, they have just dumbed it down so no one feels like a failure but then they have difficulty getting to and being in, university as they have no real grasp of what real studying is and how to work hard. People expect things, they no longer work for them and yes, I blame this predicament we find ourselves on voting for the Labour party for 50 odd years and having them in local councils, etc. The fact is they promised education and all they have done is adversely affect the system. When I graduated, 5 highers from 5th year was needed for entry into medicine at uni 4 A's and a B but I know people who actually got in on 3 A's and 2 B's after doing well in sixth year, now they have to sit their 5 highers and even when they get all A's then sit 3 to 4 more sixth year subjects... that's not advancing education, that means highers are no longer as valued after 10 years of Labour. We have people sitting exams at school and receiving bits of paper that no longer mean very much after 10 years of Labour. Teachers are now scared of the children they teach after 10 years of Labour. Education has suffered severely with these past 10 years of Labour.
Posted by: Cally, Glasgow on 6:07am Sat 22 Sep 07
I think it just proves what most people know, that stupidity was a factor.
I think it just proves what most people know, that stupidity was a factor.
Posted by: The good Doctor, Glasgow on 7:41am Sat 22 Sep 07
Bill Forbes wrote:
[quote]The thing the good Doctor seems to avoid is any connection between the two lists, tending to miss that having ticked two boxes in the Regional List (Sheridan & Salmond); the unwitting voter may then have left the Constituency List blank. That will be an important stat to get – how many unmarked Constituency List votes also have the Alex Salmond box ticked. [/quote]
Just to clarify, the Strathclyde Uni research does find a clear link between overvotes on the regional list and 'undervotes' (those classified in the 'blank/uncertain' category) on the constitutency ballot. Even after controlling for social deprivation and other factors, higher levels of overvoting on the regional list are clearly associated with higher rates of undervoting on the constituency ballot.
There is, however, no clear statistical link between the percentage of the regional list vote in a constituency going to 'minor' parties and levels of undervoting in the constituency contests. However at this stage we can't say anything about the pattern of overvotes (say, Salmond and Sheridan) on the regional list and any relationship these may have to undervoting on the constituency ballots. For that we will have to wait to see what information the Gould inquiry makes available.
Bill Forbes wrote:
The thing the good Doctor seems to avoid is any connection between the two lists, tending to miss that having ticked two boxes in the Regional List (Sheridan & Salmond); the unwitting voter may then have left the Constituency List blank. That will be an important stat to get – how many unmarked Constituency List votes also have the Alex Salmond box ticked.
Just to clarify, the Strathclyde Uni research does find a clear link between overvotes on the regional list and 'undervotes' (those classified in the 'blank/uncertain' category) on the constitutency ballot. Even after controlling for social deprivation and other factors, higher levels of overvoting on the regional list are clearly associated with higher rates of undervoting on the constituency ballot.
There is, however, no clear statistical link between the percentage of the regional list vote in a constituency going to 'minor' parties and levels of undervoting in the constituency contests. However at this stage we can't say anything about the pattern of overvotes (say, Salmond and Sheridan) on the regional list and any relationship these may have to undervoting on the constituency ballots. For that we will have to wait to see what information the Gould inquiry makes available.
Posted by: Troy Calchas, Jordanhill on 8:26am Sat 22 Sep 07
"this undermines the claim of the election result to be representative, in that it indicates not all sections of society had an equal role in shaping the outcome and choosing the MSPs."
The results from ballots cast that were actually counted in Local elections is perhaps even less representative.
Observations from officials overseeing these counts thoughout Scotland, highlighted the number of 'spoiled' papers resulting from thousands of voters puting a 'X' rather than a number opposite both Labour candidates, where there were two standing in the new multi-member constituencies.
Not surprisingly, this was usually in the more deprived areas of the country, particularly in Edinburgh and Glasgow - and thus more there were discounted.
This is more an indictment rather than proportion of blame, but also an indication that the face of Scottish politics at all levels was not changed by acclaim in May, but rather skewed in part by miscomprehension of a new and more complex voting system for local government - and like the May fly, perhaps will be equally as short-lived.
"this undermines the claim of the election result to be representative, in that it indicates not all sections of society had an equal role in shaping the outcome and choosing the MSPs."
The results from ballots cast that were actually counted in Local elections is perhaps even less representative.
Observations from officials overseeing these counts thoughout Scotland, highlighted the number of 'spoiled' papers resulting from thousands of voters puting a 'X' rather than a number opposite both Labour candidates, where there were two standing in the new multi-member constituencies.
Not surprisingly, this was usually in the more deprived areas of the country, particularly in Edinburgh and Glasgow - and thus more there were discounted.
This is more an indictment rather than proportion of blame, but also an indication that the face of Scottish politics at all levels was not changed by acclaim in May, but rather skewed in part by miscomprehension of a new and more complex voting system for local government - and like the May fly, perhaps will be equally as short-lived.
Posted by: Mike, Glasgow on 8:53am Sat 22 Sep 07
[quote][bold]The good Doctor[/bold] wrote:
Bill Forbes wrote: [quote]The thing the good Doctor seems to avoid is any connection between the two lists, tending to miss that having ticked two boxes in the Regional List (Sheridan & Salmond); the unwitting voter may then have left the Constituency List blank. That will be an important stat to get – how many unmarked Constituency List votes also have the Alex Salmond box ticked. [/quote] Just to clarify, the Strathclyde Uni research does find a clear link between overvotes on the regional list and 'undervotes' (those classified in the 'blank/uncertain' category) on the constitutency ballot. Even after controlling for social deprivation and other factors, higher levels of overvoting on the regional list are clearly associated with higher rates of undervoting on the constituency ballot. There is, however, no clear statistical link between the percentage of the regional list vote in a constituency going to 'minor' parties and levels of undervoting in the constituency contests. However at this stage we can't say anything about the pattern of overvotes (say, Salmond and Sheridan) on the regional list and any relationship these may have to undervoting on the constituency ballots. For that we will have to wait to see what information the Gould inquiry makes available. [/quote] But Strathclyde Uni's research has not had access to the spoilt ballot papers. So you cannot address the issues Bill Forbes raises. Ron Gould's inquiry recently got access to the spoilt ballots: see Statutory Instrument 2007/2262. Thus these issues should be addressed by the formal inquiry.
The good Doctor wrote:
Bill Forbes wrote: The thing the good Doctor seems to avoid is any connection between the two lists, tending to miss that having ticked two boxes in the Regional List (Sheridan & Salmond); the unwitting voter may then have left the Constituency List blank. That will be an important stat to get – how many unmarked Constituency List votes also have the Alex Salmond box ticked.
Just to clarify, the Strathclyde Uni research does find a clear link between overvotes on the regional list and 'undervotes' (those classified in the 'blank/uncertain' category) on the constitutency ballot. Even after controlling for social deprivation and other factors, higher levels of overvoting on the regional list are clearly associated with higher rates of undervoting on the constituency ballot. There is, however, no clear statistical link between the percentage of the regional list vote in a constituency going to 'minor' parties and levels of undervoting in the constituency contests. However at this stage we can't say anything about the pattern of overvotes (say, Salmond and Sheridan) on the regional list and any relationship these may have to undervoting on the constituency ballots. For that we will have to wait to see what information the Gould inquiry makes available.
But Strathclyde Uni's research has not had access to the spoilt ballot papers. So you cannot address the issues Bill Forbes raises. Ron Gould's inquiry recently got access to the spoilt ballots: see Statutory Instrument 2007/2262. Thus these issues should be addressed by the formal inquiry.
Posted by: Oscar on 9:25am Sat 22 Sep 07
[quote]Bill Forbes wrote.'He may well have saved Scotland from Independence, ‘cos the next time there will be no Blair factor, no Iraq, no cash for peerages and of course the Scottish Budget will have been unable to live up to all his promises by then.'[/quote]
Morning Bill, veh insightful for 1.34am I would point you in the direction of yesterdays report which gave Labour a get out of Jail free card, by suggesting that it was not Iraq or cash for honours sleaze that scuppered their Hollyrood chances, rather the London Labour dominated negative campaign contrasted with the positive campaign by FM Salmond and co.
I'm intrigued that you'd use pre-election budget promises as having a likely effect on the next election. McConnell pledged Education as being the main thrust of his previous manifesto, yet here we have irrefutable evidence that Labour supporters have got thicker in the past four years!
Aye it's a grand day. I may head off to the gee gees up in Ayr today.
Bill Forbes wrote.'He may well have saved Scotland from Independence, ‘cos the next time there will be no Blair factor, no Iraq, no cash for peerages and of course the Scottish Budget will have been unable to live up to all his promises by then.'
Morning Bill, veh insightful for 1.34am I would point you in the direction of yesterdays report which gave Labour a get out of Jail free card, by suggesting that it was not Iraq or cash for honours sleaze that scuppered their Hollyrood chances, rather the London Labour dominated negative campaign contrasted with the positive campaign by FM Salmond and co.
I'm intrigued that you'd use pre-election budget promises as having a likely effect on the next election. McConnell pledged Education as being the main thrust of his previous manifesto, yet here we have irrefutable evidence that Labour supporters have got thicker in the past four years!
Aye it's a grand day. I may head off to the gee gees up in Ayr today.
Posted by: Gianni on 9:47am Sat 22 Sep 07
I am still swithering on the issue as to wheter this was a deliberate fudging of the election by the Scottish Office or a complete failing by the Scotland Office to run the ballot to any degree of competency. There were signs long before the organisation of the elections that this would be a bad one for Labour or at least a close-run thing. I suspect that Alexander or Cairns or someone in that Scotland Office looked at the looming prospect of the Scottish election and said to themselves 'Lets fudge the results and this is how we'll do it:'
- use new counting machines that were a failure in the London Assembly elections
- have the council and Holyrood votes on the same day using two different PR methods of voting
- run a low-key education campaign to advertise the different methods
- keep count managers in the dark on the night
There just seems to be so many levels of absolute incompetency by people who are supposedly highly educated and much advice ignored from civil servants. I do believe the Scotland Office made an absolute mockery of Scottish democracy and it pains me that not a single person in the Labour party has been accountable and I am bemused and the accpeting nature of the Scottish people having their democracy mad into a shambles.
Bill Forbes writes:
[quote]‘cos the next time there will be no Blair factor, no Iraq, no cash for peerages[/quote]
Research from Strathclyde and Glasgow Universities yesterday concluded that such factors and more did not have a decisive effect on the outcome. It was more a case of the Scottish people choosing the more positive vision and I don't think the respective and contrasting visions for Scotland will change come the next election. In fact, I think Labour's consuming negativity will only be further rubbished and further exacerbated by their failings in opposition.
I am still swithering on the issue as to wheter this was a deliberate fudging of the election by the Scottish Office or a complete failing by the Scotland Office to run the ballot to any degree of competency. There were signs long before the organisation of the elections that this would be a bad one for Labour or at least a close-run thing. I suspect that Alexander or Cairns or someone in that Scotland Office looked at the looming prospect of the Scottish election and said to themselves 'Lets fudge the results and this is how we'll do it:'
- use new counting machines that were a failure in the London Assembly elections
- have the council and Holyrood votes on the same day using two different PR methods of voting
- run a low-key education campaign to advertise the different methods
- keep count managers in the dark on the night
There just seems to be so many levels of absolute incompetency by people who are supposedly highly educated and much advice ignored from civil servants. I do believe the Scotland Office made an absolute mockery of Scottish democracy and it pains me that not a single person in the Labour party has been accountable and I am bemused and the accpeting nature of the Scottish people having their democracy mad into a shambles.
Bill Forbes writes:
‘cos the next time there will be no Blair factor, no Iraq, no cash for peerages
Research from Strathclyde and Glasgow Universities yesterday concluded that such factors and more did not have a decisive effect on the outcome. It was more a case of the Scottish people choosing the more positive vision and I don't think the respective and contrasting visions for Scotland will change come the next election. In fact, I think Labour's consuming negativity will only be further rubbished and further exacerbated by their failings in opposition.
Posted by: NewsFlash - Report Just In, The News Desk on 9:49am Sat 22 Sep 07
Unionists celebrate in the streets as David Cairns announces live on Radio Scotland that Labour [bold]are[/bold] still in power in Scotland virtue of being the incumbents in Westminster. Insiders suggest that Des Browne will soon be marching up to Holyrood to claim Salmond's throne and crown with one inside source saying 'We are still in power because we're in the Scotland office and there's nothing you idiots can ****ing do about it nanananana, git it up yaes ya bass'. Salmond's office refused to comment claiming David Cairns to be a deluded power-hungry git.
Unionists celebrate in the streets as David Cairns announces live on Radio Scotland that Labour
are still in power in Scotland virtue of being the incumbents in Westminster. Insiders suggest that Des Browne will soon be marching up to Holyrood to claim Salmond's throne and crown with one inside source saying 'We are still in power because we're in the Scotland office and there's nothing you idiots can ****ing do about it nanananana, git it up yaes ya bass'. Salmond's office refused to comment claiming David Cairns to be a deluded power-hungry git.
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Glasgow on 10:49am Sat 22 Sep 07
Good Morning Oscar,
I wasn’t aware of the “[italic]get out of Jail free card[/italic] ” but it would then appear that all Wendy has to do is campaign with a smile and normal service will be resumed. If you go back and add that to my list then the SNP’s job just got tougher next time out – and that’s before you add the number of students who have not seen their debt being “[italic]dumped[/italic] ”.
Similarly, I think your assertion “[italic]that Labour supporters have got thicker in the past four years[/italic] ” is a wee bit misdirected. I was actually supporting your original premise that there is a balance of probability that the SNP should have won more votes. If I am right, then it’s the SNP voters who are “[italic]thick[/italic] ” (your definition – not mine).
[bold]The good Doctor wrote:[/bold]
[bold][italic]Even after controlling for social deprivation and other factors, higher levels of overvoting on the regional list are clearly associated with higher rates of undervoting on the constituency ballot[/italic] .[/bold]
Apologies for that, it didn’t appear to come through in the article.
[bold]The good Doctor wrote:[/bold]
[bold][italic]However at this stage we can't say anything about the pattern of overvotes (say, Salmond and Sheridan) on the regional list and any relationship these may have to undervoting on the constituency ballots[/italic] .[/bold]
Well there are three additional factors that Strathclyde and for that matter the Gould Inquiry may wish to consider.
1. There would be a natural (and possibly statistical) tendency to vote for your local MSP then use the Regional Vote to support the party of your choice. If that was applied rigidly then there would be a clear 100% conversion factor between Constituency Votes and Regional Votes. However that does not happen, presumably because some voters elect to use their Regional Vote tactically. However we now have two elections to examine and establish such patterns (e.g. in both elections the LibDems only converted some 70 odd percent of their Constituency Votes to Regional Votes, consistently the worst performance of the four main parties).
This sort of information should be considered.
2. We do have the stats from the 2003 Election which show that The Scottish Conservatives then attained the highest level of conversion from Constituency to Regional Votes with a 93.3% conversion. I understand (although I am unable to verify) that they were the party then at the top of the Regional List.
It may be worthwhile clarifying the relative positions on the Regional List in 2003, because in 2007 the party with the highest conversion factor (95.4%) was also in poll (excuse the pun) position on the Regional List.
3. Not a lot of people know about it but there is combined research from the US Eastern Seaboard Universities, published by Cornell University on the importance of being at the top of a list in any selection process. Their research was primarily directed at internet browsing but the results showed that there was a distinct advantage by being at the top of a selection list.
It may be worthwhile examining that research and seeing if there are lessons to be learned.
Of course there may be a fourth factor to consider – didn’t Alex Salmond lecture over there?
Good Morning Oscar,
I wasn’t aware of the “
get out of Jail free card ” but it would then appear that all Wendy has to do is campaign with a smile and normal service will be resumed. If you go back and add that to my list then the SNP’s job just got tougher next time out – and that’s before you add the number of students who have not seen their debt being “
dumped ”.
Similarly, I think your assertion “
that Labour supporters have got thicker in the past four years ” is a wee bit misdirected. I was actually supporting your original premise that there is a balance of probability that the SNP should have won more votes. If I am right, then it’s the SNP voters who are “
thick ” (your definition – not mine).
The good Doctor wrote:
Even after controlling for social deprivation and other factors, higher levels of overvoting on the regional list are clearly associated with higher rates of undervoting on the constituency ballot .
Apologies for that, it didn’t appear to come through in the article.
The good Doctor wrote:
However at this stage we can't say anything about the pattern of overvotes (say, Salmond and Sheridan) on the regional list and any relationship these may have to undervoting on the constituency ballots .
Well there are three additional factors that Strathclyde and for that matter the Gould Inquiry may wish to consider.
1. There would be a natural (and possibly statistical) tendency to vote for your local MSP then use the Regional Vote to support the party of your choice. If that was applied rigidly then there would be a clear 100% conversion factor between Constituency Votes and Regional Votes. However that does not happen, presumably because some voters elect to use their Regional Vote tactically. However we now have two elections to examine and establish such patterns (e.g. in both elections the LibDems only converted some 70 odd percent of their Constituency Votes to Regional Votes, consistently the worst performance of the four main parties).
This sort of information should be considered.
2. We do have the stats from the 2003 Election which show that The Scottish Conservatives then attained the highest level of conversion from Constituency to Regional Votes with a 93.3% conversion. I understand (although I am unable to verify) that they were the party then at the top of the Regional List.
It may be worthwhile clarifying the relative positions on the Regional List in 2003, because in 2007 the party with the highest conversion factor (95.4%) was also in poll (excuse the pun) position on the Regional List.
3. Not a lot of people know about it but there is combined research from the US Eastern Seaboard Universities, published by Cornell University on the importance of being at the top of a list in any selection process. Their research was primarily directed at internet browsing but the results showed that there was a distinct advantage by being at the top of a selection list.
It may be worthwhile examining that research and seeing if there are lessons to be learned.
Of course there may be a fourth factor to consider – didn’t Alex Salmond lecture over there?
Posted by: Seumas, Tain on 11:01am Sat 22 Sep 07
Was it not Alexander and Cairns who were responsible for the fiasco? When will the explanation be forthcoming?
Bill Forbes seems to suggest that the S.N.P. won because of the ballot paper arrangements. I would suggest this is more of a plot backfiring, after all, we are dealing with a son of the manse and an ex man of the cloth.
Was it not Alexander and Cairns who were responsible for the fiasco? When will the explanation be forthcoming?
Bill Forbes seems to suggest that the S.N.P. won because of the ballot paper arrangements. I would suggest this is more of a plot backfiring, after all, we are dealing with a son of the manse and an ex man of the cloth.
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Glasgow on 11:24am Sat 22 Sep 07
No Seamus, Bill Forbes is suggesting that in all probability the SNP should have won even more convincingly had Alex Salmond not manipulated the Regional List to get his name to the top.
A lot of you seem to be looking for one single answer to the fiasco. Well if that’s the case then voter confusion is the answer. Not new machines (the suggestion that the machines worked in one place but not in another is ludicrous), not sinister Scottish Office plots, (Gianni – see above), but simply voter confusion. The areas with the highest proportion of voter confusion are the areas with the biggest ballot papers to comprehend and the areas where there is the least ability to understand, then for good measure Alex Salmond comes in and confuses the entire process even further. One stat we will never be able to establish is whether that confusion increased with age – what about older people, even fully literate ones faced with such a task?
If there is any "[italic]backfiring"[/italic] then it may have been ignited by Wee Eck trying (once again) to be too clever for his own good. As I say above, [bold]he may even have saved us from Independence[/bold] .
No Seamus, Bill Forbes is suggesting that in all probability the SNP should have won even more convincingly had Alex Salmond not manipulated the Regional List to get his name to the top.
A lot of you seem to be looking for one single answer to the fiasco. Well if that’s the case then voter confusion is the answer. Not new machines (the suggestion that the machines worked in one place but not in another is ludicrous), not sinister Scottish Office plots, (Gianni – see above), but simply voter confusion. The areas with the highest proportion of voter confusion are the areas with the biggest ballot papers to comprehend and the areas where there is the least ability to understand, then for good measure Alex Salmond comes in and confuses the entire process even further. One stat we will never be able to establish is whether that confusion increased with age – what about older people, even fully literate ones faced with such a task?
If there is any "
backfiring" then it may have been ignited by Wee Eck trying (once again) to be too clever for his own good. As I say above,
he may even have saved us from Independence .
Posted by: Maria Regina on 11:35am Sat 22 Sep 07
[quote][bold]Jason4queen[/bold] wrote:
If the spoilt Ballots is the reason that Tommy Sheridan lost out, then something good did come out of it. GR8. Most political pundits etc. claim that the younger people do not vote in high numbers. Therefore your claim that after 10 yrs of Education, Education, Education is simply a snipe that is pointless. Anyone even starting School when Labour came to Government would be 15. Or 16 in primary 2, 17 in primary 3. Which means they would have to have been in primary 4 or higher in 1997 to be of voting age before May 3RD. And ofcourse even the SNP could not bring in plans to change lives on their first day of Government. To change Education etc. takes several years. This would then mean the voters at School would be in Secondary School before the changes came into force. Hardly enough time to completely educate anyone if they had had (as you say) 7 years of wasted education up until then. Or are you saying that with the SNP in charge of education in Scotland, that our children will become the best in the world over night?. [/quote] At least you are clear that you do not support democracy you British NATIONALIST numpty!!!
Jason4queen wrote:
If the spoilt Ballots is the reason that Tommy Sheridan lost out, then something good did come out of it. GR8. Most political pundits etc. claim that the younger people do not vote in high numbers. Therefore your claim that after 10 yrs of Education, Education, Education is simply a snipe that is pointless. Anyone even starting School when Labour came to Government would be 15. Or 16 in primary 2, 17 in primary 3. Which means they would have to have been in primary 4 or higher in 1997 to be of voting age before May 3RD. And ofcourse even the SNP could not bring in plans to change lives on their first day of Government. To change Education etc. takes several years. This would then mean the voters at School would be in Secondary School before the changes came into force. Hardly enough time to completely educate anyone if they had had (as you say) 7 years of wasted education up until then. Or are you saying that with the SNP in charge of education in Scotland, that our children will become the best in the world over night?.
At least you are clear that you do not support democracy you British NATIONALIST numpty!!!
Posted by: Maria Regina on 11:36am Sat 22 Sep 07
[quote][bold]Colin B[/bold] wrote:
Its because people in deprived areas are thick and are held back by the negative attitudes of their unambitious, poorly educated families. [/quote] Such fascistic drivel from one so young.
Colin B wrote:
Its because people in deprived areas are thick and are held back by the negative attitudes of their unambitious, poorly educated families.
Such fascistic drivel from one so young.
Posted by: The Voter, Edinburgh on 11:56am Sat 22 Sep 07
[quote][bold]Colin B[/bold] wrote:
Its because people in deprived areas are thick and are held back by the negative attitudes of their unambitious, poorly educated families. [/quote] Although the academic research put it in more "parliamentary" language, I think we should be very careful before we rush to such conclusions. Yes, the highest numbers and proportions of rejected ballot papers in the Scottish Parliament elections occurred in the constituencies which come high on almost all the scales for deprivation of all kinds.
But most of the rejected ballot papers in these constituencies were blank constituency ballot papers. Most of these voters cast a valid regional vote (one "X") but left the constituency ballot paper blank. Was that a mistake? Or did those voters deliberately not vote for any of the constituency candidates? If so, why? And why so in these particular constituencies?
And when we look at the data for rejected ballot papers from the council elections in the wards that cover these deprived constituencies, we find that that the proportions rejected were not at all high.
So how could it be that the voters in these constituencies were too "thick" to mark two "X"s on the combined ballot sheet for the Scottish Parliament elections, but coped very well with the "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc" on the STV ballot papers in the council elections? Too "thick"? I don't think so - we must look elsewhere for the explanation.
Colin B wrote:
Its because people in deprived areas are thick and are held back by the negative attitudes of their unambitious, poorly educated families.
Although the academic research put it in more "parliamentary" language, I think we should be very careful before we rush to such conclusions. Yes, the highest numbers and proportions of rejected ballot papers in the Scottish Parliament elections occurred in the constituencies which come high on almost all the scales for deprivation of all kinds.
But most of the rejected ballot papers in these constituencies were blank constituency ballot papers. Most of these voters cast a valid regional vote (one "X") but left the constituency ballot paper blank. Was that a mistake? Or did those voters deliberately not vote for any of the constituency candidates? If so, why? And why so in these particular constituencies?
And when we look at the data for rejected ballot papers from the council elections in the wards that cover these deprived constituencies, we find that that the proportions rejected were not at all high.
So how could it be that the voters in these constituencies were too "thick" to mark two "X"s on the combined ballot sheet for the Scottish Parliament elections, but coped very well with the "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc" on the STV ballot papers in the council elections? Too "thick"? I don't think so - we must look elsewhere for the explanation.
Posted by: Gianni on 12:07pm Sat 22 Sep 07
[quote][bold]Bill Forbes[/bold] wrote:
No Seamus, Bill Forbes is suggesting that in all probability the SNP should have won even more convincingly had Alex Salmond not manipulated the Regional List to get his name to the top. A lot of you seem to be looking for one single answer to the fiasco. Well if that’s the case then voter confusion is the answer. Not new machines (the suggestion that the machines worked in one place but not in another is ludicrous), not sinister Scottish Office plots, (Gianni – see above), but simply voter confusion. The areas with the highest proportion of voter confusion are the areas with the biggest ballot papers to comprehend and the areas where there is the least ability to understand, then for good measure Alex Salmond comes in and confuses the entire process even further. One stat we will never be able to establish is whether that confusion increased with age – what about older people, even fully literate ones faced with such a task? If there is any "[italic]backfiring"[/italic] then it may have been ignited by Wee Eck trying (once again) to be too clever for his own good. As I say above, [bold]he may even have saved us from Independence[/bold] . [/quote] You say voter confusion is probabaly the biggest factor but my post suggests that the Scottish Office might as well of whistled through a thunderstorm in trying to educate the Scottish people as to the form and method of that ballot. It was a complete failure in all respects to make people aware of the form of the ballot and what was expected of them to cast a legitimate vote.
I also said I am swithering as to whether there was a conspiracy (and the government's past record mean that you can't be so sure as to rule that out) and frankly I don't trust a single person in that government and if it were a conspiracy to deliberately fudge the election result I wouldn't be surprised. Although I do suspect it was sheer incompetency on the part of the Scotland Office. I'm sure you'll say though that it was up to the voters to educate themselves and show a bit of intelligence but not everyone's interested in voting systems andthere are people who are lacking in intelligence but that should not exclude them from a vote in a liberal democracy. Labour and the Scotland Office made a mockery of Scotland's democracy, not the Scottish people.
Bill Forbes wrote:
No Seamus, Bill Forbes is suggesting that in all probability the SNP should have won even more convincingly had Alex Salmond not manipulated the Regional List to get his name to the top. A lot of you seem to be looking for one single answer to the fiasco. Well if that’s the case then voter confusion is the answer. Not new machines (the suggestion that the machines worked in one place but not in another is ludicrous), not sinister Scottish Office plots, (Gianni – see above), but simply voter confusion. The areas with the highest proportion of voter confusion are the areas with the biggest ballot papers to comprehend and the areas where there is the least ability to understand, then for good measure Alex Salmond comes in and confuses the entire process even further. One stat we will never be able to establish is whether that confusion increased with age – what about older people, even fully literate ones faced with such a task? If there is any "backfiring" then it may have been ignited by Wee Eck trying (once again) to be too clever for his own good. As I say above, he may even have saved us from Independence .
You say voter confusion is probabaly the biggest factor but my post suggests that the Scottish Office might as well of whistled through a thunderstorm in trying to educate the Scottish people as to the form and method of that ballot. It was a complete failure in all respects to make people aware of the form of the ballot and what was expected of them to cast a legitimate vote.
I also said I am swithering as to whether there was a conspiracy (and the government's past record mean that you can't be so sure as to rule that out) and frankly I don't trust a single person in that government and if it were a conspiracy to deliberately fudge the election result I wouldn't be surprised. Although I do suspect it was sheer incompetency on the part of the Scotland Office. I'm sure you'll say though that it was up to the voters to educate themselves and show a bit of intelligence but not everyone's interested in voting systems andthere are people who are lacking in intelligence but that should not exclude them from a vote in a liberal democracy. Labour and the Scotland Office made a mockery of Scotland's democracy, not the Scottish people.
Posted by: Gianni on 12:12pm Sat 22 Sep 07
You can't deny either Bill that machines were a farce and contributed to the mess. They broke down, were set to invalidate votes without the count managers knowledge, and were a complete failure during the London Assembly elections and yet were used again in Scotland on the orders of the Scotland Office, and spewed out invalid votes when a human could've deciphered the voter's intention and so doubled the amount of time it took to count. Someone at the top of Labour and the Scotland Office must be held accountable for the farce.
You can't deny either Bill that machines were a farce and contributed to the mess. They broke down, were set to invalidate votes without the count managers knowledge, and were a complete failure during the London Assembly elections and yet were used again in Scotland on the orders of the Scotland Office, and spewed out invalid votes when a human could've deciphered the voter's intention and so doubled the amount of time it took to count. Someone at the top of Labour and the Scotland Office must be held accountable for the farce.
Posted by: MsJ, Glasgow on 12:35pm Sat 22 Sep 07
I think it is certainly a fact that people didn't read the instructions properly. I know I had no difficulty with the ballot paper and completed it correctly as many, many people did.
I recall a vote way back where I was approached by a woman who asked me "Whit yin's the Labour man hen?" It was a YES/NO ballot paper. So you see when we are still without a vaccine for sheer stupidity such people will continue to struggle badly in any exercise set for them.
Jason as far as I'm concerned the Labour Party (particularly Labour in Scotland) has presided over the collapse of the Scottish Education system going back quite some time. I emerged from secondary education well equipped to take up a job and perform very well in it when it came to English and Maths. These days young adults are arriving in posts with beautifully done CVs only for employer's to find that they can't write in proper English never mind spell and they can't count either!
I think it is certainly a fact that people didn't read the instructions properly. I know I had no difficulty with the ballot paper and completed it correctly as many, many people did.
I recall a vote way back where I was approached by a woman who asked me "Whit yin's the Labour man hen?" It was a YES/NO ballot paper. So you see when we are still without a vaccine for sheer stupidity such people will continue to struggle badly in any exercise set for them.
Jason as far as I'm concerned the Labour Party (particularly Labour in Scotland) has presided over the collapse of the Scottish Education system going back quite some time. I emerged from secondary education well equipped to take up a job and perform very well in it when it came to English and Maths. These days young adults are arriving in posts with beautifully done CVs only for employer's to find that they can't write in proper English never mind spell and they can't count either!
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 12:47pm Sat 22 Sep 07
[quote]Unionists celebrate in the streets as David Cairns announces live on Radio Scotland that Labour are still in power in Scotland virtue of being the incumbents in Westminster.[/quote] He is right. With only a handful of votes in the majority Westminster can rescind devolution in a day. And if the Conservatives ever got in again with a large majority they might actually be arrogant enough to "tame" the troublesome Scots for another decade. In any event, though I stand to be corrected, Westminster needs only a quorum of eleven to alter anything its honourable gentlemen want,
We had better behave ourselves - eh?
Unionists celebrate in the streets as David Cairns announces live on Radio Scotland that Labour are still in power in Scotland virtue of being the incumbents in Westminster.
He is right. With only a handful of votes in the majority Westminster can rescind devolution in a day. And if the Conservatives ever got in again with a large majority they might actually be arrogant enough to "tame" the troublesome Scots for another decade. In any event, though I stand to be corrected, Westminster needs only a quorum of eleven to alter anything its honourable gentlemen want,
We had better behave ourselves - eh?
Posted by: WRM, San Diego, CA, USA on 8:16pm Sat 22 Sep 07
One way to avoid the issue of getting to the top of the ballot by calling yourself the aaardvark party is to hold a lottery for the party list - have the Speaker in parliament pull the names of the parties out of a hat and that will be the order they appear on the regional ballot. The party whose name is first out on the list this time round cannot be first when the next election is held.
That's what we do here in California. The order of parties is randomized every election cycle.
One way to avoid the issue of getting to the top of the ballot by calling yourself the aaardvark party is to hold a lottery for the party list - have the Speaker in parliament pull the names of the parties out of a hat and that will be the order they appear on the regional ballot. The party whose name is first out on the list this time round cannot be first when the next election is held.
That's what we do here in California. The order of parties is randomized every election cycle.
Posted by: GLASWEGIAN, Glasgow on 10:29pm Sat 22 Sep 07
Sorry to enter this debate so late. Why is it so "astonishing" as Douglas Fraser's article says, that the highest propoertion odf spoiled ballot papers wer in the most socially-deprived areas? Anyone with a ounce of common sense would have expected exactly that.
The complicated layout and poorly-designed ballot papers meant that some simple instructions had to be given in advance, with simple examples of how to vote shown on television and explained in the press. In the almost complete absence of such help,is it any wonder that the least intelligent voters who had given no thought to the elction until the day found it confusing to be faced with two ballot papers, one with two separate columns, with an instruction at the top "You have two votes". What hare-brained civil servant thought that up? Of course we will never know.
The repsonsibility for the monumental ****-up does not lie with the individual voters who messed up their ballot papers, but with the Scotland Office ministers and civil servants who were responsible, and seemed to think that every voter in scotland had already got a first-class honours degree from Oxbridge.
if it was mostly votes for Salmond and Sheridan that were rejected, I think SSalmond would have got at least two-thirds of these, so it is the SNP that has suffered most, not the Labour Party.
Sorry to enter this debate so late. Why is it so "astonishing" as Douglas Fraser's article says, that the highest propoertion odf spoiled ballot papers wer in the most socially-deprived areas? Anyone with a ounce of common sense would have expected exactly that.
The complicated layout and poorly-designed ballot papers meant that some simple instructions had to be given in advance, with simple examples of how to vote shown on television and explained in the press. In the almost complete absence of such help,is it any wonder that the least intelligent voters who had given no thought to the elction until the day found it confusing to be faced with two ballot papers, one with two separate columns, with an instruction at the top "You have two votes". What hare-brained civil servant thought that up? Of course we will never know.
The repsonsibility for the monumental ****-up does not lie with the individual voters who messed up their ballot papers, but with the Scotland Office ministers and civil servants who were responsible, and seemed to think that every voter in scotland had already got a first-class honours degree from Oxbridge.
if it was mostly votes for Salmond and Sheridan that were rejected, I think SSalmond would have got at least two-thirds of these, so it is the SNP that has suffered most, not the Labour Party.
Posted by: hamish of the loch, the loch on 4:39am Sun 23 Sep 07
there is a lot of bigots against poor people in glasgow .yea you reap what you allow to be built in the first place
there is a lot of bigots against poor people in glasgow .yea you reap what you allow to be built in the first place
Posted by: All parties were responsible for vote-fiasco!, Scotland wide on 4:26pm Mon 24 Sep 07
[quote][bold]Maria Regina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Colin B[/bold] wrote: Its because people in deprived areas are thick and are held back by the negative attitudes of their unambitious, poorly educated families. [/quote] Such fascistic drivel from one so young.[/quote] Interesting that Colin B is a Scottish Tory who seems to support the majority of anti-Labour and pro-SNP threads on this board. An interesting insight into the Tartan Tories (SNP) and the Real Tories colluding against Scotland's interests.....
Maria Regina wrote:
Colin B wrote: Its because people in deprived areas are thick and are held back by the negative attitudes of their unambitious, poorly educated families.
Such fascistic drivel from one so young.
Interesting that Colin B is a Scottish Tory who seems to support the majority of anti-Labour and pro-SNP threads on this board. An interesting insight into the Tartan Tories (SNP) and the Real Tories colluding against Scotland's interests.....
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 7:28pm Mon 24 Sep 07
What is pro SNP and anti Labour about my quote above?
Am just telling the truth-Its unfortunate in Scotland that so often when many people/the herd don't like a valid point of view they respond so aggresively or personally and try to label people/ generalise to try to marginalise an opinion rather than debate against it.
What is pro SNP and anti Labour about my quote above?
Am just telling the truth-Its unfortunate in Scotland that so often when many people/the herd don't like a valid point of view they respond so aggresively or personally and try to label people/ generalise to try to marginalise an opinion rather than debate against it.
Politics
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (31)
