« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1 Background to the research
- The Scottish local council elections taking place in May 2007 will use the Single Transferable Vote ( STV) electoral system and multi-member electoral wards for the first time
- the STV system and multi-member candidature requires a ballot paper that allows the electorate to vote for more than one candidate from the same party - or different parties - as well as accommodate independent candidates
- four possible STV ballot designs were developed for the purposes of this research, the designs adopt the following formats:
Design 1: alphabetical listing by candidate name
Design 2: alphabetical listing by candidate name with party details in a column to the left of the candidate name
Design 3: alphabetical listing by party name, then by candidate name within party groups; independent candidates listed alphabetically at the top
Design 4: alphabetical listing by party name (in an additional column to the left of the candidate names), then by candidate name within party groups; independent candidates listed alphabetically at the top
2 Overall preference
- the clear overall preference is for alphabetical listing by party name rather than by candidate and for the party name in an additional column to the left of the candidate names
- 71 preferred alphabetical listing by party; 23 preferred alphabetical listing by candidate
- 71 preferred party names in an additional column; 26 preferred no column
- when compared, the preference is for Design 4 because this uses the design elements described above
- 55 out of 100 preferred this design, and none of the other three designs were close in number of preferences
- voters generally feel that ballot papers alphabeticised by party are clearer, more ordered and more likely to be completed correctly than those with candidates in alphabetical order
- the minority who prefer alphabetical listing by candidate feel this format encourages voters to give greater thought to individual candidates and their attributes rather than to vote along party lines
- the additional column with party name is thought to make it absolutely clear which party an individual belongs to (this is especially helpful for those less familiar with party logos)
- some feel additional information is unnecessary but can give no strong, compelling reasons to exclude this column
3. Completing STV ballot papers
- most completed the ballot papers correctly; there were only a handful of papers with mistakes
- these were:
- using 'Xs' rather than numbers
- giving candidates from same party the same ranking number
- these mistakes were a consequence of voters not understanding or reading the instructions and not related to the ballot paper layout
- this said, it is apparent that a significant number have little clear understanding of the STV voting format
- many simply vote for the same number of candidates as there are seats available and assume there is one vote per available seat
- in addition, some are unaware they can vote for as many candidates as they like
- where it is understood that voters could make as many preferences as they wished, many tend not to rank more than six candidates, primarily because they feel they would be making uninformed choices
- others limit the number of candidates/parties they vote for because they are reluctant to vote for individuals or political parties they do not support
- both the instructions on the ballot paper and on the separate voter notes are thought helpful, particularly the separate voter notes
- as noted, most of the mistakes made are caused by respondents not reading the instructions carefully or at all
4 Recommendations
- on this evidence, design 4 seems the clearest and easiest of the ballot paper designs to complete
- in our view, this design does not require any significant revisions
- given the mistakes made, we would suggest giving the voter instructions at the top of the paper as much prominence as possible (particularly the instruction not to mark with a cross or tick)
- the signs are that many voters will initially struggle to understand the mechanics of the STV electoral system
- as a consequence, they will not take full advantage of a system that allows them to put forward a range of preferences
- any media campaign and voter instructions need to clearly inform voters that STV means individuals' second and possibly third choice candidates can be elected to vacant seats
« Previous | Contents | Next »