« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER THREE MAIN FINDINGS
3.1 Contextual points
3.1.1 Attitudes to voting
- most saw themselves as conscientious, habitual voters; a sizable number claimed they voted in local, Scottish Parliamentary and General Elections, though many admitted they did not always vote
- a handful (not yet or just turned 18) had not yet voted but said they intended to at the next opportunity
- respondents tended to see voting as a combination of a right and civic obligation
WHY DO YOU VOTE ?
"Because I've the right to vote. I used to go with my granny and granddad and they used to show me how to do it, pick people."
IS THAT RIGHT IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO EXERCISE ?
"Aye, I feel it is my duty to do it."
D5 Male D 25-34 Edinburgh
"I vote all the time because it is important in terms of society. People fought long and hard for everyone to have the right to vote. It is part of our civic duty."
D7 Female C1 25-34 Edinburgh
- many felt very strongly about voting; they believed it was the only true opportunity citizens had to hold elected officials to account - typically expressed as 'If you don't vote, you can't complain'
WHY VOTE?
"Then I can have my say. And I don't feel guilty if I'm shouting about something. You get these people who don't vote and they are always mouthing off about what this councillor is doing. I think they don't vote so why are they worried about all that."
D16 Female D 61-70+ Edinburgh
- most were loyal to one political party and said they always knew which party they were going to vote for before they arrived at the polling station
"People go for the name of the political party rather than the candidate. You find that in the majority of elections. They go for the party they have been brought up with. It is not the person or the work that is actually done for the constituency."
D18 Male D 46-60 Edinburgh
"I vote for the Labour party all the time. I have consistently voted Labour."
D5 Male D 25-34 Edinburgh
- however, it was clear that some did not have strong political party affiliations and voted for whoever they felt best represented their interests
- a minority (typically more C2DE) did not reflect on why they voted and seemed to do so out of habit
- most voters claimed not to prioritise one type of election as more important
- a minority said general elections were more important because decisions that most affected the country came from Westminster
- a few others felt that local and regional issues were more relevant to them than national concerns; they saw local council and Scottish Parliamentary elections as more significant than general elections
"Well at the moment local is more important because it is making key decisions about the economy on foreign policy, Scotland is as important to Britain as England is. The Scottish parliament has the major say."
D79 Male B 35-45 Dundee
"The local one is more beneficial because it is about the local area."
D59 Female C1 17-24 Inverness
- some respondents claimed they were more informed about the personalities campaigning at local elections because they:
- were from the area and well known
- had a stronger presence at election time than Westminster and Scottish Parliament candidates
- many said that the individual candidate was more important than the party when it came to voting at local elections
"The candidate is important because you know a candidate and you know what they are going to do, regardless of the party, you are going to vote for the candidate because you know that they are going to stand up for what they believe in and not just go by the party values."
D59 Female C1 17-24 Inverness
- but few could name their local councillors or the candidates who stood at previous local elections
HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW YOUR LOCAL COUNCIL?
"it's a Labour council. I should know my local councillor's name but I couldn't tell you."
D29 Male B 17- 24 Glasgow
"I don't know the names of the local councillor no. I know the MPs. I could tell you the local MP."
D18 Male D 46-60 Edinburgh
3.1.2 Awareness of Single Transferable Vote
- there was virtually no awareness of the proposed change to STV for the local elections in May 2007
- it is worth noting that this research was conducted prior to the start of the planned public information campaign that will be run in advance of the elections
- a handful of more informed respondents (typically BC1s and better educated) had heard of changes to the local election voting system but had little knowledge of the detail
- sources of information on the change were vague but these people appeared to have heard about it in local media
- very few were familiar with the STV electoral system, though some were aware of the concept of preferential voting; they believed that the Scottish Parliamentary elections used a ranking system 2
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE VOTING SYSTEM ?
"Yes with putting it in order, I've seen it in leadership elections for some of the elections."
D79 Male B 35-45 Dundee
"With the Scottish Parliament elections I think you have the list as well."
D7 Female C1 25-34 Edinburgh
DOES THIS EEM LIKE A FAMILIAR WAY OF VOTING ?
"Yes. They have done '1,2.3' with PR for MSPs."
D26 Female B61-70+ Glasgow
- when STV was explained, few respondents questioned it or appeared interested in why the system was being introduced or what the repercussions might be
- very few fully understood the STV electoral system and how it was meant to work; misunderstanding was widespread
DO YOU UNDERSTAND STV VOTING ?
"Is it count how many 'ones' there are and then the 'twos' count but not as much as a 'one', like Eurovision but not."
D77 Female C1 17-24 Dundee
3.2 Response to the ballot papers
3.2.1 Initial impressions
- first impressions of all the papers were broadly favourable
- initially, the STV designs were thought to be ordinary ballot papers; they came across as similar in design, layout and colouring to traditional ballot papers
- the more observant noticed that some parties had more than one candidate
- most did not query the presence of additional candidates, but a few were confused by this: they felt they had 'too much choice'
"Too complicated. It is just the amount of candidates on it. It confuses people. It is too confusing, too many people when you are voting for 3 people in one district."
D18 Male D 46-60 Edinburgh
"People will get confused that they can put down as many as they want. Too much choice. Some people may just get fed up and randomly do it. There is potential for folk to get fed up and put down numbers next to people whatever."
D7 Female C1 25-34 Edinburgh
- differences between the four designs were rarely spotted at first glance
- on closer inspection, some noticed:
- the extra column on designs 2 and 4
- that the order of candidates differed
3.2.2 Completing the ballot papers
- most found the ballot papers easy to read and use, and said there was little that was unclear or difficult to understand
- the instructions at the top of the ballot papers and the separate information sheet produced for the research were thought helpful and aided completion
- some commented they would have been less confident that they had voted correctly without the separate information sheet
- they appreciated the information about rating candidates sequentially and voting for candidates from different parties
- most voters completed the ballot papers correctly, even if they did not understand how STV was meant to work, and would have had their votes counted in a real election
- typically respondents voted along party lines, though many were happy to express their preferences across different parties
- it was clear that many did not fully understand the concept and mechanics of STV when they saw the ballot papers:
- many chose the same number of candidates as the number of seats that they were told were available (three votes in Edinburgh and Glasgow; four votes in Dundee and Inverness)
- some respondents voted for six candidates but only because the information sheet gave an example of ranking six
- many only rated two candidates because they misread the instructions at the top of the ballot papers which refers to marking the figure '1' and '2'
DID YOU HOPE THE 3 CANDIDATES YOU VOTED FOR WOULD GET THE 3 SEATS ?
"Yes."
D5 Male D 25-34 Edinburgh
HOW CLEAR WAS IT HEAR THAT YOU CAN VOTE FOR AS MANY CANDIDATES AND AS MANY DIFFERENT PARTIES AS YOU WANTED?
"I wasn't sure at first, it said 'more than 2'. I thought maybe 2."
D27 Male C1 17-24 Glasgow
HOW CLEAR IS IT YOU CAN VOTE FOR AS MANY CANDIDATES AS YOU LIKE ?
"It doesn't say you can put a number against them all. It says here mark up to six [candidates]. It doesn't say 8,9 or 10."
IF IT HAD SAID THAT, WOULD YOU HAVE CARRIED ON ?
"Yes. I would've carried on."
D4 Male D 17-24 Glasgow
- where voters understood that they could rank as many candidates as they wished, many restricted their choices because they did not want to vote for certain parties
- in other cases, respondents limited the number of candidates ranked because they did not know enough about each one to make an informed decision: they believed it was pointless to carry on ranking them
YOU STOPPED AT 3. WHY DID YOU NOT CARRY ON?
"Because I don't like any of the other parties."
D5 Male D 25-34 Edinburgh
WHY HAVE YOU STOPPED WITH FOUR ?
"Basically, I don't feel comfortable voting for Labour or Conservative or Scottish National Party."
D79 Male B 35-45 Dundee
"Once I got beyond the first 4 or 5 I wasn't that interested in ranking anyone above that. Probably because I would be keener just to prioritise my top 2 or 3. Because it is a single transferable role, I don't want my vote being transferred at all to some parties."
D7 Female C1 25-34 Edinburgh
- a few respondents rated all 14 candidates but only because they thought it was a requirement: they misunderstood the instructions
I just wondered why you kept going
"Because it [instructions]says 'and so on' and I assumed I had to keep going."
D77 Female C1 17-24 Dundee
- despite the view that the designs were straightforward, some respondents made mistakes; 13 out of 100 ballot papers were unintentionally spoiled
- it is worth noting that of the 13 respondents who spoilt their initial ballot papers, 9 realised their mistakes and corrected subsequent papers - many admitted they had voted before reading instructions carefully
- the most common mistakes were:
- 'Xs' used rather than numbers
- candidates from a particular party rated with the same preference number (i.e. all Labour marked '1', all SNP marked '2' etc.)
- on the whole, mistakes were made primarily because voters did not read instructions sufficiently thoroughly (or at all) rather than as a result of the ballot paper design
"It said 1-3 but said something about missing out 4. I didn't understand the 5 and 6 as well."
D14 Male E 25-34 Edinburgh
- those who ignored or failed to read the instructions properly believed they did not contain any vital information and they assumed the instructions paragraph was administrative 'blurb'
- a minority failed to understand the instructions (and fully grasp the concept of preferential voting) despite reading them thoroughly
- mistakes tended to be made by older respondents (80+) and by C2DEs/less educated
- many older respondents were confused by the preferential voting/ranking system; they said they were so used to marking with a 'X'/tick that any other way would be confusing
3.2.3 Alphabetical listing by party name
- this was clearly the preferred format, primarily because it came across as easier to negotiate and read
- because parties were grouped together, people felt they could find the candidates they wanted to vote for easily and quickly
"It is recognisable. The band is more distinctive than the candidates listed alphabetically. From that you can see who is within that banding. If I am for a party, I know that my vote is for them."
D6 Male C1 46-60 Edinburgh
"It's a lot easier to find -. I find it easier to look at. I'm not having to jump around to look for specific people in specific parties. I find it a lot easier to take in information. "For who I'm voting for I can look at the party then go down a list."
D29 Male B 17- 24 Glasgow
"You've got them all grouped together. It's not all higgledy piggledy."
77 Female C1 17-24 Dundee
"Much easier. Because they are all set up. You have your Independents, Scottish Tories, you know who they are. Then you have your preferences in each party. That one [alphabetical listing by candidate name] is all higgledy-piggledy"
D18 Male D 46-60 Edinburgh
- even those who did not vote along party lines believed they could identify candidates quickly because they would look for the individual's party first
- few people noticed that the parties were grouped alphabetically
- there were no spontaneous comments about the parties being ordered this way, but when prompted most thought it made sense
- the positioning of the independent candidates prompt little comment
- when asked, most felt that it was best to list the independents at the top of the ballot papers given that there would be no logo to identify them
"They [independent candidates] tend to be a bit nondescript because they don't have the logo."
D42 Male C2 46-60 Glasgow
3.2.4 Alphabetical listing by candidate name
- a few voters preferred alphabetical listing by candidate name
- they believed that voters would be encouraged to read through the entire list of candidates and give greater consideration to how they made their selection
- their rationale was that voters would go through the entire list of candidates rather than simply look for the party name and/or logo
- some believed that ordering candidates alphabetically was fairer because multi-candidate parties could not take advantage of grouping (which gave them greater visual stand-out) and each individual was given equal prominence
"Voting by party, you are drawn towards the party itself. The party is like saying vote for us. I like alphabetical by candidate a lot better."
D59 Female C1 17-24 Inverness
- only a handful noticed that candidates listed were alphabetically; most assumed they had been ordered randomly
- those who did not notice alphabetical listing thought the formatting here was confused, unordered and less straightforward to read
"This has put me off! I would be confused with that. You'd have to go right down there for the party you are looking for. There are people behind, you just go in and write your cross and come out again. That could be daunting if you were in the box. I wouldn't know what to mark,"
D16 Female D 61-70+ Edinburgh
"It's certainly harder to find [your candidate]. There's too much."
D29 Male B 17- 24 Glasgow
"It's confusing. I think you need all the parties together."
D77 Female C1 17-24 Dundee
- many also felt that it was more difficult to rate more than six candidates using this format and that voters would be more likely to make a mistake
- they believed that because the candidates were harder to find, people might vote for the wrong candidate
"There's a danger that if you don't read it properly then you could vote for the wrong person. You have to read it all through. If you didn't read it all you could get mixed up."
D42 Male C2 46-60 Glasgow
3.2.5 Party name in additional column
- most respondents had less strong feelings about the inclusion of the additional column than they did over the issue of candidate/party order
- when prompted, most preferred the inclusion of the column because:
- it made the column with candidates' details seem less cluttered and 'busy'
- it helped voters identify/confirm candidates' party; this was particularly useful for those less familiar with party logos
"The names are down that side. That is much better. Because people with bad eyesight can't see the symbols. They might not know who they are voting for. This one is telling you the parties."
D5 Male D 25-34 Edinburgh
"I like the separate columns, saying which party they are, no that is too much it's too cluttered."
D77 Female C1 17-24 Dundee
'It looks neater. Not so congested."
D27 Male C1 17-24 Glasgow
"This one is not so easy to understand. You have to read the whole name and then find out whether they're in the Scottish National Party. Whereas this one was clearer because it had the extra column."
D42 Male C2 46-60 Glasgow
- a minority were less keen on the additional column:
- they thought it might distract voters
- some felt it was unnecessary additional detail to read
- others believed it gave the party name too much prominence and detracted from the candidates
"You are looking there and then go across, too much reading involved. It is confusing because they are reading Scottish Labour and ticking that, whereas there you are reading a person's name and then the party."
D18 Male D 46-60 Edinburgh
"You've got the party there which you are drawn to and you are drawn to the party more than the people, which is never a good thing. It just drags your attention. I'd put the column in there with the name of the party by the logo, so you would have them next to each other."
D59 Female C1 17-24 Inverness
- some commented that the word 'Scottish' before every party name made it more difficult to pick out the parties at a glance; a few suggested leaving it out all together (apart from for the SNP)
"If you read down it, the amount of Scottish parties you see, too much in terms of 'Scottish'. It is local elections. You don't need the word 'Scottish'. They [voters] know it is local elections."
D18 Male D 46-60 Edinburgh
- the alternative approach with only two columns was largely rejected
- a small number preferred this format and thought it made the ballot papers look simpler and 'tidier' than the three column alternative
- but for most it had the opposite effect:
- the party details appeared recessive and were not easy to see
- for the majority who said they voted along party lines this made the ballot paper more difficult to use
"This one has the party names underneath. It is putting me off."
D16 Female D 61-70+ Edinburgh
"It's still a lot of information straight down the middle. I would say too much. I'd prefer having columns."
D29 Male B 17- 24 Glasgow
3.3 Response to the four designs
3.3.1 Design 4 (alphabetical by party name with additional column of party names)
- this was the best received of all four candidate designs by a clear majority; it was preferred by 55 of the 100 respondents
- it contained the two design elements that most respondents felt made the ballot paper easiest to use:
- alphabetical listing by party name
- separate column with party name
- in terms of layout and design it came across as clear, simple and attractive
- many felt this format best showed the candidates and party details and was the easiest ballot to read and navigate
4.3.2 Design 3 (alphabetical by party name without additional column of party names)
- this was generally well received; it was preferred by 19
- it was liked primarily because it used alphabetical listing by party name
- people felt that this made it easier to find candidates by party
- in addition many believed that it made the layout look attractive and ordered
- less positively it did not have the separate column of party names on the left
- as noted, some respondents thought that including the party details underneath candidates' names and addresses gave the main column a muddled appearance
3.3.3 Design 2 (alphabetical by candidate name, with additional column for party name)
- this was the preferred design of the two that used alphabetical listing by candidate name, because it included the additional column for party names (favoured by 16)
- but for most it was let down by the use of alphabetical listing of candidates rather than grouping by party
3.3.4 Design 1 (alphabetical by candidate name, without additional column for party name)
- this was the least well received of all four designs (preferred by 7)
- it came across as disorganised and uninviting because it had the combination of:
- (perceived) 'random' ordering of candidates
- party and candidate details in one column
« Previous | Contents | Next »