The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER THREE MOTIVATIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF STANDING

3.1 Chapter 2 described the characteristics of people who stood for election in 2007. The survey was also designed to gather information regarding candidates' motivations for, and experiences of, standing for election, which is the subject of this chapter.

Motivations for Standing

3.2 In the surveys, unsuccessful candidates and councillors were asked to choose their most important reasons for standing (using categories derived from the 2003 research). Responses are shown below in Figures 22 and 23. As both groups were allowed to give more than one answer, the percentages below relate to the proportion of respondents who included the response as one of their reasons, so the percentages do not sum to 100.

Figure 22 Percentage of unsuccessful candidates who included response among their reasons for standing (n=593)

3.3 The main reasons for standing among unsuccessful candidates included: an interest in the community (75%); improving services or the local area (67%); and making changes to the council or the way it is run (59%). Other widespread reasons were a sense of duty and public service (46%), promoting party objectives (39%) and providing the electorate with the choice of voting for their party (38%). A smaller, but still significant, proportion (25%) also stated that they stood because they were asked to stand.

3.4 As Figure 23 indicates, the main reasons for standing among councillors were similar to those of unsuccessful candidates. The most common reason (included by 86% of councillors) was that they stood because of interest in the community, while 80% wanted to improve services or the local area. Of councillors, 60% stood partly out of duty/public service and 57% wanted to change how the local council was run. Less widespread but still important reasons were to promote party objectives (49%) and being asked to stand (21%).

Figure 23 Percentage of councillors who included response among their reasons for standing (n=755)

3.5 Of the 179 (22.3%) unsuccessful candidates, and 84 (11.1%) councillors who only stated one reason for seeking election, the most common answer was still 'an interest in the community'. However it is interesting that councillors were more likely than unsuccessful candidates to give more than one reason for standing. It could be that candidates with more than one purpose in mind have a greater chance of winning, however, the data available here cannot confirm this or otherwise.

3.6 Compared to 2003 the data suggests that the most common reason for standing among both councillors and unsuccessful candidates has remained the same, which is a general interest in the local community and services. Further analyses are problematic, as unsuccessful candidates and councillors in 2003 were asked an open question regarding their main reason, which was then coded by the respective research teams. In 2007, unsuccessful candidates were given a choice of categories from which they could choose as many reasons as they felt appropriate.

Motivations for standing by gender

3.7 There were few major differences in the motivations of male and female unsuccessful candidates (which is consistent with the 2003 data), but women were more likely to stand to provide voters with the choice of voting for their party, and men were more likely to have stood to defeat the incumbent councillor (Table 23).

3.8 Motivations for seeking election were also fairly similar between male and female councillors. However, females were more likely than males to stand to improve services and/or the local area, to provide a choice/an opportunity to vote for their party and for career/personal development reasons.

Table 23 Percentage of unsuccessful candidates and councillors who included response among their reasons for standing, by gender, 2007

Motivations for standing by age

3.9 As in 2003, the main reasons for seeking election show few trends across age groups, except that younger unsuccessful candidates (18-24 years old) were more likely to be standing for personal or career development. Other than this, the only clear patterns emerge with standing to promote party objectives and standing to provide the electorate with an opportunity to vote for the party. These reasons become steadily less widespread with age, until the age of 65 when these reasons become more common again (Table 24).

Table 24 Percentage of unsuccessful candidates who included response among their reasons for standing, by age category, 2007 (n=593)

3.10 Young councillors appear to be less interested in duty/public service, their local community and local services, but they are much more interested in standing to promote party objectives (Table 25). This age group were also more likely to indicate that they stood because they were asked or because the position is paid. However, it must be remembered that there are only 7 councillors in this age group, so these figures are only indicative. Other apparent trends are similar to those of unsuccessful candidates, as there is a steady decline with age in standing for career/personal development reasons, and fewer older councillors stated that they had stood to promote party objectives.

Table 25 Percentage of councillors who included response among their reasons for standing, by age category, 2007

Motivations for standing by political affiliation

3.11 As well as varying within parties by gender, the main reasons for standing varied between unsuccessful candidates of different political affiliations (Table 26). Independents, as would be expected, tended to focus on local reasons for standing (although 1.9% said that they stood to promote party objectives, which is perhaps a case of respondent error). A large proportion of Green, SSP and Solidarity unsuccessful candidates cited a desire to promote party policies and/or provide the electorate with a choice to vote for their party. Given the high percentage of Labour-led councils in Scotland in the past, it is not surprising that Labour Party unsuccessful candidates were the least likely to stand because they wanted to change the way the council is run. Interestingly, Liberal Democrats were the most likely to stand because the position of councillor is paid and/or for career/personal development reasons, whereas Solidarity and SSP candidates were the most likely to state that they were standing in order to defeat the incumbent councillor.

Table 26 Percentage of unsuccessful candidates who included response among their reasons for standing, by political affiliation, 2007*

Note to table
* The numbers in brackets show the rank of each reason among members each political party (/independents), in terms of the number of times it was cited.
The responses presented in the table above may have been influenced by the order in which the response categories were presented in the questionnaire.

3.12 Councillors' motivations for standing by political affiliation follow similar patterns to those of unsuccessful candidates, as shown by Table 27. Independent councillors tended to focus on the local community and making changes to the local council, although almost a quarter stood because they were asked to (presumably by local people since they do not belong to a party). A large proportion of Green councillors stated that they wished to promote party policies. Like unsuccessful candidates from their party, a lower proportion of Labour councillors than from other parties stated that one of their reasons for standing was to change the way the council was run. The same proportion of Independent councillors (44%) stated that this was one of their reasons for standing for election, whereas 61% of unsuccessful Independent candidates did.

Table 27 Percentage of councillors who included response among their reasons for standing, by political affiliation, 2007 (n=755)*

Note to table
* The numbers in brackets show the rank of each reason among members each political party (/independents), in terms of the number of times it was cited.
* SSP and Solidarity won one seat each, so their figures are not included here.

Confidence in Winning

3.13 Unsuccessful candidates were asked about how confident they were in winning a seat. Although their answers might have been affected by hindsight (since they knew they had not won by the time of the survey) the data in Figure 24 shows that 27.6% were not at all confident and 36.3% were not very confident of winning the seat. Just 4.2% were very confident. Councillors were not asked this question, so comparable data is not available.

3.14 Despite this lack of confidence, unsuccessful candidates in 2007 were more confident of winning a seat than their counterparts in 2003, when over 40.7% were not at all confident, and 36.1% were not very confident. In 2003, even fewer (2.6%) were very confident that they would win. This is likely to be due to the increased odds of winning a seat in 2007, as there were considerably fewer candidates standing (from 4,195 in 2003 down to 2,606), and the same number of seats available (1,222).

3.15 As many unsuccessful candidates did not expect to win, why did they stand? The analysis of the reasons they gave for lack of confidence shed some light on this issue. Some examples of reasons why unsuccessful candidates stood without expecting to win were: 1) because their party needed to field more candidates; 2) because they did not expect to win if it was the first time they stood but felt they might do better with practice; and 3) because they wanted to raise awareness of an issue.

Figure 24 Unsuccessful candidates' confidence in winning a seat, 2003 and 2007 (%)(n=789)

Confidence in winning by gender

3.16 Confidence in winning varied with gender and political affiliation. Female unsuccessful candidates were generally less confident of winning than males - 39.2% of male respondents were very or quite confident compared to 27.1% of females. This is similar to 2003, despite a higher percentage of all female candidates being elected as councillors in 2007.

Confidence in winning by political affiliation

3.17 As Figure 25 shows, SNP unsuccessful candidates had the most confidence in their chances of winning (59.4% were either very or quite confident). Over 40% of Independent, Labour and Liberal Democrat unsuccessful candidates felt they had a chance of winning, while Solidarity and SSP unsuccessful candidates were the least confident of all. This overall picture is similar to 2003, but a notable difference is the rise in confidence among SNP candidates.

Figure 25 Unsuccessful candidates' confidence of winning a seat by political affiliation, 2007 (%)(n=789)

Reasons for lack of confidence

3.18 Why were so many unsuccessful candidates not confident of winning? Table 28 outlines the main reasons given by unsuccessful candidates who stated they were either not very or not at all confident. Candidates were asked an open question and frequently gave a detailed response, so the percentages represent the unsuccessful candidates who included each reason in their comments. By far the most common reason cited was that the electorate in their ward did not support their party or the main issue their party stood for (included in 18% of responses). Along the same lines, but with slightly different implications, 15% stated that the electorate was strongly in favour of another party.

Table 28 Percentage of unsuccessful candidates who included response among their reasons for lacking confidence in winning the seat, 2007 (n=504)

Note to table
Figures do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

3.19 Standing for the first time or for a new party was also a common reason (included in 15% of responses). This high proportion is not surprising given that the STV system has resulted in smaller parties fielding large numbers of candidates for the first time (Bochel & Denver 2007). Less common, but still important, reasons were being too far behind the incumbent of the seat, a feeling that the system favours the major parties and a lack of resources for campaigning.

"Alphabetical" voting

3.20 The STV system requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference. In 2007 candidates were listed on the ballot paper alphabetically. In wards where parties fielded more than one candidate, there was an early suspicion voiced in the aftermath of the elections that voters wanting to vote for the candidates of a particular party had tended to give their first preference to the party's candidate coming first on the ballot paper ( i.e. with a surname starting with a letter towards the beginning of the alphabet) and subsequent preferences to those lower down.

3.21 The candidate and elected member surveys explored this issue, asking respondents to state firstly whether more than one candidate from their party stood in their ward; and secondly the extent to which they thought that the position of candidates' names on the ballot papers affected the number of votes they received.

3.22 Among all candidates, 36% stated that more than one candidate from their party stood in their ward (23% of unsuccessful candidates and 50% of councillors)(Table 29). As would be expected given the size of the parties, this was most common among Labour (72%) and SNP (45%) respondents, and least common among Green and SSP candidates.

Table 29 Proportion of respondents stating that more than one candidate from their party stood in their ward by Party, 2007 (%)

Note to table
One quarter of Independent candidates responded that more than one candidate from their party stood in their ward while almost two thirds responded that this question was not applicable. It is not known whether all Independent candidates interpreted this question in the same way, e.g whether or not those who responded that more than one candidate from their party stood are referring to other independent candidates where other candidates have responded 'not applicable' to describe the same situation. The data for Independent candidates are not, therefore, presented in the table above.

3.23 On the whole, the belief that the position of candidates' names on the ballot paper affected the number of votes they received was quite widely held. Among all unsuccessful candidates 67% felt it had affected the number of votes received 'a lot' or 'a little', 23% felt it had not affected the number of votes at all, and 10% didn't know. Unsuccessful candidates who stood in wards where another member of their party was also standing were even more likely to state that position on the ballot paper had affected votes received (84% said this versus 10% who thought it had no effect) (Figure 26).

These views were not just those of unsuccessful candidates. The findings were replicated for councillors among whom even more (73%) felt it had affected the number of votes received 'a lot' or 'a little'. Eighty two percent of councillors who stood in wards where another member of their party was also standing thought position on the ballot paper affected the number of votes received.

Figure 26 Extent to which unsuccessful candidates and councillors felt that the position of candidates on the ballot affected the number of votes they received, 2007 (%)

3.24 Candidates' perceptions regarding alphabetical voting have been borne out by analysis undertaken by Bochel and Denver (2007). They found that the candidate placed first on the ballot gained a considerably higher number of votes in 84.7% of wards where more than one candidate from a party stood. Bochel and Denver argue that the difference is much greater than would be expected by chance, and it is likely that this issue will need to be addressed in future elections.

Figure 27 'Alphabetical' voting in wards where parties fielded at least two candidates, 2007

Note to figure
Source: Bochel & Denver, 2007.

Experience of Attending the Count

3.25 Of all responding unsuccessful candidates, 81% attended the local election count (Figure 28). The percentage of unsuccessful candidates attending the count by party varied from 59% for SSP respondents to 97% for unsuccessful SNP candidates. In general, respondents from the smaller parties were less likely to attend, which may be related to their lower levels of confidence in winning the seat.

3.26 Councillors from all political affiliations were more likely to have attended the count than unsuccessful candidates, although Independents attended less often than party members. Again, attendance levels are probably related to councillors' confidence in winning, but the data is not available to confirm this.

Figure 28 Unsuccessful candidates and councillors attending count by political affiliation, 2007 (%)

Note to figure
SSP and Solidarity won one seat each, so their councillor figures are not included

3.27 Less than half (42%) of unsuccessful candidates felt that they had received enough information about what was going on, meaning the majority were unclear about the process (Figure 29). This did not vary widely among respondents from different parties or Independents. Further analysis showed that unsuccessful candidates who had stood before were less likely to feel they were given enough information about the count than new unsuccessful candidates (38% of experienced respondents were happy with the information received compared to 46% of those standing for the first time). To a lesser extent, this also applies to unsuccessful candidates who had served as councillors in the past (36% were content with the information provided, compared to 40% of those who had not served).

3.28 In general, councillors were more likely to be content with the information they received than unsuccessful candidates (50% compared to 42% respectively). Once again, those with more experience (in this case of serving as a councillor) were less likely to be happy with the information provided (46% were content compared to 54% of less experienced councillors).

Figure 29 Unsuccessful candidates and councillors who felt they were given enough information about the process, 2007 (%)

Note to figure
SSP and Solidarity won one seat each, so their councillor figures are not included

3.29 This trend also continued on election night. Half of unsuccessful candidates (50%) felt that the results had been properly explained to them after the count, so again the proceedings were unclear to a large percentage of unsuccessful candidates. This did vary by party, although there is no clear pattern between large and small parties, or those with a generally higher level of confidence in winning (Figure 30). In this case, an equal percentage of new and experienced unsuccessful candidates felt the results were properly explained. However, the results showed that those who been elected as a councillor in the past were slightly less likely to be content with the explanation than those who had not (46% to 52%).

Figure 30 Unsuccessful candidates and councillors who felt that the results were properly explained to them (%)

Note to figure
SSP and Solidarity won one seat each, so their councillor figures are not included

3.30 Councillors were more likely to be content with the explanation of the results than unsuccessful candidates (71% compared to 50% respectively). Once again, those with experience were more likely to feel that the results had not been properly explained (68% were content compared to 75% of less experienced councillors).

3.31 Unsuccessful candidates were asked how the experience of attending the count could have been improved. The most common response was that better organisation, facilities and information at the count itself would have improved the experience (28%). Less common, but still important were suggestions such as: separating out the parliamentary and council elections (15%); a better system of counting votes (either a manual count, with better technology, or simply a more transparent system) (11%); and better organisation, information and support throughout the whole process of standing for election (10%).

Likelihood of Standing Again

3.32 Given their lack of success in the 2007 elections, how likely are unsuccessful candidates to seek election in the future? As Figure 31 shows, 22.8% of unsuccessful candidates thought they would definitely stand again and 37.3% felt they probably would. Only 5.9% of respondents were certain they would not put their names forward in the future. These figures are different from those of 2003, when a higher percentage of unsuccessful candidates (76%) said they would definitely or probably stand again, and fewer said they definitely would not seek election in the future.

Figure 31 Likelihood of unsuccessful candidates standing for election again by political affiliation, 2007 (%)(n=793)

3.33 Female unsuccessful candidates were slightly more likely to rule out standing again, but in 2003 twice the percentage of women than men completely ruled it out. There is also variation by age group: older candidates are much less likely to stand again than younger age groups. Although unsuccessful candidates with a limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability are less likely to stand again than other respondents the differences are small.

3.34 Over 30% of 'Other' and Green unsuccessful candidates said they were certain to run for election again, while for the SNP this figure was 16.7%. Independents and SNP unsuccessful candidates were the most likely to completely rule out standing again (at 9.1% and 10.0% respectively). In 2003, SNP and SSP unsuccessful candidates were the most likely to say they would definitely stand again, whereas Labour and Conservatives were the most likely to rule it out.

Public Information Campaign

3.35 As discussed in the introduction, Scottish Government policies are intended to increase the representativeness of candidates so they more closely reflect the diversity of Scotland's population. To this end, the VoteScotland campaign included a programme of public information encouraging people to stand during September 2006.

3.36 Roughly half of unsuccessful candidates (49.7%) said they were aware of any public information designed to encourage people to stand for election, although the majority of these (79%) said it had no effect at all on their decision to stand. This tells us little however, since the adverts were targeted at people who would not have considered standing before, whereas over half of the unsuccessful candidates had stood previously. Of those who had not stood previously, 43.4% stated that they were aware of the information. Of these 30.8% said that it influenced their decision to stand "A little" or "A lot", but the majority said it had no impact at all.

3.37 Analysis of unsuccessful candidate data suggests that the public information had a largely similar effect across different age groups (with perhaps a slightly higher effect on the age group 18-24), and actually encouraged more men to stand than women. Independents formed 60.0% of unsuccessful candidates who were encouraged 'A lot' by the campaign, and 51.5% of those who were encouraged 'A little' ²².

3.38 Councillors were more aware of the campaign, as 70.9% knew of the public information, compared to 49.7% of unsuccessful candidates. Awareness was higher among councillors who had served a previous term than those who had not sat as a councillor before (76.3% to 64.5% respectively).

3.39 The question of whether the campaign influenced their decision to stand was asked in a different manner, as this reason was included as an option alongside the other possible motivations for standing. In this case, only 1.5% of councillors included it as a contributing factor, and none included it as the sole reason causing them to seek election. The percentages of male and female councillors including this as a factor for standing were similar (1.4% for men and 1.8% for women). Independents formed the highest percentage (45.5%) of those who were encouraged to stand by the campaign.

3.40 This finding may be explained by the fact that the timing of the campaign was such that the main political parties would have already started or finished their selection process, so only prospective Independent and some small party candidates would have been able to act on the public information without already being involved in politics (which is not to say that under these circumstances it could not have been a contributory factor). Given that Independents formed 25.9% of unsuccessful candidates the fact that the information campaign influenced the decision to stand of 30.8% of those who were aware of it indicates that the campaign was reasonably successful.

The Voters

3.41 This report, focussing as it does on the views of local government candidates, has discussed issues relating to widening access to local government membership largely from the perspective of who parties select to field as candidates and for whom the role of councillor is attractive and therefore who chooses or is chosen to stand for election. The other side of the widening access 'coin' are the voters and who they choose to vote for from those presented on the ballot paper. A detailed examination of voter behaviour was not the remit of this report but some issues pertinent to the report's overall findings are summarised below.

3.42 It was hoped that the new proportional method of voting would give voters a greater incentive to vote due to the lower likelihood of the result being a foregone conclusion with many votes 'wasted', and that this would therefore lead to higher turnout.

3.43 The move to multi-member wards meant that voters were certainly provided with more options than in previous elections as shown in Table 30. In previous elections, under first past the post, parties needed at least 1,222 candidates to be able to contest all 1,222 wards. Under STV the number of wards has reduced to 353 so only this number of candidates are needed to be able to contest every ward. As a result, while the overall number of candidates has decreased significantly (as discussed elsewhere in this report), the percentage of wards contested by each party has increased across the board, meaning that voters in many wards had opportunity/ies to vote for their preferred party/ies that they may not have had in previous elections.

Table 30 Percentage of wards contested by each party, 1999 - 2007 (%)

Note to table
Source: Bochel & Denver, 1999, 2003 and 2007.

3.44 Turnout did increase from 49.6% in 2003 to 53.8% ²³ in 2007, however, this figure was lower than turnout in 1999 (58.1%) and the increase is also widely attributed to the marginality of the Scottish Parliament elections held on the same day as opposed to the introduction of STV²⁴, although this point is debatable. It is clear from other research that wider public awareness of STV prior to the 2007 election was low and, perhaps because of this, its potential benefits for democratic representation did not lead to any significant improvement in participation in terms of voter turnout on this occasion. Indeed the Scottish Election Study post-election survey found that slightly more respondents (9%) said that STV made them less likely to vote than said it made them more likely (7%) with the rest saying that it made no difference ²⁵.

3.45 The STV voting system did not appear to cause voters undue problems in terms of being able to successfully cast their vote. The percentage of rejected ballots was significant in that it was more than double that of previous years at 1.83% as compared with 0.77% in 2003 and 0.59% in 1999. This was, however, still considerably lower than the rate of rejection of Parliamentary ballot papers and might not be considered too unreasonable for an entirely new system of voting. Bochel and Denver (2007) provide figures for comparison from Ireland, where STV has been used since the 1920s. In the 2007 Irish General Election a mean of 0.99% of ballots were rejected in eleven Dublin constituencies.

3.46 The data suggest that voters are almost equally likely to vote for women, where they are available to vote for, as men. Table 3 earlier in this report showed the percentage of male and female candidates elected in 1999, 2003 and 2007 showing that the gap between the proportion of men and women elected has narrowed to 47.5% and 44.9% respectively in 2007. This suggests that it is the limited availability of female candidates to vote for that is constraining their representation in local government and not a preference on the part of voters to elect male candidates. Further research would, however, be required to explore this issue in more detail before any firm conclusions could be drawn.

Chapter Summary

• The most common reasons for standing for election selected by both councillors and unsuccessful candidates were 'interest in community' and 'to improve services and/or the local area'.
• Only 4.2% of unsuccessful candidates were very confident of winning the seats, while a further 32% were quite confident.
• Among both unsuccessful candidates and councillors, large proportions felt that the position of candidates' names on the ballot papers affected the number of votes they received. The perceptions of candidates around 'alphabetical' voting appear to be borne out by analysis undertaken by Bochel & Denver (2007, p.9), which demonstrated that coming early in the ballot paper was a significant advantage in terms of gaining first preference votes.
• High percentages of unsuccessful candidates (81%) and councillors (96%) attended the count. Many felt that they had not received enough information regarding the process and/or an adequate explanation of the results. This was particularly the case for more experienced candidates, perhaps due to the changes in the electoral system.
• Despite being unsuccessful, 60% of candidates stated that they will definitely or probably seek election in the future. Female unsuccessful candidates are less likely to intend to stand again than their male counterparts. Unsuccessful candidates from Labour and SNP were more likely to rule out standing again than those from other parties.

« Previous | Contents | Next »