An Opposing View of Scotland's Ballot Paper Problem; Arbuthnott and the Government Had the Right Idea

7/28/2019 An Opposing View of Scotland's Ballot Paper Problem; Arbuthnott and the Government Had the Right Idea

1/9

An Opposing View of Scotland's BallotPaper Problem: Arbuthnott and the

Government had the Right IdeaTH OMAS CARL LUN DBERG

Introduction: Scotland's ballotpaper problem

On 3 May 2007, the third Scottish Parlia-ment election since devolution used adierent ballot format from the oneused in the previous elections. In 1999and 2003, Scottish voters used two dier-ent ballot papers, each requiring one vote,when using the mixed-member propor-tional (MMP) system to elect their parlia-ment. One vote elects the candidate in asingle-member constituency with themost support (a plurality), while anothervote elects seven candidates from polit-

ical party lists in each of Scotland's eightelectoral regions in a proportional way,taking each region's constituency win-ners into account when allocating theseven seats. This compensatory mixed-member electoral system (also used toelect the National Assembly for Walesand the London Assembly) is based onthat used to elect the German Bundestag(and most state parliaments in that fed-

eral country) since the late 1940s, as wellas New Zealand's House of Represen-tatives since 1996.

German and New Zealand voters,however, cast their both their constitu-ency and party list votes on a single ballotpaper, as is the case in most places thatuse MMP. In 2007, Scottish voters did thesame, but `rejected' ballots constitutedover 4 per cent of the total, compared to

less than 0.7 per cent at the 2003 election.1

The media condemned the `chaos' sur-rounding the election, and an inquiry

looked into the problems associatedwith not only the ballots, but also theelectronic counting system used in Scot-land for the rst time, the tight adminis-trative schedule for making these changesand the fragmented nature of electoraladministration in the United Kingdom.The Gould Report to the UK's ElectoralCommission recommended a return tothe two separate ballot papers of previouselections, while the Arbuthnott Commis-sion, charged by the UK Secretary of Statefor Scotland with examining the implica-tions of Scotland's various constituency

boundaries and its four dierent electoral

systems, in 2006 advocated a single, two-vote ballot paper.2 This change wasrecommended in order to prevent mis-understandings about what the two voteswere forhow each contributed to theelection of Members of the Scottish Par-liament (MSPs)as well as to avoid thenotion that party-list-elected MSPs, pre-viously elected by the `second' vote, had asecond-class status.3

Reverting to two separate ballotpapers, as recommended by the GouldReport and accepted by Des Browne,Secretary of State for Scotland, is notlikely to enhance voters' understandingof how MMP works. Indeed, at the core ofthis `ballot paper problem' lies a deeperproblem: understanding that MMP is aform of proportional representation. Theparochial British name for MMP, the

additional member system (AMS),reects (and exacerbates) the misunder-standings surrounding the Scottish

# The Author 2008. Journal compilation # The Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd. 2008Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 569

The Political Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 4, OctoberDecember 2008


2/9

Parliament's electoral system. Whilethere certainly were diculties with theMay 2007 election, the extent of the prob-lem was exaggerated in the British media.Ultimately, only the most supercialaspects of the problem have been dealt

with via abolition of the two-vote ballotpaper, which goes against the Arbuthnottrecommendation. This `quick x' mayreduce the number of invalid votes, butat the price of future confusion unlesspublic education improves signicantly,not least by explaining that the electoralsystem is proportional.

The British media and Scottishelection `chaos'

The Scottish Parliament election of 2007should be known for the historic victoryof the Scottish National party (SNP),which managed to form a minority gov-ernment after beating its main rival, theScottish Labour party, by one seat.Instead, much of the media coveragefocused on stories of electoral `chaos' inScotland. `Review under way on votingchaos' was the BBC News Online head-line.4 The (UK) Press Association wrote:`Scotland: Poll hit by ballot chaos.'5 Someobservers, like Mike Dailly of the GovanLaw Centre, claimed that voters had been`denied democracy' and that Scottishdemocracy was `in crisis', while SNPleader Alex Salmond said that he wouldlaunch an inquiry that would `be charged

with laying bare the outrage of why over100,000 Scots were denied their demo-cratic voice'.6

It is true that many voters apparentlyhad problems with how to vote. As notedabove, there was a much higher numberof invalid ballots at this election, althoughsloppy reporting makes this problemappear worse than it was. While thenumber of rejected votes was well over

the 100,000 estimated in the immediateaftermath of the election, at 146,099, thisnumber represents votes, not voters.7

Much of the election coverage, as wellas the Gould Report itself, confusinglyuses the term `ballot paper' to mean asingle vote, rather than a sheet of paper.This is very problematic when the mixed-member electoral system, as used in Scot-

land in 2007, employs two votes on thesame ballot paper (or `sheet', in Gould'sterminology). Voters had two votes to becast in two dierent columns on the sameballot paper, so the actual number ofvoters casting rejected votes was farlower than 146,099. There were 60,455regional (party list) votes rejected (2.88per cent of the total) and 85,644 rejectedconstituency votes (4.08 per cent); in 2003,

only 0.65 per cent of regional and 0.66 percent of constituency votes were rejected.8

The report later states that among `96% ofthe parliamentary ballot papers counted,the voter cast a valid vote on both theregional ballot paper [sic] and the consti-tuency ballot paper [sic]', revealing thatabout 4 per cent of voters cast at least oneinvalid vote.9

Comparisons can made with otherplaces that use MMP with a single ballotpaper for both votes (Table 1). The Lon-don Assembly used MMP with a single

ballot for the constituency vote (on theleft) and the London-wide regional vote(on the right) in its 2000 and 2004 elec-tions. In 2000, 5.0 per cent of London-wide votes and 9.2 per cent of con-stituency votes were invalid, while in2004, this dropped to 2.5 and 6.2 percent, respectively.10 Not content with

this improvement, however, Londonswitched to two separate ballot papersfor the 2008 Assembly elections with yetmore reduction in invalid votes (1.7 and2.0 per cent, respectively).11 Germany, therst contemporary example of MMP (dat-ing back to the late 1940s, with two-voteballots in use from the 1950s at the federallevel), puts the constituency (`rst') voteon the left, with the party list (`second')

vote on the right. This is the reverse ofScotland's 2007 ballot, but the same aswhat was done in London's rst two

570 T h o m a s C a r l L u n d b e r g

The Political Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 4 # The Author 2008. Journal compilation # The Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd. 2008


3/9

elections. In the last German Bundestag(federal) election in 2005, 1.6 per cent ofparty list votes and 1.8 per cent of con-stituency votes were invalid.12 In NewZealand, a two-vote ballot (with the partylist vote on the left and the constituency

vote on the right) has been used sinceMMP replaced single-member plurality(`rst-past-the-post') in 1996. Results13

show that in 1996, 0.39 per cent of partylist votes and 0.91 per cent of the consti-tuency votes were invalid, and there wasan increase at the 1999 election to 0.95 percent of the party list votes and 1.82 percent of the constituency votes. The 2002election, however, saw a drop in invalid

votes to 0.42 per cent for party list and1.31 per cent of constituency votes, whilethe 2005 election saw a similar result of0.46 and 1.10 per cent, respectively.

Aside from the lower level of invalidvotes than seen in Scotland's 2007 elec-tion, the above results show a higherinvalid vote on the constituency side ofthe ballot paper, regardless of whetherthis is on the left or the right. Thispattern could indicate that contrary tonot understanding the electoral system,voters actually do understand that pro-portional representation means that theirvotes are more likely than in a major-

itarian system to elect someone; this iswhat political scientists would call`rational behaviour'.14 Furthermore, sup-porters of minor parties that do notnominate candidates in constituencyraces might not vote for any of the less

numerous constituency candidates. InLesotho, which rst used MMP in 2002after switching from single-memberplurality elections, two single-vote

ballots were used, with the rst beingthe constituency vote (as in Scotland

before 2007). Here, despite the separateballot papers, there were more invalidvotes on the constituency (3.2 per cent)than party list (2.1 per cent) balloting;

researchers suggest that because only thetwo largest parties nominated can-didates in all constituencies, `electorswho would otherwise have voted for aminority party chose not to cast a votefor the constituency seat, yet voted fortheir favoured party in the PR election'.15

Therefore, in Scotland, at least somevoters who abstained in the constituencyvote might have known how the systemworks, and abstained because they weresupporters of smaller parties that did notnominate constituency candidates, orwhose candidates did not have a chanceof winning.

A n O p p o s i n g V i e w o f S c o t l a n d ' s B a l l o t P a p e r P r o b l e m 571

# The Author 2008. Journal compilation # The Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd. 2008 The Political Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 4

Table 1: Invalid votes at recent MMP elections

Location and year Party list (%) Constituency (%)

Scottish Parliament 2003* 0.65 0.66Scottish Parliament 2007 2.88 4.08London Assembly 2000** 5.00 9.20London Assembly 2004** 2.50 6.20London Assembly 2008* 1.70 2.00German Bundestag 2005** 1.60 1.80New Zealand Parliament 1996 0.39 0.91New Zealand Parliament 1999 0.95 1.82New Zealand Parliament 2002 0.42 1.31New Zealand Parliament 2005 0.46 1.10Lesotho 2002* 2.10 3.20

Notes: * Two separate ballot papers; all others used two columns on a single paper. ** Constituency vote onthe left; other two-vote papers had constituency vote on right.


4/9

Two-vote MMP ballots

The Gould Report, however, blames thetwo-vote ballot for confusing voters,claiming that `there is strong evidencethat the combined Scottish parliamentary

ballot sheet was primarily responsible for

the high level of rejected ballot papers'.16

The evidence cited consists of its analysisof the roughly 4 per cent of voters whohad one or both votes rejected, of whichmost (75 per cent) cast only one vote; theremainder cast two votes in one column,or otherwise invalidated their ballots.17

The report suggests three possible ex-planations for why voters would notcast both of their votes: deliberate absten-

tion; unawareness of the fact that theyhad two votes; and confusion arisingfrom the presence of some people'snames (including Alex Salmond andTommy Sheridan, leaders of their re-spective parties) on the regional side ofthe ballot, rather than just parties'names.18 The report makes a brief refer-ence to academic work by researchers atStrathclyde University showing that in

the Glasgow and Lothians electoralregions, higher levels of social depriva-tion, coupled with a longer list of partiesin the regional column, making the ballotmore dicult to read, might explain thehigher amount of invalid votes there.19

Otherwise, there is no signicant analysisto back up the report's assertion that ìtwas clear that voters were particularlyconfused by the combined Scottish par-

liamentary ballot sheet'.20

The Gould Report, furthermore, pointsto what was considered inadequateresearch into what kind of ballot layoutvoters would understand, saying that `theprimary focus must be on producing a

ballot paper that meets the needs ofvoters rather than the political or tech-nical preferences of those involved inimplementing the election'.21 Indeed, the

authors actually blame à notable level ofparty self interest evident in Ministerialdecision-making' for the problems asso-

ciated with the ballot papers',22 conclud-ing that `the voter was treated as anafterthought by virtually all the otherstakeholders'.23 The report says very littleabout why the Arbuthnott Commissionrecommended the two-vote ballot paper

(one sentence: `to better reect the wayAMS [sic] works'24), yet the Com-mission's reasoning behind its recom-mendation is very important.

The Arbuthnott Commission describesthe Scottish Parliament's electoral systemas à form of mixed member proportionalsystem which combines the election ofconstituency candidates with a vote fora party', pointing out that the ocial

government label àdditional membersystem' is àn unhelpful term which sug-gests that regional members are `àddedon''. A more accurate description is``mixed member proportional system'',as used in New Zealand.'25 The Commis-sion is right to criticise the use of the termàdditional member system': it is paro-chial, misleading and value-laden. Theterm is only used in Britain; it is notused elsewhere in the world, despite theuse of mixed-member electoral systemsin a number of countries. The vast major-ity of electoral systems experts use theterm `mixed-member proportional', rstcoined in New Zealand, to refer to mixed-member electoral systems that achieve anoverall outcome on a partisan basis that isproportional to the party vote.26 Manymixed-member electoral systems do notcompensate on a partisan basis for dis-

proportionality resulting from the consti-tuency races; these semi-proportionalsystems are called `mixed-member major-itarian' (MMM) in most literature,27 or`parallel', in reference to how most ofthem set up the two tiers of candidatesin the election.28 The term ÀMS' does notdistinguish between MMP and MMM,yet the former is a proportional system,while the latter is not. Finally, ÀMS' is a

value-laden term because, as the Arbuth-nott Commission notes above, it suggeststhat party list-elected members of assem-




5/9

blies using mixed-member systems areadded on to the ranks of the traditional,constituency-elected members morefamiliar in the British context. This label-ling could enhance the potential for partylist-elected members of these assemblies

to experience legitimacy problems.29

Terminology is not a trivial issue to theArbuthnott Commission, which con-demns how Scotland's electoral system`is portrayed as an adaptation of the rstpast the post [single-member plurality]system. We do not think this helps thepublic and elected representatives tounderstand or adjust to the new system',citing approvingly how the New Zealand

Electoral Commission describes MMP `asa completely new system'.30 The Com-mission reports with concern that publicknowledge of the system actually slippedas revealed in knowledge quizzes admi-nistered in survey research, particularlyregarding the purpose of the two votes;perhaps most alarming is that less than aquarter of respondents understood thatthe regional vote is meant to make theoutcome as proportional as possible.31

Therefore, the Commission also recom-mends32 referring to the two votes as`constituency vote' instead of `rst vote',and `regional vote' instead of `secondvote' (which implies it could be a secondpreference or of lesser value), and rede-signing the ballot paper to reinforce thefunctions of the two votes, using the NewZealand two-vote ballot paper, with theparty vote on the left and the constitu-

ency vote on the right, as its model.33

Most MMP systems use a single ballotpaper with two votes, while MMM sys-tems tend to use two separate ballots.Arguably, this distinction is in keepingwith the logic of the principle of represen-tation, which is that of proportional rep-resentation in MMP, and that of `dilutedmajoritarianism' in MMM. In MMP elec-tions, the party vote has primacy, with

the constituency vote acting as a way topersonalise local representation (indeed,in Germany the system is called `per-

sonalised proportional representation').Germany uses MMP heavily, both in itsfederal parliament, the Bundestag, aswell as in 13 of its 16 state parliaments(Landtage), where ten of those 13 usetwo-vote ballots for MMP.34 The German

approach is to put the constituency voteon the left side, calling it the `rst vote',while the party list vote (`second vote') isplaced in the right-hand column. Thisplacement was rejected when New Zeal-and introduced MMP using the reverseorder to avoid confusion over the import-ance of each vote in the determination ofeach party's total seats in parliament.

Some British journalists suspected that

the new Scottish Parliament ballot formatwas not introduced to clarify the role ofeach vote in determining seats, but forpartisan political advantage. The BBC'sBrian Taylor wrote this in his blog on theBBC website:

The big parties knew what was happeningwhen the regional and constituency voteswere lumped together. It was designed toditch the Greens and the SSP, to end theimpression that the regional vote was a `sec-ond choice', a chance to take a risk. They knewwhat was happeningand they acquiesced.(Incidentally, it worked.)35

Realistically, it would be nave not toexpect that parties would try to inuencea process of electoral system reform intheir favour. The United Kingdom'sLabour government, ultimately respons-ible for changes to the Scottish Parliament

electoral system, defended itself, how-ever, with the then Secretary of State forScotland, Douglas Alexander, saying:

With changes taking place and the complexityof voting systems we should be making thevoting process as straight forward as possi-

ble. All the voter should have to think about iswhich party's policies meet theirwishes. They shouldn't have to worry abouthow to ll out the ballot paper. That is why Iwant a single ballot paper for the ScottishParliament electionsremoving any confu-sion that a vote on the regional list is lessimportant, or a second choice.36




6/9

It is likely that Alexander is referring tothe suspicion, supported by researchcited above,37 that some voters were cast-ing their `second votes' for second prefer-ences. Vote splitting at ScottishParliament elections increased from 20

to 28 per cent, according to survey evi-dence.38 While some vote splitters mightnot realise the importance of the partyvote, others, however, might know verywell how the system works: in someplaces, vote-splitting is a rational action

because large parties (like Labour) willwin so many seats from constituencyraces that they will not be eligible forregional seats, so supporters would eec-

tively be `wasting' their regional votes onthem.39

Whether Labour voters were morelikely to desert their party when castingthe second vote is hard to establish since2003 election results show a decline insupport when compared to 1999 for bothLabour and the SNP, and both big parties,plus the Liberal Democrats and the Con-servatives, do better in constituencyraces.40 When consulted about plans tochange the ballot paper format, most ofthe larger partiesLabour, the SNP andthe Liberal Democratssupported achange to the two-vote format proposed

by the Arbuthnott Commission.41 Critics(like Taylor, above) might argue that thelarger parties wanted to thwart the eortsof smaller parties like the Greens, whoused a `Second Vote Green' strategy priorto 2007.42 The Scottish Greens wanted any

change to a two-vote ballot format to putthe regional vote second, on the right-hand side of the ballot paper.43 Greensin Scotland might have been imitating theGerman Free Democratic partya smallparty that for years relied upon an expli-cit `second vote' campaign strategy.44

Whether voters' likelihood to split theirvotes for such reasons, however, `is theresult of confusion or sophistication is far

from clear', according to John Curtice.45Some voters might split their votes

because they are casting a personal vote

for a constituency candidate while votingfor their preferred (and dierent) party'slist. In any event, vote splitting is notdiscouraged by a two-vote ballot paper,as evidence from elsewhere shows. InGermany, vote splitting increased in the

1980s and 1990s, with 20 per cent of thevoters splitting their votes in the 1998election,46 while in New Zealand, 39 percent of voters in the 2002 election splittheir votes, dropping to nearly 29 per centin 2005.47

Education about MMP

While some Scottish voters had the know-

ledge of MMP to enable them to makesophisticated choices, others did not. Thepublic education eort, conducted by theScottish branch of the UK Electoral Com-mission, did not stress the importanceand purpose of the two votes used inthe Scottish Parliament's MMP system.Leaets distributed to households didmention proportional representation,saying that in parliamentary and councilelections, `the number of seats given toparties and individuals aims to reecttheir share of the overall votes cast'.48

The illustration of the two-vote ballot,however, was geared towards showingvoters how to ll it in, and said nothingabout the role of the two votes in theprocess of achieving proportional repre-sentation.

It appears that the Electoral Commis-sion ignored focus group research con-

ducted before the 2007 election in whichparticipants `felt that there was danger inattempting to explain the complexities ofthe voting systems in too much depth',preferring `a highly simplied explan-ation of the systems, focusing on theprocess [of] voting rather than concen-trating on the detail of how the votesare counted'.49 The `VoteScotland' web-site information50 focused on how MMP

votes are calculated (in some detail) andtranslated into seats, rather than simplystating that the regional vote is very




7/9

important in determining (with the con-stituency vote) the overall outcome of theelection on a partisan basis. The Commis-sion admits that its `2006 survey alsoshows that over three-quarters of respon-dents do not know which voting systems

are used in the Scottish Parliamentaryand local council elections',51 and reportsthat focus group ndings suggested that`confusion among voters would be likelyto lead to spoiled ballot papers',52 fore-shadowing what actually happened inthe May 2007 election. Confusion was sosevere during the run-up to the electionthat researchers found, in the third andnal wave of their study (directly after

the election), that 62 per cent of respon-dents believed there was a new `system ofvoting' in place for Scottish Parliamentelections, an increase from the prior twowaves of the study, in which less than 30per cent believed this false statement.53

This confusion existed despite a massiveamount of advertising on television andradio, in newspapers and by post, as wellas via road shows and events.

The contrast between the Scottish andthe New Zealand approach to voter edu-cation could not be clearer. The NewZealand Electoral Commission's literat-ure and advertising54 emphasise the pur-pose of the two votes, with a `Two Ticks,Too Easy' approach: `Your party votehelps decide how many seats each partygets in parliament' and `Your electorate[constituency] vote helps decide whobecomes your local MP [Member of Par-

liament]'. While MMP in New Zealand issomewhat dierent from MMP in Scot-land, clearly stating at the outset what thevotes are for, followed by something likethe New Zealand Electoral Commission'sstatement `How do party votes turn intoseats? Parties getting seats will get a shareof seats in parliament close to their shareof party votes' would describe the situ-ation in Scotland well enough if modied

to refer to regions, without being toocomplicated for voters to understand.The far lower number of invalid votes in

New Zealand should demonstrate clearlythat it is possible to use a two-vote ballotpaper successfully.

In fact, the Scotland Oce initiallyproposed a ballot paper design remark-ably similar to that used in New Zeal-

and.55

Versions were tested in focusgroup research56 and the favoured designwas almost identical to the New Zealandmodel, complete with an explanation ofwhat the two voters were for at the top (afeature of German ballot papers as well).Researchers also reported that `the over-all preference was for a single combined

ballot paper rather than two separatepapers'.57 The outcome of the Scotland

Oce's consultation on the ballot paperalso found that the `overwhelming viewof those responding was there should bea single ballot paper',58 although in theprocess of consultation, the original NewZealand-style design was altered so thatthe explanation of the two votes' signic-ance was lost.

Conclusion

Public knowledge of the ScottishParliament's electoral system appears to

be inadequate. While some of those whocast `rejected' votes might have deliber-ately abstained, knowing full well howthe electoral system works, the higherrate of rejection in areas of socioeconomicdeprivation suggests that education wasan important factor. The ElectoralCommission's outreach eorts should

have attempted to explain, in clear ter-minology, how MMP works, and thisshould have been one of its highest prior-ities. The New Zealand ElectoralCommission's example, along with thetwo-vote ballot, demonstrate that MMPis a proportional systema fact notentirely clear to many Scots. Using correctterminology would be a good start; theterm `AMS' should be ditched and

replaced with `MMP' as soon as possible,as the Arbuthnott Commission recom-mended. The Electoral Commission




8/9

could do this now; the Scotland Oce'sreaction to Arbuthnott's recommendationleft it up to the Electoral Commission toact,59 yet has only adopted the terms`regional vote' and `constituency' votethus far. Whether these changes will

withstand the onslaught of `rst vote'and `second vote', when single-vote bal-lots are re-introduced, remains to be seen.

The reversion to two separate ballotsmay reduce the level of invalid votes, asappeared to be the case in London, but itwill do nothing to increase actual under-standing of how MMP operates. Indeed,this `dumbing down' of the process couldfurther promote the false notion that

there are two distinct electoral systemsoperating in parallel. The apparent fear oflabelling MMP properly, as a propor-tional system, is hard to justify. Supportfor the principle of using proportionalrepresentation to elect the Scottish Parlia-ment was expressed in opinion researchin both 1999 and 2003: 66 and 59 per centof respondents, respectively, agreed orstrongly agreed.60 `Truth in advertising'might help the eorts to improve citizenengagement with the political system inScotland.

Notes

1 R. Gould, Scottish Elections 2007: The Inde-pendent Review of the Scottish Parliamentaryand Local Government Elections, Edinburgh,Electoral Commission, 2007, p. 7.

2 J. Arbuthnott, Putting Citizens First: Bound-

aries, Voting and Representation in Scotland:Report of the Commission on Boundary Dif-

ferences and Voting Systems, Edinburgh,The Stationery Oce, 2006, p. 42.

3 Arbuthnott, Putting Citizens First, p. 41.4 BBC News, `Review under way on voting

chaos', 4 May 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6623287.stm

5 Press Association, `Scotland: Poll hit byballot chaos', The Independent online edn,4 May 2007, http://www.independent.-co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-poll-hit-by-ballot-chaos-447402.html

6 BBC News, `Holyrood vote may face chal-

lenges', 6 May 2007, http://news.-bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6629093.stm

7 Gould, Scottish Elections 2007, p. 7.8 Gould, Scottish Elections 2007, p. 7.9 Gould, Scottish Elections 2007, p. 49.

10 Elections Review Committee, Greater Lon-don Authority Elections: A Report from the

2004 Elections Review Committee, London,Greater London Authority, 2004, p. 24.

11 London Elects, Election Results, London,Greater London Authority, 2008, http://results.londonelects.org.uk/Results/AssemblyResults.aspx

12 Federal Returning Ocer (Germany),Final Result of the Bundestag Election 2005,http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/

bundestagswahl2005/ergebnisse/bundesergebnisse/b_tabelle_99.html

13 Chief Electoral Oce (New Zealand), NewZealand Election Results, Wellington, Min-istry of Justice, 1996, http://www.electionresults.govt.nz

14 See M. Duverger, Political Parties: TheirOrganization and Activity in the ModernState, London, Methuen, 1959; G. Cox,

Making Voters Count: Strategic Coordinationin the World's Electoral Systems, Cambridge,Cambridge University Press, 1997.

15 R. Fox and R. Southall, `The general elec-

tion in Lesotho, May 2002: Adapting toMMP', Electoral Studies, vol. 23, 2004,pp. 54571, cited on p. 548.

16 Gould, Scottish elections 2007, p. 59.17 Gould, Scottish elections 2007, p. 50.18 Gould, Scottish elections 2007, p. 51.19 Gould, Scottish elections 2007, p. 53.20 Gould, Scottish elections 2007, p. 59.21 Gould, Scottish elections 2007, p. 58.22 Gould, Scottish elections 2007, p. 17.23 Gould, Scottish elections 2007, p. 120.

24 Gould, Scottish elections 2007, p. 39.25 Arbuthnott, Putting Citizens First, p. 30.26 T. C. Lundberg, Proportional Representation

and the Constituency Role in Britain, Basing-stoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, p. 2.

27 M. S. Shugart and M. P. Wattenberg,Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Bestof Both Worlds?, Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress, 2003.

28 A. Reynolds, B. Reilly and A. Ellis, Elec-toral System Design: The New InternationalIDEA Handbook, Stockholm, InternationalIDEA, 2005.

29 Lundberg, Proportional Representation, p. 3.




9/9

30 Arbuthnott, Putting Citizens First, p. 41.31 Arbuthnott, Putting Citizens First, p. 32.32 Arbuthnott, Putting Citizens First, p. 41.33 Arbuthnott, Putting Citizens First, p. 42.34 L. Massicotte, `To create or to copy? Elec-

toral systems in the German Lander', Ger-man Politics, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003, pp. 122.

35 B. Taylor, `Gie's peace!'. The Reporters:Blether with Brian, 24 October 2007,http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2007/10/gies_peace.html

36 Scotland Oce, `E-counting to be used in2007 elections', 9 June 2006, http://www.scotlandoce.gov.uk/our-commu-nications/release.php?id=3530

37 Arbuthnott, Putting Citizens First, p. 32.38 J. Curtice, `Proportional representation in

Scotland: Public reaction and voter behav-iour', Representation, vol. 40, no. 4, 2004,pp. 33042, cited on p. 337.

39 Curtice, `Proportional representation inScotland', p. 339.


41 BBC News, `Parties backed single ballotplan', 8 May 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/scotland/6634577.stm

42 G. Corbett, `Scotland's election results',

GreenWorld, no. 57, Summer, 2007, p. 7.43 BBC News, `Parties backed single ballot

plan'.44 G. K. Roberts, `The ``second-vote'' cam-

paign strategy of the West German FreeDemocratic Party', European Journal ofPolitical Research, vol. 16, 1988, pp. 31737.


46 F. U. Pappi and P. W. Thurner, `Electoralbehaviour in a two-vote system: Incentives

for ticket splitting in German Bundestagelections', European Journal of PoliticalResearch, vol. 41, no. 2, 2002, pp. 20732,cited on p. 208.

47 Chief Electoral Oce (New Zealand), Elec-tion Results.

48 Electoral Commission (UK), Your Vote andHow to use It, Edinburgh, Electoral Com-mission, 2007.

49 Electoral Commission (UK), ScotlandPollPosition: Public Attitudes towards ScottishParliamentary and Local Government Elec-tions (Research Report), London, ElectoralCommission, 2006, p. 49.

50 Electoral Commission (UK), VoteScotlandwebsite, 2007, http://www.votescotland.-

com51 Electoral Commission (UK), ScotlandPoll

Position, p. 43.52 Electoral Commission (UK), ScotlandPoll

Position, p. 44.53 TNS System Three, VoteScotland Campaign

Evaluation 2007 Report, Edinburgh, SocialResearch, Scottish Government, 2007, p. 17,http://www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

53 Electoral Commission (New Zealand),

Two Ticks? Too Easy!MMP Basics,http://www.elections.org.nz/mmp/two_ticks_too_easy.html

54 Scotland Oce, Scottish Parliament Elec-tions May 2007: Ballot Paper Design (Con-sultation Document), June 2006, http://www.scotlandoce.gov.uk/uploads/Consultation%20Document.pdf

56 Cragg Ross Dawson, Ballot Paper Designsfor Scottish Parliament Elections 2007: Qual-itative Research Report Prepared for ElectoralCommission, Edinburgh, Electoral Com-mission (UK), 2006, p. 19.

57 Cragg Ross Dawson, Ballot Paper Designs,p. 12.

58 Scotland Oce, `Douglas Alexanderannounces 1 page ballot paper for Mayelections and new anti-fraud steps', 22November 2006, http://www.scotlandoce.gov.uk/our-communications/release.php?id=3561

59 Scotland Oce, `Response by the Secre-tary of State for Scotland to the Report ofthe Commission on Boundary Dierencesand Voting Systems (Arbuthnott Commis-sion)', 23 January 2007, http://www.scotlandoce.gov.uk/our-communications/doc.php?id=79




Documents

An Opposing View of Scotland's Ballot Paper Problem; Arbuthnott and the Government Had the Right Idea