Premium
An Opposing View of Scotland's Ballot Paper Problem: Arbuthnott and the Government had the Right Idea
Author(s) -
LUNDBERG THOMAS CARL
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
the political quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.373
H-Index - 37
eISSN - 1467-923X
pISSN - 0032-3179
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-923x.2008.00957.x
Subject(s) - ballot , parliament , spoilt vote , confusion , political science , contingent vote , commission , government (linguistics) , public administration , voting , law , law and economics , public economics , economics , group voting ticket , politics , psychology , linguistics , philosophy , psychoanalysis
The May 2007 Scottish Parliament election used a different ballot format from the one used in the previous elections, one that combined the regional and constituency votes onto one ballot paper (two separate papers were used before). Because there were many more invalid votes in 2007, the problem was blamed on the two‐vote ballot paper, which was recommended by the Arbuthnott Commission to prevent misunderstandings about what the two votes were for. Other places that use the mixed‐member proportional (MMP) electoral system tend to use a two‐vote ballot paper, with Germany and New Zealand seeing low levels of invalid votes. While the decision to revert to two separate papers in future Scottish Parliament elections might reduce the number of invalid votes, the price could be more confusion about the proportional nature of the electoral system unless public education improves significantly.