³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

To what extent do we think these spoiled papers might be protest 'votes'? Is this a reasonable explanation for any decent proportion of them?

An expat Brit here in the US... How did the minor parties do - the Greens, The BNP, The UKIP, etc? I am interested in particular in the Greens (whose issues are at the forfront of the political debate for the first time in 25 years) and the BNP who plainly, whether one likes it or not, have been attracting a following...

How can Alex Salmond be in the Scottish Parliament and Westminster at the same time? Can he be an MP and a MSP simultaneously?

Can [Alex Salmond] be an MP and a MSP simultaneously?

Yes, he can - although it's not exactly encouraged, and he has said he will stand down as a Westminster MP at the next general election.

Ian Paisley was an MP, MEP and MLA simultaneously - a triple mandate, so it's not exactly without precedent.

Minority parties won't show until the list votes are counted which will be later than first past the post.

There are no 'spoiled papers' technically they are 'rejected papers' the majority of which are declined on the grounds that the voters intentions are unclear. Currently 'Rejected papers voters are due five seats in the Parliament.

We have a problem.

There's a whole bunch of hoo-ha about these spoiled or unread votes. I'm willing to bet good money that even were they counted, there would be no material difference in the vast majority of seats. It's not like there was only a hundred votes counted in these places - every single one of these counts would comprise a statistically significant sample, even without the spoiled papers. Obviously there would be confidence issues when inferring a result, but only where the winning margin was less than around 150 votes (1% of the sample).

There's a overwhelming ignorance of the statistical (i.e. pratically non-existant) implications re. the validity of the polls because of these spoiled votes.

Very true. The spoiled vote figure is improtant asa a protest vote but clearly in Scotland it is a confusion vote as it's a juge percentage compared to normal.

I'm Irish. Back in 2001 we had an abortion referendum. We had two choices: Yes and No. Simple enoug. However the question was worded in such a way that without the help of the newspapers it was impossible to tell exactly what you were votng for by saying yes or no. The result was 50.42% against 49.58%.

Who know's how many made a choice they did not mean to make?

Ballots have to be clear cut and seen to be as such.

Ithink it most likely that the large proportion of spoiled ballot papers resulted from people being confused about the mechanics of the voting process; especially when 3 different systems were in use on the same day!

When I lived in Northern Ireland I experienced the single transferable vote system for the first time. While it was simple enough to vote - even with 13 candidates on the ballot paper - no-one I asked (all educated people of moderate political views) could explain to me how the votes were eventually allocated.

I finally became convinced that proportional representation, while attractive in theory, is in reality profoundly undemocratic.

If voters cannot or are too lazy to read instructions on how to vote (and they were clearly printed at the top of ballot paper) then they do not deserve a vote.

Rob Kay is himself bewildered.
Those with movement difficulties (such as my wife)have for some years now been able to vote by post, so there is absolutely no reason for voters "struggling down on their crutches and walking frames".
Mr. Kay should have been telling them about how to vote by post; and there was also the proxy vote possible in some instances. Once you are on the postal voting list you don't need to re-register at a new election. It is automatic.
Let's not condemn the election on spurious grounds!

7.5% spoilt ballot papers does not suggest protest votes or the low education level of the electorate of Scotland, let's not be elitist and suggest that lesser educated people are incapable. The real problem is that the electorate are not explained to in simple terms how the system works and how to follow it. Instead of massive handbooks on how to fill out a form (which will de deter people to start with) why isn't the ballot paper simplified to prevent such confusion. The problem is not the electoral system of proportional representation, it works very well in hundreds of other countries. The problem is the fact that this leading nation cannot prepare their electorate, with all the money that goes into campaigns one would think that parties could touch on this. Also, why are different votes put on one form? Let's stop being so pretentious in the way we run everything!

Dear Nick

Does it matter if Cameron gets in, "what is the differnce between a Blair Thatcherite, and a Cameron Thatcherite, define the differnt party,"? one thing is for certain if Brown becomes Prime Minister, and i truly hope He does not, then Stalinism is back with a vengence.