The big news in today’s Scotland on Sunday is that the results of the Holyrood election may not be with us until the Friday or Saturday. Reaction to this news will no doubt range from ‘couldn’t care less’ to the apoplectic.
I have to admit, I am camped quite firmly in the former category, despite being a huge fan of the thrills and spills of election night. It seems downright inhumane to expect returning officers to run two votes in the one day and then push on into the small hours to produce a result that can wait until the next day. Furthermore, waiting that extra day will mean that a more accurate result is counted; rather important given that the 2007 election was won by only 47 votes or so.
A somewhat separate issue is whether this referendum should be held on May 5th at all. On balance, I am not convinced that this is much of an issue either. It is certainly less of a concern than 2015 when the UK General Election will be held around the same time, perhaps even the same day, as the Scottish Parliament election.
Stepping even further back from the question of counting ballots and the date of referendums one may question whether this piece of legislation has had sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. It is easy to forget that it is not just an AV referendum that is being passed here but a significant redrawing of existing constituencies and reduction in the number of MPs, not a decision that should be taken lightly one would have thought.
Now, I can’t say I agree with Lord Foulkes filling the House of Lords with hot air 189 times just to filibuster a piece of legislation that he doesn’t like or fresh-faced Lord McAvoy speaking 77 times on this Bill when he spoke just four words in the House of Commons in four years (source: Lord Rennard at Lib Dem Voice). However, this Bill does seem to come with the rushed rashness that characterises so much of what the coalition is setting out to achieve so a bit of time and a bit of input from across all parties and the full length of the backbenches would not go amiss.
So, if anyone has a fundamental disagreement with the nuts and bolts of the Constituencies Bill then they probably hold a jutified grievance but if someone is moaning about Holyrood losing some of the spotlight in a few months time or having to wait what will probably be less than 24 hours for the final result, I’d have to say they are probably being a bit short-sighted.
#1 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on January 30, 2011 - 5:46 pm
The extra two will give the Nats some time to come to terms with being decisively rejected by the Scottish electorate and
react with some good grace to their humiliation(we hope) also
the Unionists will have stopped partying as well.
#2 by Jeff on January 30, 2011 - 5:51 pm
An insightful comment as ever Sir.
Sorry, make that inciteful.
#3 by James on January 30, 2011 - 5:57 pm
I am one of those “moaning about Holyrood losing some of the spotlight in a few months time”. Our first election was conducted when all the media talked about was the Kosovan situation. Second time round it was in the shadow of Iraq. Last time it was all Blair – will he, won’t he go? I’d really like a Scottish election conducted where the media’s interest had a chance of being on domestic Scottish issues.
And counting Holyrood is much more important than counting AV. We have, as the SoS points out, a legal deadline for electing a First Minister, whereas AV is most likely to be first used in 2015, unless the Lib Dems decide to fall on their swords.
#4 by Jeff on January 30, 2011 - 6:08 pm
My understanding was that it wasn’t the counting of AV votes that would cause the delay but just the fact that there are two elections on the same day and that will cause some delays in itself. So the (more important) Holyrood count can still be first, but it’ll have to wait until the Friday because many workers will effectively be zombies as they do the counting unless they get some kip.
What is it you get, 28 days to elect a First Minister? I think waiting 10-12 hours to begin counting won’t make a crucial difference.
That aside, Scotland wanting to take the whole focus for its election is a bit like the birthday child throwing a strop because someone tried to blow out one of its candles. Holyrood’s 12 years old now, they should be a bit more sanguine about these things by now. A four week campaign will draw out the relevant issues and the world still spins even when the day itself arrives.
#5 by Indy on January 31, 2011 - 9:24 am
That’s nonsense. The only reason that the Scottish Parliament votes would have to be counted on Friday is if they count the AV votes first.
#6 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on January 30, 2011 - 6:02 pm
Jeff
Its in my nature…sorry
#7 by John Ruddy on January 30, 2011 - 6:08 pm
I’m in the “Couldnt care less” section. I for one wasnt looking forward to having to sit in the Reid Hall in Forfar until 5am (or whenever) waiting for the result, after a long day from visiting the polling stations etc.
If it means the votes can be validated properly, and the counting staff are awake and better able to avoid mistakes, all the better.
As for the media spotlight, why should we be bothered about the media spotlight? What are we? So desperate for recognition that we should do something just to get on the telly?
#8 by Jeff on January 30, 2011 - 6:12 pm
I agree John, obviously. Having to attend a count must be brutal enough without it being 5am.
In terms of the media spotlight, Iain Gray had this to say (SoS): “People have the right to know who has won the election as fast as possible. There must be no delay in counting the ballot papers” so it seems LOLITSP is “desperate for recognition” (and feeling pretty confident about being FM at this early stage too).
#9 by NoOffenceAlan on January 30, 2011 - 6:25 pm
It’s more important to get the count done right, rather than quickly.
Does anyone know if they will they be counting (and eventually publishing) the results down to ballot box level, as in 2007?
I hope so, not just because it provides great data for election anoraks like me, but it would highlight any unfeasibly high localised turnouts or vote share. We don’t want any repeats of the Glenrothes situation.
On having the AV referendum on the same day, I am against this because, with Scottish, Welsh and some English local elections being held on the same day, there will be wildly different turnouts across the UK, which in a close result would raise questions of its validity.
#10 by Gaz on January 30, 2011 - 6:48 pm
As the votes will be manually counted the only official data available at ballot box level will be the number of votes cast.
It is a shame – the technology in the counting halls actually worked quite well in 2007 but it got stuffed by the number of spoiled ballots and the communication breakdown between local counts and the regional hubs.
#11 by John Ruddy on January 31, 2011 - 9:33 am
That is a shame, as the detail at ballot box level has been very interesting and informative.
I thought most of the problems last time were put down to there being two different ballot papers, and not because they were counted by machine?
#12 by Doug Daniel on January 31, 2011 - 4:25 pm
Most of the problems were due to people thinking the wording at the top of the Scottish Election ballot (“You have TWO votes”) meant they could vote for more than one candidate, or they got confused because not every party on the list vote had a candidate in the constituency vote, and other things like that. The second ballot paper (the one for the local elections) didn’t really cause as much of the problems as first thought.
As Gaz says, the problem with the machines was that the ballots were spoilt in the first place (“Garbage In, Garbage Out”, as we say in computing circles), although I believe the design of the ballot papers didn’t help matters. But yeah, the machines were not the main factor. It’s just easier to blame machines, since they don’t argue back.
#13 by Lost Highlander on January 30, 2011 - 6:58 pm
Remember how close we came to having the wrong decision in the last election as literally hundreds of those who voted SNP where missed by tired and exhausted election officials. If it had not been for dave thomson we would have had a labour Goverment and the greens an extra MSP.
Getting a correct result matters a lot more than how fast we have a result.
#14 by Chris on January 30, 2011 - 8:24 pm
It’s SoS so it may not be true.
#15 by Observer on January 30, 2011 - 8:35 pm
A practical answer here to sort the problem out is not to vote in the AV referendum. As boycotting this mess of pottage seems a good thing anyway (it would set the cause for REAL electoral reform back a generation if it was passed) then we could kill two birds with one stone.
Boycott it. Give them nothing to count then they can get on with the Scottish boxes.
#16 by Doug Daniel on January 31, 2011 - 2:34 am
My reply was turning epic, so I’ve blogged it in case anyone is interested, but essentially, I think I’m broadly in agreement with you about postponing the count, Jeff. I was thinking it would be a good idea after the 2007 fiasco, especially since various events led to the result not appearing until 5pm the next day anyway. We’d all get a lot more sleep on 5th May if we didn’t have the results to stay up for.
Ideally, I would hold the vote on a Friday or have a post-election holiday, so people can watch the results coming in live at home if they want to. Anyone know why elections MUST be held on Thursdays? It seems almost as daft as those work nights out which always seem to be held on Thursdays, which just encourage people to phone in sick the next day or to spend the day doing no work, thanks to a hangover.
Having said that, I’ll probably be a little bit gutted if I don’t get my fill of politicians hilariously trying to put a positive spin on coming 3rd in a constituency vote when I’m watching TV on the evening of 5th May. I wonder if this will finally be the year to dump the BBC’s coverage for STV’s?
#17 by Indy on January 31, 2011 - 9:21 am
It is inhumane to expect returning officers to run two votes in the one day.
But why does the AV referendum take precedence over electing the next Scottish Government? You are showing a bit of London-centric thinking there I am afraid.
My preference would be to have the Scottish Parliament votes counted first and the AV referendum votes counted second. Why is that so unreasonable? The date of the next scheduled Scottish Parliament election was set in stone before the date of the AV referendum was fixed. It should take priority. Not least because Scottish voters actually care a great deal more about who is going to be in government in Scotland than they do about whether to make a minor adjustment to the way that votes in Westminster elections are counted.
#18 by Jeff on January 31, 2011 - 10:04 am
“But why does the AV referendum take precedence over electing the next Scottish Government?â€
Who says it does Indy? As I’ve said before, the SoS article does not say that the AV referendum will be counted first and I don’t know of any other article saying that will be the case.
The Holyrood election could, and should, be counted first but if managing a referendum and an election on the same day involves more time and effort from returning officers (etc) then why not leave it until the next day, Friday (and count the AV referendum on Saturday/Sunday or whenever).
Far from being a ‘London-centric view’ (childish point to make, incidentally), taking time to get an accurate result makes perfect sense, as most of the commenters on here seem to agree.
Needless to say though, if the hidden story behind all of this is that the AV referendum votes are to be counted first, then I totally agree with you that that would be a disgrace.
#19 by Indy on January 31, 2011 - 11:22 am
You are splitting hairs there. The SoS story says that the problem has arisen because Returning Officers have been instructed to verify all ballot papers – including identifying spoiled ballots – for both the election and the referendum before proceeding to the actual count.
The verification is the biggest part of the count. Possibly you don’t know how the count works though. The first stage is the verification. This is where they empty the ballot boxes and count the papers to ensure that the number of papers in the ballot box matches the number of papers issued. It is at this stage of a parliamentary election manual count that you can see who has won. The papers are then bundled by party – this is the actual “count†part of the process which gives you the number of votes for each candidate – but the verification is also a part of the count. An instruction to verify the AV vote but not count is therefore makes no sense.
There is no reason why holding the referendum on the same day as the parliamentary elections should have an impact on the counting of the parliamentary votes. The management of polling stations and the management of the count are two separate jobs – yes the Returning Officer is in charge of both but the staff are different.
And why is it childish to say that supporting this decision is London-centric? It cannot be anything else because it was a London decision to hold the vote on the same day and it must be a London decision to give the AV count priority.
#20 by Jeff on January 31, 2011 - 11:40 am
Well, I maintain that ‘you live in London, what do you know’ is an argument of last resort, and a weak one at that, but you do know your stuff and make a convincing case.
I understand it is for individual areas to decide so I wonder if the worst result is a half-and-half approach where we get some results on Thursday night/Friday morning and the rest on Friday evening/Saturday.
#21 by Indy on January 31, 2011 - 11:54 am
I wasn’t talking about you personally. I try not to personalise arguments but if you took it that way then I am sorry. I meant that the whole affair has been managed from a London-centric point of view and you appeared to me to be accepting that.
#22 by Jeff on January 31, 2011 - 2:36 pm
Oh, no need to apologise, I probably just read it the wrong way.
No harm no foul etc etc
#23 by Dan on January 31, 2011 - 9:38 am
In Northern Ireland both the General Election results and the Assembly are counted on the following day, so there’s plenty of precedent
#24 by Allan on January 31, 2011 - 7:04 pm
Have to say that i’m not really bothered when the vote is counted. As long as the result is an accurate one, that’s all that really matters. Of course this last point was swept under the carpet this time last year as Tom Harris and Iain Dale embarked upon their save Election Night campaign. That really worked as most results came through from 2am onwards – four hours after the polls closed.
This looks like a similar attempt to stir up the same kind of outrage. It just isn’t going to work either as every Holyrood election to date has never been done & dusted by 3am.