Electoral Reform Consultation Analysis

1. Introduction

Background

Modernising Scotland's electoral law is a priority for the Scottish Government, reflecting its commitment to increase participation in elections and encourage people to stand for election.

Recent electoral reforms include the Scottish Elections (Reform) Act 2020, which increased the Scottish Parliamentary and Local Government terms from four to five years and introduced changes to the roles of the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Management Board for Scotland (EMB), and Boundaries Scotland. Other significant reforms in the last decade include extending voting rights to 16- and17-year-olds for Scottish Parliament and Scottish Local Government elections from 2016^[1] and foreign nationals from 2020.

The Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party expressed their wish to build on these changes and continue improving electoral law in their Shared Policy Programme and the 2021-22 Programme for Government.

A public consultation ran between 14 December 2022 to 15 March 2023 which aimed to gather a broad range of public and stakeholder views on several possible electoral reforms. The analysis of consultation responses will inform how and in what form the proposals proceed.

Potential changes include: expanding candidacy rights, the rights of a small number of people in Scotland who do not have voting rights, steps to increase voter registration, improving the accessibility of voting, alternative ways of voting, the scheduling of elections and aspects of election management. The consultation included 30 closed and 16 open questions spanning five areas:

• Candidates standing for election
• Aspects of the voting process
• The scheduling of elections
• Campaigning
• The administration and governance of elections.

Respondent profile

In total, 517 consultation responses were received^[2]. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 488 responses to the consultation; the remaining 29 were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped on the nature of their work. The following table shows the number of organisations by group. Despite being classified as an organisation, any mention of Returning Officers in the report avoids referencing the Council they are associated with to retain anonymity.

The analysis also included notes from two consultation events which were held with young people and people with disabilities, alongside their representative organisations. Discussions covered a range of issues including candidacy and accessibility.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is not to quantify how many people held particular views, but to understand the full range of views expressed. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Quantitative analysis

There were 30 closed consultation questions, which asked respondents for their views on a range of proposals. Of these, 21 were straightforward with Yes and No answer options to establish levels of support for a proposal. Answer options for the remaining nine questions varied depending on the question.

As not all respondents answered each closed question, each table in this report shows the number and percentage of response among those answering each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses and by type of organisation. Please note that figures in the tables may not add to 100% due to rounding.

A full breakdown of the number and percentage of response to each question can be found in Appendix A.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The analyst team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the full coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

Notes from the consultation events were reviewed to identify any differences in opinion compared to the main sample, and any new themes. Comments at the events typically aligned with those found in the main sample, but any additional perspectives are noted.

In a small number of instances where alternative format responses contained information that did not align to specific questions, analysts exercised judgement about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.

Where appropriate, quotes from a range of participants are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

Reflecting the large number of people who took part, it is not possible to detail every response in this report; a few organisations shared lengthy submissions which reflect their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government's website. When reviewing the analysis in this report, we would ask that the reader consider:

• Public consultation of this kind means anyone can express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.
• Respondents were signposted to different sections of the consultation depending on their interests. The varied and sometimes technical nature of the proposals also means that respondents did not answer every question. Throughout the report we indicate how many responses were included in the analysis of each question.
• It is possible that some respondents have not fully read or engaged with the consultation paper, leading to answers which do not directly address the questions. While all comments have been included in the analysis and all themes presented in this report, we focus on those directly answering each question.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly identifed. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered. Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results; an insightful view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• The most common / second most common theme; the most frequently identified.
• Many respondents; more than 20, another prevalent theme.
• Several respondents; 10-19, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents; 5-9, another theme.
• A few / a small number of respondents; <5, a less commonly mentioned theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in two responses.