Strict rules put postal votes at risk of being discounted

Elections chiefs have warned up to four per cent of votes sent in by post are likely not to be counted because of simple mistakes made by people when they fill in the form which accompanies their ballot paper.

That's a higher rejection rate than in the counting fiasco of the 2007 elections. And it could be a particular problem in Edinburgh because it has more people registered for postal votes than other parts of Scotland.

The elections on May 5 will be the first Scottish Parliament poll where people voting by post have had to supply their signature and date of birth when they send back their ballot paper.

The anti-fraud measure was first introduced in Scotland at the 2009 European elections and also applied at last year's Westminster general election.

But across Scotland, 3.6 per cent of postal votes had to be discounted last year because of basic errors such as people filling in the current date instead of their date of birth.

And even though the mistake is obvious, the returning officers in charge of the count are legally given no discretion to say the votes should be allowed.

At last year's elections, 1053 postal votes in Edinburgh were rejected - 2.3 per cent of the 46,456 total.

Edinburgh's returning officer, city council chief executive Sue Bruce, said she expected as many as 25 per cent of votes to be postal votes this time.

And she said returning officers would like more leeway in dealing with postal ballots.

She said: "I can think of a number of occasions on which it was clear that the signature matched the one that was recorded previously, but it was in the wrong place. Returning officers have no discretion within the law on the matter."

Linlithgow Labour MSP Mary Mulligan said: "We have encouraged people to go for a postal vote, but that will be undermined if people think it might not be counted.

"We need to ensure the system is rigorous enough to prevent any bad practices, but where there have been simple mistakes, like getting dates the wrong way round, we have to make sure people's votes are counted."

She said returning officers ought to have the flexibility to decide such cases.

"We trust them to oversee the elections and we should give them discretion to count votes where there has been an obvious mistake."

In 2007, confusion caused by having a single ballot paper for the regional and constituency votes led to nearly three per cent of regional ballot papers and four per cent of constituency ones being rejected.