Now that we are away from the hysterical, improvised reporting, I think we have a clearer picture of the problems that happened on Thursday night with the Scottish Elections.

The problems with e-counting were a minor problem. The pundits on television were really annoyed about it — but I think that was because they were unable to report a result. The bottom line is, the results are in and they are correct. We hope they are correct anyway — and there is no real suggestion that the e-counting machines were misreading votes.

All spoilt ballots were verified by a human, so any talk about recounts to take into account the spoilt ballots is nonsense. A spoilt ballot is a spoilt ballot. There’s not much else you can do about it.

There was e-counting, but there was no e-voting. Voting still took place with paper and pencil. The machines didn’t cause the spoilt ballots — they are two separate issues, despite some reports I’ve seen conflating the two issues.

Talking of conflating, it seems as though that is what caused the confusion among the electorate. Combining the two Scottish Parliament votes on the one paper was a massive mistake. Here is why.

Anybody talking about how “complicated” the Single Transferable Vote is, is a liar.

The reason was the introduction of “single transferable vote” for council elections. This high-minded proportional device was forced on Labour by the Scottish Lib-Dems as part of their price for joining the coalition government in 2003. It is designed to break Labour’s rusted-in grip on local government in the west of Scotland, and it requires the voters to mark a list of names with numbers in order of preference instead of with the old crosses. Used to voting in a hurry, scribbling an X on the way to or from work, the citizenry got muddled.

There is so much wrong with this paragraph. For a start, anyone who voted with an X on the council vote still had their vote counted as the equivalent of a 1. So it wasn’t these crosses that were the spoilt ballots.

Also, there were far fewer spoilt ballots in the council election than in the Scottish Parliament election. In fact, the Scottish Parliament ballot paper was five times more likely to have been spoilt by a voter.

Single Transferable Vote, far from being complicated, is actually — literally — as easy as 1, 2, 3. And the fact that there were relatively few spoilt ballots in the STV system proves this.

But now for the head-scratching bit. The system used for the Scottish Parliament has not changed, yet it has caused the most confusion. A popular theory gathering steam is that the layout and wording of the Scottish Parliament ballot paper was too ambiguous.

At the top it was headed, “You have two votes”. That is true, but they are two different kinds of votes — one constituency (first past the post), and one regional (d’Hondt top-up list).

The two columns were different colours — one purple, and one peach. And that sentence, “You have two votes”, had two arrows coming out of it, one pointing to each column. In addition, above each column was the instruction “Mark one box only”.

So, the instructions were all there, complete with colour coding for dummies. But still a lot of people got it wrong. I think it is fair to say that putting both votes on the one paper was a mistake. In addition to the fact that an STV election was happening at the same time, it is easy to see how some people might have become confused.

This whole mess could have been avoided with one simple measure. Put the Scottish Parliament votes on separate sheets like before. Each sheet should be headed “You have one vote on this sheet of paper”. That would probably have made the whole thing crystal clear.

This is all part of a wider issue about the voting system. The two votes were put on the same piece of paper to try and emphasise how they were inter-related.

It is often said that many voters believed that the regional vote (sometimes colloquially referred to as “the second vote”) was meant to be a second preference vote, which is not the case. To try and tackle the perception, the regional vote became “the first vote”, and took precedence on the left-hand side of the ballot paper. But this just seems to have confused voters even more.

Frankly, I find it astonishing that so many people lack basic understanding about the voting system. On the vox pops on television I’ve heard a lot of people bemoaning the lack of information about the changes made this year. But they were very well publicised.

The changes to local government have been well-known for years in advance. In fact, it was a central plank of the Lib Dems’ coalition deal with Labour four years ago. It was big news when it happened. Okay, that was four years ago. But anybody who was watching the news then will have been aware about it.

A leaflet came through my — and, I presume, everyone else’s — door explaining quite clearly how to vote. I’ve seen features about it on the internet and television. Even the political parties themselves, eager not to lose any votes on spoilt papers, were often keen to stress how the voting system worked on their leaflets. All of these were ignored by the voters who spoilt their papers.

A few weeks ago I mentioned this animation designed to explain the voting system. Ryan Morrison in the comments mentioned how patronising it is.

I’m a big fan of encouraging people to vote, it’s one of the most important things you’ll ever do and I also support the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 but surely this was aimed at seven year olds?

Even I don’t think seven year olds should have the vote!

Fair enough, most won’t have seen that website. But, apart from producing an animation aimed at people even younger than seven, I really don’t know what else the authorities were supposed to do to explain it.

For some people, you would probably have the pay the BBC somehow crowbar it into the plot of River City to get people to realise. Or get the barman at the Queen Vic to say, “Here, have you heard about this new voting system they are using this year?”

I am left to conclude that the people who didn’t understand what to do in the polling booth simply do not follow the news carefully. There is a debate at the moment as to whether or not it is fair to say that a lot of people who spoilt their ballots actually deserved to have their vote discounted.

Yes, everyone should have the vote — even the not-so-smart. And voting should not be a difficult process. But the point is, this isn’t a difficult process. It was probably more complicated than it needed to be, due to the reasons I’ve mentioned above. But the bottom line is that the instructions were reasonably clear and it wasn’t difficult.

Voting is a right. But it is also a responsibility. When you cast your vote, you are essentially imposing your decision on other people. I’m not surprised that some people are openly wondering about the ability of the electorate to make these decisions. After all, the electorate decides who is in government. I’d like to think that the people making this decision are not ignorant. Not necessarily intelligent, but at least not ignorant.

(Incidentally, proof if proof be need be that the electorate is stupid, I learned today that Labour’s regional vote actually went up in this election. What would Bentham say about that?)

Another problem which has been touched upon by a few people was the fact that names and slogans appeared on the party list. Infamously, the SNP was actually “Alex Salmond for First Minister” on the ballot paper. Solidarity was “Tommy Sheridan — Solidarity”. Other parties put slogans in their name (eg. “The Publican Party — Smoking in pubs”).

It is a tactic that can work. Like AA1 Double Glazing in the Yellow Pages, the SNP got to the top of the list by changing their name so that it began with A. It seems as though it worked, because they made massive gains in the regional vote.

Some are complaining that this caused confusion, that it brought campaigning into the polling booth where it shouldn’t be and that it has led people to believe that the regional vote is a vote for the First Minister. Maybe this should be looked at, but I don’t know how it can be stopped.

Should political parties have ‘official’ names that can only be changed, say, every ten years? A possibility, I guess. Otherwise, I don’t see how these practices can be stopped.

It will be interesting to see what the Electoral Commission’s report has to say about this whole debacle. But having thought a lot about it, I am fairly sure that keeping the two Scottish Parliament votes separate would probably have avoided it all.

A closer look at the smaller parties.

The collapse of the SSP / Solidarity has been spectacular. They have lost all of their MSPs, and apparently even have only one councillor each in the whole of Scotland now. What I am most surprised about, though, is the fact that Solidarity actually seem to have the upper hand.

The SSP clearly owed almost all of their support to the charisma of Tommy Sheridan. Now that he has gone off to form his own party, the left vote has split. But Tommy Sheridan has been quick to point out that Solidarity is already the largest socialist party in Scotland, after just eight months.

It is still a huge comedown. In many areas Solidarity are behind Christian parties. In most areas they are also behind the BNP. Meanwhile, the SSP linger around among the truly diddy parties, registering between roughly 0.5% and just over 1% of votes.

I had got the impression that the SSP had a bigger movement behind it. But clearly among the electorate, SSP support is dead. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see Solidarity bounce back by the next election. Tommy Sheridan will have to rebuild trust, but he is the only person in a position to get any socialist party winning seats again.

Outside the five main parties, the best performers have consistently been the SSCUP. In effect, they are now the strongest small party (apart from the Greens). Not bad going, but they have still lost an MSP which really underlines just how badly the small parties have done in this election.

UKIP have taken an absolute drubbing — at the very bottom in Central Scotland, and not much more popular elsewhere. Clearly there just isn’t that same level of support for UKIP in Scotland as there is down south. I wonder if this is to do with their promises to sack all MSPs. I just don’t think there is any appetite for that sort of thing. Maybe to reduce the number of MSPs, but not to sack them all.

Elsewhere, it is evident that the BNP has got at least 1% of the regional vote. The Christian parties also put in surprisingly strong performances. Damp squibs from Scottish Voice and the Publican Party.

Among the bloggers up for election, the 9% Growth Party came last in Glasgow with 80 the votes (ahem, 0.0%). Adam Lyal’s Witchery Tour Party got 0.3% in the Lothians, which was just more than the similar Had Enough Party.

Oh, and a word about independence as well. There is no mandate for an independence referendum. The SNP have more seats than Labour, but they do not have a majority. Indeed, they only got around a third of the votes cast and all of the other independence-supporting parties of note saw drops in support.

And of course, not every vote cast for the SNP will have been a pro-independence vote. In many instances, it will have been a simple anti-Labour protest vote. Pro-Union candidates still have a majority in Parliament, and they picked up a majority of votes.

It’s not quite time yet.

Update: Forgot to say my bit about the Lib Dems. I’m glad they are not in a position where they can be sole kingmakers. I was getting the impression that they were a little bit too comfortable with the idea of being perpetually in government. It is not a healthy attitude.

And while I am usually sympathetic to the Lib Dems when they are accused of getting in to bed with anybody, it is easy to see how they can just focus on finishing third rather than, say, pursuing good policies.

Because of the electoral system used, a coalition needs to be formed, and the Lib Dems will usually find themselves in a position to be part of the Scottish Executive. I’m just glad that this time round they will need to get someone else — probably the Greens — on board as well.