Who are you and why have you made this website?
I’m Allan Faulds, the nerd behind Ballot Box Scotland. I have a longstanding interest in, and am a vocal proponent of improving, democratic systems. How candidates are nominated is an essential part of our democracy, but one that people very rarely give any thought to.
The current system of deposits is long overdue replacement with something fairer. It has been over a decade since the Electoral Commission itself recommended abolishing deposits. Following two Scottish Parliament Elections in a row in which a spoiler party was able to deliberately and maliciously affect the outcome, reforming this system so that it presents a meaningful barrier to such behaviour without adverse effect on legitimate parties is essential.
I’ve made this very, very simple example website partly to support a letter I will be writing to the relevant Scottish Government Minister. In the previous term of the Scottish Parliament, they committed to bringing forward a consultation on replacing deposits, after an opposition MSP lodged probing amendments to what became the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025.
Why is the website so basic?
I’m not a web developer and I just needed something quickly thrown together! I also didn’t want to risk even accidentally leaving a real data entry field open, seeing as I have precisely zero legal basis on which to collect any of the data that would be required for this kind of system.
Why is a system of signatures and entitlements fairer than deposits?
The deposit system has failed completely. Despite claims that it exists to prevent frivolous parties and candidates from standing for election, it in fact acts as a significant barrier to legitimate parties and almost no barrier to frivolous ones. £500 is very little money by today’s standards, but £40,500 (the total deposit cost for contesting every Constituency and Region at the Scottish Parliament) is a significant sum in the context of Scottish elections where expenditure is typically measured in the hundreds of thousands, not millions, of pounds.
Even where a party is confident it will have every single deposit returned, that money is not available to spend during the campaign. This puts smaller parties in particular in a very difficult position. The fewer areas they stand in, the fewer votes they will receive and the more negative commentary they will attract. The more areas they stand in, the less money they have available to campaign effectively in those they are most likely to win.
Abolishing deposits would remove this financial barrier to participation, whilst also preventing unserious parties and candidates buying their spot on the ballot paper, occasionally with malicious intent. The number of signatures required for a new party to contest the election is a fraction of what would be necessary to actually win a seat, and they would be able to use their campaigning to ensure they had collected enough.
Why shouldn’t the parties that elected MSPs have to collect signatures?
The purpose of this system is to ensure that only those parties which are reasonably serious can put forward candidates. The principle is that seriousness should be measured not by financial means (as it is with deposits) but by demonstrating a modest amount of public approval. So long as they align with both the purpose and principle, it’s entirely fair to offer multiple mechanisms for how to do so.
Parties that elected MSPs at the previous election have already proven both that they are serious and that they have public approval. Gumming up an already stretched electoral administration system by having parties re-confirm that they have a few thousand people willing to support them would be a waste of time and money.
Why 0.25% of votes at the previous election?
No two implementations of a signature-based system are the same. For example, Denmark requires new parties to collect signatures equivalent to one seat in the Folketing. With 175 seats in mainland Denmark, this amounts to roughly 0.57% of votes cast at the previous election. Spain meanwhile requires parties that did not win seats at the last election to collect the signatures of 0.1% of all registered voters.
The 0.25% figure is intended to set both an effective bar against frivolous or dishonest parties, whilst still only being a small fraction of what a legitimate party would need to win a seat. Although the exact level of support necessary will vary from region to region and election to election, typically it lies somewhere between 5-6%, or 20-25 times higher than the signature threshold. A party that cannot garner such modest support even to stand for election is certainly not on track to win enough votes to elect any MSPs.
Would smaller parties have to go through this process every election?
In principle, the system could be designed with grace periods or values built in. For example, a party that receives at least 1% of votes cast could be considered to have demonstrated enough support that it should be automatically entitled to continue contesting elections so long as it keeps receiving at least 1% of votes. Parties winning at least 0.5% would be given one additional election to reach at least 1%, failing which they would have to renew their registration as a valid nominating party for Scottish Parliament elections.
However, it is important that such rules only apply after the 2031 election has clearly established a legitimate party set. It would defeat the purpose of this system if minor parties which have already undermined the integrity of our elections were grandfathered in. It is also important not to be too generous with re-registration thresholds.
The UK’s party registration system is currently too favourable for micro parties which can end up, deliberately or accidentally, squatting on names and descriptions that could be made available to others more able to make a serious go of things. Whilst that system is reserved to Westminster, were such parties to be regularly unable to contest Holyrood elections, that may encourage voluntary de-registration and winding up of such no-hope parties.
Why should this be a digital rather than paper system?
Partly just due to the era we live in. Digital systems have been used for this purpose by for example Iceland. A digital platform will be much more accessible to most voters, and similar to the system for registering to vote online, this would direct submitted data to the appropriate election authority. Using a purely paper system would be expensive and put the system at greater risk of manipulation. A digital system can be built to ensure that those accessing it are made aware of what parties are already registered.
This example does so on the front page, but a proper website that collects real data and has proper logic would also be able to do things like present a mandatory “I confirm I have read the list of already registered parties” tick box. This would reduce the incidence of dishonest signature collection processes which play on shared party name components to trick people into thinking they are supporting an established party.
This does not mean that paper forms could be provided in specific circumstances: for example, in public libraries or upon request. Digital exclusion should not prevent people who wish to do so from submitting signatures.
What about Independent candidates?
This approach only considers political parties, due to the much greater potential for voter confusion arising from micro parties without any real existence beyond getting their name on the ballot paper. Independents, as they are not associated with parties, do not create the same problems.
They also would not be expected to have the level of administrative and campaign support that a legitimate party would. It would not be proportionate to make Independents meet the same threshold as parties.
However, Independent candidates are not automatically serious either. Although they attract little support or attention, bizarre Independents such as “Prince Ankit Love Emperor of India” have put themselves forward for election. There is a legitimate interest in regulating how Independents stand for election.
A much smaller threshold could be introduced for Independents, such as submitting 25 paper signatures alongside their nomination papers. Currently, candidates for UK Parliament elections are required to include 10 “subscribers” as part of their nomination. This would simply apply the same requirement but set slightly higher (the aforementioned “Emperor of India” managed the 10, for example) to raise the psychological barrier somewhat.
This is a very simple suggestion however and is not the focus of the example on this website. Even allowing Independents to self-nominate without any further support would be acceptable in the context of them having neither party name nor logo associated with them which could confuse voters.