AS BALLOT paper after ballotpaper appearedon the returning officer's computerscreen andwasmarked "over voting" and dumpedinthe digital dustbin, Dr Christopher Carman, a senior research lecturer at Strathclyde University's department of government, was in Glasgow's SECC in the early hours of Friday morning as a count observer. He stared at the lines of computerscreensand said: "This is Scotland's Florida on a vast scale."

The scale of the ballot papers being rejected at the SECC was being repeated across Scotland from theHighlandstotheBorders. More than 100,000 votes, 10% of the poll,were being classified as spoiled. As anexperiencedelectionanalyst, Carman, an American, along with Dr Murray Leith from Paisley University, both agreed on the similarities between the Scottish parliamentary reject papers and the design flaws of the Florida "butterfly" ballot paper that gave George Bush the White House in 2000 once the Republicans had overcome the US Supreme Court.

Where "hanging chads" marked the Floridacount debacle,theScottish polls' chaos was characterised by voters putting too many crosses in the wrong place on newly-designed ballot papers thatweresupposedtosimplifythe election of constituencies and list MSPs to the Scottish parliament.

That the parliamentary vote was also taking place at the same time as the new systemfor electing Scotland's local councils - a single transferable vote system, where preferences are numerically ranked on the paper - didn't help.

Voterswerearrivingatpolling stations expecting to both rank their council vote with numbers on one ballot paper and on another paper place two crosses in the parliamentary vote.

Within an hour of the counts beginning across Scotland, the scale of the confusion was evident. The independent Electoral Commission will this week begin a statutory review of how the election was conducted, looking at the delays in postal ballots which also took place,andtheperformanceofthe electroniccountingmachines.The review will be carried out by Sir Neil McIntosh, the Scottish Commissioner of the Electoral Commission.

A wider independent judicial inquiry will also take place, ordered by Alex Salmond in the expectation that he will shortly become first minister in the Scottish Executive.

A blame game has already started about who should be held responsible. Theonly agreement so far is on the descriptionofthechaos:Salmond called it a "debacle", Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, branded it a "shambles", with Alistair Darling, the former Scottish secretary, sayingthevotewas"totally unsatisfactory".

The starting point for both inquiries will go back to middle of 2004 when Darling,thenthenewScottish secretary, appointed Sir John Arbuthnot to examine the growing complexity of Scotland's voting systems.

A single transferable vote system was to be introduced, planned for May 2007. Ineffect,Scotlandnowhadfour differentvotingsystemsbetween Westminster, the Scottish parliament and its councils.

Arbuthnotconsultedwidelyand reportedinJanuary2006.However, someofthosewhoservedonthe commissionhavetoldtheSunday Heraldthatthefinalconclusions delivered by Arbuthnot to Darling did not reflect any deep unanimity.

Theadditionalmembersystem (AMS) was to be retained for the parliamentary elections, but a new ballot paper was proposed. Its aim was ironically to improve voter understanding of the additional member system.

With the Scottish Executive already committed to holding both the parliamentary vote and council elections on the same day - despite relatively strong objections from both the SNP and the Conservatives - the decision to introduce STV for the council vote meant any redesign of the parliamentary ballot paperbecameacrucialelementin Scotland's changing democracy.

SomevoicesontheArbuthnot Commission, the Sunday Herald has learned, also warned about the inherent dangers of presenting voters with too many changes on one single day. These objections were over-ruled by the ScottishExecutive.Thereason? Party activists could be relied upon to come outinforceforcouncilvotes.The parliament vote could also take part on the same day and take advantage of a party machine in top gear.

The political spotlight now fell on the design of the new ballots. The Scotland Office hired the Electoral Commission to deliver a ballot design. It began on June 9, 2006 and took three months to present its findings.

Thequalitative research company, CraggRoss Dawson, tested five differentdesigns on100voters acrossScotland. Interviewstook placeinDundee, Edinburgh,InvernessandGlasgow.Those consulted said they preferred both the constituency and regional votes to be a single page. One of the five designs, based on a New Zealand ballot paper, was approved by almost half of those consulted. The Electoral Commission tookitsfindingstotheScotland Office in August 2006, saying it had found the design which was "the easiest to use."

Crucially, and this will inevitably be of concern to an inquiry, there was no "live" testing of the new ballot. It was simply not regarded as necessary.

A single ballot paper was also politically attractive. It showed that neither the regional list nor the constituency vote was given prominence. As there was no first or second ballot for MSPs there would be no first or second-class MSPs in Holyrood, all would have the same standing. The ballot design was meant to be the leveller.

A series of presentations was prepared by the Scotland Office. A "briefing pack" was sent out to all the political parties. The presentations took place in Holyrood, with the design of the new ballot taking priority.

Peter Murrell, chief executive of the SNP, wrote back to the Scotland Office on August 16, 2006, after being given details of the new ballot. In his letter to Sheila Scobie, head of elections and social policy at the Scotland Office, he wrote:"Wesupportasingleballot paper." All registered political parties at Holyrood were consulted. The Scotland Officereceivedonlytwoformal objections: one from the Liberal Party of Great Britain and the other from Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party.

The former MSP from the pensioners party, John Swinburne, recalls the presentation. "I told them if it ain't broke don't fix it'. I told them it would cause confusion. We were sold a pup."

One Scotland Office insider said if government ministers had been seen as trying to force a new voting system on reluctant MSPs of any party "this would have dominated the news agenda for months". Hindsight examination has broughtcriticismoftheScotland Office'sseniorrole.JohnSwinney, former leader of the SNP, claims his party were shown nothing concrete, only broad outlines of proposals. He says the chaos could have been avoided.

But the SNP's letter to the Scotland Officeshowstheyseemedhappy enough at what was being proposed. No-one - except John Swinburne - saw May 3 and the debacle coming.

Amy Rodger, Scottish director of the ElectoralReformSociety,saysthe Scottishelectorate "must be feeling disenfranchised with all this". She said thedesignofthepapermusthave appeared confusing.

Rodger confirmed that the Electoral Commission was among those who told the Scotland Office that it would be better if the votes were carried out on separate days. But its preference was notpushed,norwascatastrophe predicted. A full separation is something any inquiry will have to consider.

DrNicolaMcEwenofEdinburgh University, who served on the Arbuthnot Commission, questions the entire legitimacy of the poll result.

Robert Richie, the executive director of the US-based Fair Vote organisation, was one of 30 experts from North America who came to Scotland last week expecting to see democracy in action. He left disappointed. "The most fundamental flaw was the ballot design."

Richie rejected suggestions that holding both the council and parliamentary electionson the same day had contributed to the chaos. "There are lessons to be learned here there are parallels with Florida in 2000."

But there will be no Supreme Court final say here. For Dr Leith at Paisley University, Thursday was a "PR disaster" for Scottish parliamentary democracy.