This article explores the reasons behind turnout and then lists some solutions.
The key message I want to get across is that there aren't any quick fixes, this
is a complex problem with complex solutions - Internet Voting won't fix it. Jason
Kitcat
|
Main
article
Turnout
slips away
Understanding
why
Potential
Solutions
Conclusion
About
the Author
Sources
TURNING
ROUND TURNOUT
Turnout - the reasons why it's falling and the potential
solutions
[ download
PDF version ]
by Jason Kitcat
|
| Turnout
slips away |
In the 1999 European elections the UK recorded a turnout of 23%
- a lower figure than in any other EU country. It must be said
that all European nations saw a drop in turnout from the 1994
elections but the range of turnouts, excluding the UK, was 29.9%
(Netherlands) to 90% (Belgium). Clearly the UK came a very poor
last and the trend of low British turnouts continued in the 2001
General Election where 59.2% of the British people voted. This
was one of the lowest turnouts on record for the mother of
democracies (the lowest ever recorded turnout is 58.9% in 1918).
Thus the fall in turnout isn't restricted to one type of
election, council elections mirror these falls, nor is it a new
phenomenon as Figure 1 shows.
Figure 1: Turnout over time of British elections.
Source: Professor Thrasher, University of Plymouth
This isn't a uniquely British problem either, as Figure 2 shows,
turnout is falling globally, in democracies old and new. But
each democracy must address these issues on its own terms and it
is time the British Government took this challenge seriously. It
was facile for Labour spokesmen on election night 2001 to write
off the fall in turnout as being due to widespread 'satisfaction
with the Labour government.' There was a small grain of truth to
this otherwise careless brush-off, as Figure 3 and Figure 4
show, the closeness of an election result does have an impact on
turnout. But the Commons Public Administration Select Committee
rightly accused the Government of being 'extremely complacent'
about the impending civic crisis of voter disconnect. They wrote
"We find it extraordinary that this collapse in electoral
participation, put alongside other evidence of civic
disengagement, has not been treated as a civic crisis demanding
an immediate response."
Figure 2: Differences in turnout between established
democracies and other states over time. (VAP = Voting Age
Population)
Source: International IDEA Voter Turnout Global Survey
Some don't see this trend as a problem; in an article for The
Telegraph, Anthony King, a professor of government at Essex
stated that falling turnout should be regarded as being healthy.
He argues that because there is less tribalism and the extremes
of party politics have died down we are happier, and contented
people don't feel as compelled to vote. There is no denying that
happiness can reduce people's motivation to stand up for a
cause, but a brief examination of current events would show that
many people aren't happy with the way things are, be they asylum
policy, the health service or fuel taxes. Furthermore MORI polls
show that voters were dissatisfied with the Government by
January 2000, not too contented then.
Figure 3: Competitiveness of the system, impact on
turnout
(VAP = Voting Age Population)
Source: International IDEA Voter Turnout Global Survey
Figure 4: Margin of victory in the final poll and
percentage of voters who did not vote.
Source: ICM
|
| Understanding
why |
On election night 2001 the BBC polled people who had decided not
to vote on their reasons why they abstained. The reasons were
extremely interesting and tie with what other evidence has been
leading to...
Some 77% said there was no point in voting because it would not
change a thing, while 65% said they did not trust politicians.
Just over half said it was obvious that Labour would win anyway.
In The Guardian, shortly after the second Labour victory,
Noreena Hertz reported that 67% of the population now believe
that big international companies have more influence in their
daily lives than their own government; and more worryingly 71%
of 16- to 21-year-olds feel that, whoever they vote for, it will
make no difference to their lives.
This is particularly acute for the European elections where not
only do voters not understand what the MEPs do (and thus what
difference they could make) but a MORI pole indicated that only
10% could recognise their MEP whereas 50% of those interviewed
could identify their MP.
Furthermore research from Ohio State University showed that
voters were less likely to vote if they disliked both
candidates, because neither would make them happy. All other
things being equal the highest turnout would be when one
candidate was seen as being 'heroic' while the other was
particularly disliked. This would seem to indicate that once
again, the perception of there being no difference between the
potential candidates, is an important factor in turnout.
Many have written off these figures and the turnout problem as
being due to apathy. However apathy is defined as 'indolence or
a state of indifference' which clearly isn't the case. People
care more than ever about environmental issues such as GM food
and nuclear power; about international policies such as Bush's
'Son of Star Wars', the Kyoto Protocol and the International
Criminal Court. But instead of using party political structures
to make these points heard, citizens are using NGOs and
coalitions of NGOs to campaign against governments and
corporations. Figures from the Electoral Commission also support
the view that apathy is not the leading problem : 58% of those
surveyed were very or fairly interested in the election, 6%
higher than in 1997!
Not only is this increasing prominence of campaigning NGOs
sidelining MPs and other representatives, but so is the growing
power of the executive and the decreasing relevance of
Parliament. A small example is described in John Major's
autobiography where expresses his amazement that MPs allowed
Tony Blair to reschedule Prime Minister's questions to one
session on Wednesdays without a hint of a fight. We have seen a
small resurgence in Parliamentary pride since Labour's
re-election with the reforming Robin Cook as Leader of the
House. But reporting of Parliamentary process is continuing to
decline and the accountability of the executive is at an
all-time low. Committees are delivering reports which are
immediately sidelined and the Chairs are being 'cajoled' into
following the Government line. This process did not start with
the Labour government, but with their large majority they do
have the power to rectify the situation, or worsen it. But they
seem to have no inclination to make improvements, announcing
almost every major policy outside of Parliament.
So why aren't people voting? There are no easy answers but I
think the evidence points to several leading factors:
- A lack of compelling choices being presented to the
voter.
Career politicians selected centrally or 'parachuted' into
safe seats reinforce the view that they don't really
represent their constituency and will just follow the party
line - 'just like the rest of them'. It would seem that many
voters miss the 'Gentleman Parliamentarian' for whom
becoming an MP was the logical conclusion of their local
involvement as opposed to being a stepping stone to greater
things.
- The closeness of the result (or lack thereof).
The results of recent elections have been seen as foregone
conclusions thus reducing the motivation for 'floating' and
reluctant voters to get out to the polling station. This is
reinforced by the constituency First Past the Post voting
system which distorts the will of the voter and thus
encourages tactical voting which can often make defeats look
worse than they really were. Also minority views are less
likely to win through to get representation - the result is
that voters with those minority views choose not to bother
voting as they know their chosen party won't win.
- The decreasing importance of Parliament
Partly due to the scale of the Labour majority, partly due
to their style of government and also due to increasing
decentralisation to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland as
well as Europe; our great Parliament is losing its
importance and its power. Some of these losses are
worthwhile and have brought gains - certainly many facets of
the EU are worthwhile, as are the results of devolution
(even if the West Lothian question remains unresolved).
However Parliament is punching below its weight by a
significant margin and important reforms need to be made to
it, and the House of Lords, to rebuild its importance,
relevance and powers.
- Death by a million cuts
A US citizen can be presented with up to 22 different
positions to vote for and the US has one of the lowest
levels of turnout (though I wouldn't claim that this is the
only reason for that). Citizens can be asked to vote too
often, especially if they feel it makes no difference. The
current round of referenda on mayors is an excellent
example. After having watched the debacle of the London
mayoral race and the slow realisation that Ken Livingstone
has no real power - he can't deliver the policies he was
voted for without the acquiescence of the Government -
voters fail to see the relevance of mayors as currently
proposed. Then with regional assemblies Welsh and Scots
voters are being asked to vote for representatives whose
powers, to say the least, are unclear while still voting for
MPs. All these elections can be too much of a good thing.
- Education & Publicity
BBC News reported on a survey after the last European
Elections which showed that one of the primary reason for
citizens not voting was that they felt that they didn't know
enough about the issues to make a responsible choice.
Evidence from recent mayoral referenda and going as far back
as a mid-1970s referendum in Sweden on the use of nuclear
power shows that concerted campaigns providing publicity
(making the vote an event) and delivering free, unbiased,
education on the issues has a very positive impact on
turnout.
- The difficulty of voting
There is no doubt that people are busier than ever with both
parents in a family often working. There is little evidence
that this is a major factor in turnout, but it cannot be
denied as being a factor in combination with the above
factors. If you feel your vote is going to make little or no
difference and you are very busy then you are even less
likely to vote.
Professor Michael Thrasher from the University of Plymouth
Elections Centre summarises these issues into three categories:
- Resources
Do I have the time and resources to figure out who or
what to vote for?
- Motivation
Do I feel a civic or party obligation to vote? Is it in
my interest? Is it worth the effort?
- Mobilisation
Does my vote make a difference? Do I really
dislike a certain party?
Political scientist Dr Michael Cornfield explains these issues
from a different perspective, as two transitions which must
occur before the voter comes to the ballot box: The voter must
be moved from apathy to an interest in politics and then the
interest must be converted into action i.e. voting. As
previously stated, apathy is a misnomer, by 'apathy to an
interest in politics' I read moving voters from a lack of faith
in the effectiveness of the electoral process to a faith in the
system and the representatives it produces.
|
| Potential
Solutions |
We must recognise that there our no quick fixes, this is a
long-term problem which will have long-term solutions. The
previous section briefly highlighted the complexity of the
reasons behind falling voter turnout and the solutions will
probably need to mirror this complexity. A wide variety of
solutions have been proposed, and it is likely that a
combination of those presented below will be required before any
major turnaround in the current trends can be seen.
Opening the channels of voting
In many circles it has being taken as an article of faith that
making it easier to vote by increasing the number of channels
available to voters will result in significant improvements to
turnout. I am heavily involved in Internet voting and technology
in general but I have never once suggested that such
technologies will help turnout, and have encouraged others not
to do so either. Returning to Dr Cornfield's transitional model,
voting technologies may ease the move from interest to action,
but without any change in the lack of movement from apathy to
interest then this makes no difference - the voter is stuck on
transition one. At this point, a lengthy quote from an article
taken from The Guardian written by Nick Sparrow, Managing
Director of ICM after the 2001 election will help to clarify the
issues muddied by post-election reporting:
An Electoral Commission survey conducted during the summer
... [suggests] ... that 66% of non voters would have been more
likely to vote if they could have done so by phone and 51% would
have voted by post if they had known it was possible to do so
and got themselves organised. A neat research outcome for the
Commission, whose statutory duties include 'participation in
pilot schemes for innovative electoral procedures'.
The Electoral Commission results were based on re-interviews
with people previously asked political questions at the start of
the campaign. Only 20% of them said they hadn't been to vote,
half the proportion that ought to have been found. The technical
details explain that there were some differences between the
original sample and those they managed to get back to. In
particular re-interviews were with people 'more likely to say
that they are interested in politics and always vote at general
elections'. It seems some who found the subject of the original
interview boring were not going to get caught twice.
Nevertheless the results from the 208 non-voters re-interviewed
after the election have been reported widely. The survey found
that a fifth of non-voters couldn't get to the polling station
because it was 'too inconvenient', 16% were 'away', 15% claimed
they were not registered and 11% hadn't received a polling card.
According to this research voter apathy is the least important
reason for not voting; only 10% of the Electoral Commission
sample of non-voters replied that the reason they hadn't voted
was because they were 'not interested'. Music to those eager to
spend lots of taxpayers' money on 'schemes for innovative
electoral procedures'. But the real answer lies with the people
the Electoral Commission didn't interview, not with those who
decided to participate in the poll.
Postal voting has been regarded as a popular channel for
broadening and was used for the recent mayoral referenda
wherever possible. But in correspondence, Professor Thrasher
told be that by 'my latest reading of research from abroad even
all-postal ballots (the biggest impact upon turnout) tend to
fall away after the initial burst of enthusiasm. In other words
the effects don't last that long... the parsimonious model
suggests that it's to do with novelty value.' Add to this the
comments by Anthony Painter in The Guardian 'Technical changes
don't have much effect on voting levels. Changes to postal
voting procedures meant that half a million more people voted by
post than in 1997. But these weren't new votes. The vast
majority were simply regular voters taking advantage of an
alternative and convenient voting method.' These views would
appear to confirm that such innovations are not treating the
root causes of the turnout problem - no quick fixes.
Furthermore a MORI poll for the Institute of Citizenship found
that, at most, 2% more British citizens would vote when informed
that they could vote by post, compared to recording their
intention to vote without the knowing about the postal option.
New channels are clearly not a solution to turnout problems, but
that is not to say that they shouldn't be pursued - they offer
other benefits which can't be measured in turnout.
Making the vote count
Figure 5: Turnout for Electoral Systems
(VAP = Voting Age Population, no. = number of elections)
Source: International IDEA Voter Turnout Global Survey
Figure 5 clearly show the correlation between the
proportionality of a voting system and the turnout. The European
elections had a form of PR and we know they had a low turnout,
but other factors such as the lack of any effective campaigning
have been evidently attributed to the specific problems of that
election. Figure 5, referring to national elections only, shows
that if the British Parliamentary elections were more
proportional a greater number of voters would not only feel that
their views would be represented in Parliament but also would
feel that their vote would make a difference. Tactical voting
would no longer be necessary.
Figure 6: Turnout for Electoral System Families
(VAP = Voting Age Population, no. = number of elections)
Source: International IDEA Voter Turnout Global Survey
Figure 6 furthers the argument for proportional representation
by showing the direct correlation between the proportionality of
a voting system and turnout. The most proportional system,
Single Transferable Vote (STV) has the highest turnout. This is
the system advocated by, among others, the Electoral Reform
Society, Make Votes Count, Fairshare, Charter88, the Liberal
Democrats and the more liberal members of both the Labour (the
Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform is the largest single issue
organisation in the party) and Tory parties. Interestingly this
was the system used by the majority of European regions except
England, Scotland and Wales who used a closed list system. Could
this have contributed to the lower turnout?
Making a fuss
One of the clear problems with not only the European elections
but local council elections and referenda on local Mayors is a
lack of publicity. A large number of the potential electorate
are unaware that a competition is underway. The same problem
plagues by-elections, which was highlighted recently by
Newsnight when more voters in a constituency knew about a
football match than the by-election.
A considerable amount of work needs to be done to raise
awareness of each individual election, independent public bodies
need to educate the public on the relevant issues. Two
objectives then, education on the issues and candidates as well
as promotion of the election itself.
Parliamentary Reform
As mentioned previously, Parliament is regarded as becoming less
relevant. Recent examples include the failure of Stephen Byers
to appear in Parliament for a debate specifically about his
conduct, choosing instead to visit a new bridge. Other examples
include the continued fudging of proposed reforms of both Houses
by the Government and their whips.
It isn't the role of this article to discuss the wide range of
proposed and potential reforms that should be considered by the
Houses. But it must be made clear that unless Government is made
more accountable and the Houses, particularly the House of
Commons ,are made more relevant to the public then the
disconnect will continue. This goes to not only the institution
and its rules, but to the make-up, attitudes and presentation of
its members. Lords are regarded as 'fuddy-duddies' who have no
real relevance to modern society. MPs fare little better, most
being viewed as career politicians on the make, taking donations
from corporate interests while clambering the slippery stairs to
power. Representation and deference to the electors seem to
emerge from politicians only on election day. Thus, as many
columnists have noted, there needs to be a cultural shift in the
whole political way of life. And it is in the politicians'
interests, party membership is falling dramatically, raising
into question the viability of their funding.
|
| Conclusions |
I have examined the web of reasons behind falling turnout and
explored a range of solutions, which I suggest will need to be
taken in combination. Turnout is a widespread problem and every
nation will need to address their issues. But the UK seems to be
coming under a relatively unique number of simultaneous
pressures from multiple directions. Thus decision makers must
steel themselves for a long march back to vibrant democracy.
What is clear, as I have repeated several times, is that there
are no quick fixes and technological solutions such as Internet
voting, will have a negligible impact on turnout. The
challenging soft problems of motivation, culture and
organisational change are ones we would probably rather not
face, but which our continued success as a democracy requires
that we do.
|
| About the
Author |
Jason Kitcat (jeep@free-project.org)
is founder and co-ordinator of the FREE e-democracy project
which builds the GNU.FREE Internet Voting software and promotes
Free Software in e-government. He is also Head of Production at
Swing Digital (http://www.swingdigital.com/),
an Internet consultancy specialising in building online
communities.
|
| Sources |
news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1641000/1641572.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/newsid_1376000/1376575.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/euros_99/news/newsid_368000/368908.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_906000/906877.stm
politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,640281,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4201622,00.html
politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,640281,00.html
www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2001/guardian-article-nov-2001.htm
www.idea.int/voter_turnout/
http://www.gallup.com/
John Major: The Autobiography
- Writings
Home - Discuss
this article - |
|
Contact -
Last updated 06/07/2002 22:58:22 by Jason Kitcat - j-dom portal
Copyright 2000, 2001, 2002 FREE e-democracy project.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any
medium, provided this notice is preserved.
INDEX
|
