Reasons for and impact of low voter engagement What are the main factors that have contributed

to low voter turnout in recent UK elections? Turnout in UK elections has been on a slow decline since the 1950s, in line with the trend in other mature democracies. The trend was broken by the 2001 general election, which marked a sharp drop-off in turnout, from 71 to 59%. The 2005 and 2010 elections saw a modest recovery; however, turnout remains on a downward trend, which is equally pronounced in local, European and devolved elections. While the average turnout in 2010 was 65%, turnout was especially low among 18-24 year olds (44%), black and minority ethnic groups (51%) social or private renters (55%) and the working class [C2DE] (57%).1 The collapse in turnout in 2001 can largely be explained by contextual factors. Voters perceived that there was little difference between the parties, the outcome of the election was never in doubt, and the election campaigns failed to engage voters. These effects receded in 2005 and 2010 as elections became more contested. The underlying trends in public attitudes towards voting and the political system suggest that a return to pre-2001 levels of turnout is unlikely. Though interest in politics has remained steady, the proportion of the public who believe that everyone has a duty to vote fell from 76% in 1987 to 62% in 2011. This trend is particularly pronounced among young people, which causes concern as people who do not pick up the habit of voting early on in life are less likely to do so at a later stage. However, public engagement in politics beyond the ballot box has actually increased; more people see non-electoral participation such as signing a petition or attending a protest as a substitute rather than complementary to voting. As political parties have moved away from distinctive ideological appeals to contest the centre ground, they have become less capable of maintaining strong attachments with supporters. Party identification is strongly associated with turnout, so as attachment to parties declines, turnout suffers. The proportion of the public who do not identify with any political party has doubled since 1983, from 10% to 21%. Confidence in the political system has suffered a similar decline. 71% of people agree that it doesnt matter which party is in power, an increase of 17% since 1994.2 Perceptions of political efficacy have also declined; the Audit of Political Engagement showed that only 32% of people believed that when people like me get involved in politics, we can really change the way the UK is run. What are the main factors that affect voter registration? In 2010, the UKs electoral register was estimated by the Electoral Commission to be around 90% complete. However, voter registration is lowest among those who change addresses more
1 2

Ipsos Mori, How Britain Voted in 2010, 2010 NatCen, British Social Attitudes 30, 2013

frequently. This includes young people, private sector tenants, and black and minority ethnic groups. Voter registration rates are lowest in areas which have larger concentrations of these groups, which include Greater London and other metropolitan areas, towns and cities with large student populations, and poorer coastal areas with high population turnover.3 Registration rates among these groups are likely to be further affected by the introduction of individual electoral registration as their records are less likely to be transferred automatically to the new register. The long-term trend in registration rates has been one of steady decline. Registration rates are affected by many of the same factors as turnout; as people are less inclined to vote, they make less effort to be included on the electoral register. Changes in the way councils approach the annual canvass, such as eliminating door-knocking, may also have contributed to declining registration rates. The completeness rate of the electoral register reflects the balance of responsibility for voter registration in the UK between government and the individual. The current system of household canvassing means that government, and in practice local councils, assume much of the responsibility for compiling a complete register of voters. This contrasts with systems where the government assumes full responsibility for maintaining an accurate database of voters, which have completeness rates in a range comparable to the UK, and countries such as the United States where voter registration is chiefly the responsibility of the individual, which have significantly lower rates of registration.

To what extent does the publics perception of MPs, Parliament, the Government and events such as Prime Ministers questions affect voter registration and turnout?

Public confidence in the political system is strongly linked with turnout. This need not translate into confidence in the current government, but if voters do not have confidence in the political alternatives on offer, they are less likely to vote. Turnout is particularly affected by the perception that politicians are detached from the everyday concerns of ordinary people. In a poll for the Fabian Society in 2012, 31% agreed that politics is a game played by an out of touch elite who live on another planet politics isnt made up of people like me. The expenses scandal underlined the link perceptions of MPs has with confidence in the political system - in 2009, the British Social Attitudes survey indicated that 60% of respondents almost never trusted politicians to tell the truth, the highest recorded rate since the survey began. A recent report by the Hansard Society into public perceptions of PMQs confirmed the widespread view that it undermines confidence both in politicians and in Parliament; 33% said PMQs put them off

Electoral Commission (2010) The completeness and accuracy of electoral registers in Great Britain

politics, while just 12% agreed that PMQs made them proud of Parliament.4 What role does the media play in this context? There is little evidence that the media has any significant negative impact on political participation, but the constant media focus on scandal and negative stories is unlikely to have any positive effect. In 2012, the Audit of Political Engagement found that 63% agreed that tabloids focused on negative stories of politicians (21% for broadsheets and 29% for television news). Yet the media portrayal of politicians can only ever play a secondary role in the process by which a lack of trust in political institutions translates into low turnout. Politicians may find it convenient to blame the messenger but we should be clear that it is the failures of the political system, not the media, that bear the biggest responsibility for low turnout. What are the costs to society of low voter registration and turnout? Low turnout in itself undermines the legitimacy of elections and the governments that they produce. However, the prevalence of low turnout among already disadvantaged groups is a more serious problem, which risks exacerbating existing political and economic inequality. Low turnout is linked with persistent patterns of inequality. If these groups are systematically underrepresented among voters, political parties have fewer incentives to listen to their concerns, which creates a vicious circle of exclusion from the political process. An incomplete electoral register also has knock-on effects in other areas of administration which use the register as a basis, such as jury service and calculation of parliamentary constituency boundaries. As absence from the electoral register is more common among groups who are already subject to discrimination in the justice system, the lack of representation of these groups on juries would hinder equal access to justice. An incomplete register would also skew the calculation of parliamentary constituencies, which would exacerbate existing political inequalities. Improving voter turnout What are the principal ways in which voter registration and turnout could be improved? Low turnout is fundamentally a political, not an administrative problem. If voters do not believe that their vote will make a difference, or that there is a genuine choice, they will continue to shun the ballot box. The remedy for low turnout must be a serious programme of political reform designed to reconnect politics with the electorate. Some politicians have seen innovations in electoral administration or technology as a method of drumming up turnout. Approaching turnout as a technocratic problem is misconceived because any increase in turnout simply serves to mask problems of legitimacy. This approach is also unlikely to produce results even on its own terms. Changes in electoral administration can result
4

Hansard Society (2014) Tuned in or turned off? Public perceptions of PMQs

in higher turnout, but the sole method that has a more than marginal impact on turnout - postal ballots - carries significant implications for voter fraud and the security of the vote. What lessons can be learnt from other countries where voter registration and turnout is higher? Looking at other countries will provide no short cut to increasing voter registration and turnout. Turnout is a result of the interaction of the political and institutional context in each country; simply importing institutional arrangements from other countries is unlikely to produce the same results. There is no substitute for political reform which builds on the particularities of the political context in the UK. International comparisons may be more relevant when considering the mechanics of electoral registration, though even here the lessons to be learned appear limited. The Electoral Commission reports that the completeness of the UKs electoral register is comparable to other countries which are operating a similar registration system. However, there may be lessons to learn about upcoming changes to the UKs electoral registration system. The introduction of Individual Electoral Registration will shift the balance of responsibility for voter registration towards the individual. If the UK is to avoid a fall in registration rates, civil society organisations need to move in to smooth the transition. In the US, where the balance of responsibility for registration falls almost solely on the individual, there is a robust ecology of civil society organisations which operate voter registration drives. In the transition period, we should examine the possibility of applying the same get out the vote strategies in the UK. The use of voter advice applications, which are well established in many countries may also help but this is addressed in more detail below. To what extent could electoral reform, rebuilding political parties or changes to party funding improve public engagement and voter turnout? There is significant evidence that more proportional voting systems are linked with higher turnout. (3-7%) PR has several features which contribute to voters political efficacy - the perception that their vote will have an impact. Reducing the disproportionality of elections gives voters more confidence in the process that translates their votes into seats. Voters are likely to have more choices of party under PR, as a proportional system makes support of a minor party more viable. These parties are able to form stronger attachments with voters than the catch-all parties common under less proportional systems. Finally, PR systems increase the competitiveness of elections, as fewer areas will be safe seats. Though the incidence of coalitions under PR systems tends to reduce political efficacy, as voters perceive that who will govern is influenced more by negotiations among political elites, the evidence is that the positive

effects of PR on turnout outweigh the negative.5 Turnout is influenced by trust in government and political institutions; other reforms which increase trust in political parties, such as reducing reliance on large donors, are therefore likely to boost turnout. Party funding has remained a major issue of public concern and little progress has been made after the collapse of a series of cross-party talks. A 2012 YouGov poll found that 70% believed that party donors had too much influence over policy. Party funding also shapes the way parties mobilise the electorate, which is an important influence on turnout. Under the current system of party finance, parties have little incentive to reach out to voters outside an election campaign. A system of matched funding, where small donations to parties from individuals are matched by funding from the state, would encourage parties to mobilise supporters more widely than their current focus on swing voters in marginal seats.

In what ways could new technologies be used to encourage people to vote?

The evidence that technology can play a role in increasing turnout by making voting easier is limited. In the 2000s, the UK piloted electronic, internet and SMS voting along with more traditional mechanisms for increasing turnout, such as early and weekend voting and postal ballots. These pilots produced little evidence that technology had a significant effect on turnout. Postal ballots, which were strongly preferred over technological innovations in pilots where voters were presented with the choice of methods of voting, were the only method out of those tested which produced more than a marginal increase in turnout.6 Introducing technology into the process of voting may be justifiable on other grounds, but so far it appears unlikely to result in higher turnout. However, technological advance and changes in patterns of usage may mean that new options, such as online voter registration, are now viable. There is a risk that by focusing on technology as a means to increase turnout, more effective traditional methods may be overlooked. The government should look again at innovations in electoral administration that were beyond the scope of the pilots in the 2000s. In the US, motor voter registration provisions include an option to register to vote on common administrative documents such as drivers licence renewal forms. In order to make voting more convenient for people who may work away from the area where they are registered, some countries have replaced the traditional district-linked polling station with voting centres where voters can vote in any election.7 This does not mean that technology has no role in encouraging people to vote. Voter advice applications have proliferated across Europe in recent years, reaching a broad user base. These applications both provide information about the policy positions of parties and show how
5

Karp and Banducci, Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour, British Journal of Political Science, 2008, 38, pp. 311-334 6 James, Fewer Costs, More Votes? UK Innovations in Electoral Adm inistration 2000-7 and the Effect on Voter Turnout, Election Law Journal, 2011, 10(1), pp. 37-52 7 Stein and Vonnahme, Engaging the Unengaged Voter: Vote Centers and Voter Turnout, Journal of

Politics, 2008, 70(2), pp.487-97

far they match the individual voter based on users stated policy preferences. Unlock Democracy runs an voter advice application called VoteMatch8, which matches voters to parties on the basis of their answers to a set of agree/disagree policy statements. For the 2010 general election, the app was used by over 1.2m unique users. There is considerable evidence showing that voter advice applications have a significant impact on turnout. In Finland, user a voter advice application was associated with a 20% increase in the likelihood of voting after controlling for demographic influences. In Germany and the Netherlands, around 10% of users considered voting as a result of using a voter advice application.9 Our feedback survey indicated that 5% of users decided to vote as a direct result of using VoteMatch. However, unlike countries such as the Netherlands where there is a high level of government support of voter advice applications, in the UK there has been limited funding available for applications of this kind. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of allowing voters to register on the day of an election? Same-day registration streamlines the process of voting into a single visit to the polling station. Evidence from the US states which have introduced same-day registration for elections shows that it had a small but sustained positive impact on turnout (estimated at around 3%).10 However, there are reasons to suggest that the impact would be smaller if introduced in the UK. These effects were observed in states which had longer registration deadlines than the UK, typically between 15 and 30 days. Since the Electoral Administration Act 2006, the registration deadline for the majority of UK elections is 11 days, which means that same-day registration would benefit a smaller set of potential voters. The US experience suggests that same-day registration reduces the disparity in turnout between rich and poor, especially compared to other electoral administration reforms which make voting easier for already registered voters.11 Potential costs include increased pressure on administrators on election day and an increased risk of voter fraud. However, same-day registration may present less of a risk of fraud than advance registration in the UK. US states which permit same-day registration typically require proof of address and photo ID. Since the UK does not currently require ID from registered voters, this could mean that votes from same-day registrants might be more secure than those registered in advance.

8 9

www.votematch.org.uk Cedroni & Garcia, Voting Advice Applications in Europe: The State of the Art, 2010, pp. 24-5 10 Neiheisel & Burden, The Impact of Election Day Registration on Turnout and Election Outcomes, American Politics Research, 2012, 40(4), pp. 636-664 11 Rigby and Springer, Does Electoral Reform Increase (or Decrease) Political Equality?, Political Research Quarterly, 2011, 64(2), pp. 420-434