SPL : Voter turnout: a return to 70%?
The previous article predicted in passing that "come 2009, voter turnout will rocket back to normal, post-WWII levels". This assertion gave rise to a couple of comments, so I will expound a little on why I made this (apparently rash) judgement.
A prediction of an increase in voter turnout in 2009/10 depends in large part on one's analysis of the low turnout witnessed in the 2001 and 2005 general elections. Many reasons were mooted: tedious election campaigns; a focus on the "wrong" issues (eg, Europe in 2001); economic/governmental contentment; absence of a credible opposition; lack of an ideological conflict, or a clear line of distinction between the main parties; failure of politicians to engage; general loss of a sense of citizenship; a reaction against the distorted structure of FPTP; and other factors I have doubtless neglected.
The chart opposite suggests a direct correlation between high turnout and the proportionality of an electoral system. Presuming the statistics to be accurate, and not misleading, I would counter that an electoral system is merely indicative of a political culture which either encourages, or discourages, voter engagement. Electoral reform is simply not sufficiently salient in Britain for it to encourage such endemic apathy; I think it may be expecting too much of the electorate to suppose that the low turnout was a reaction against the failure of the Labour government to take the proposals in the Jenkins Report (1998) seriously.
I happen to take the "cyclical" view - that this is a political phase - significant, but not devastating, for our political system. The structural argument - that FPTP is wasteful, and therefore people have little incentive to vote - I find unconvincing, for this system has existed throughout the post-war period (and before, of course), and yet turnout only dipped below 70% in 2001. This website shows that the turnout in 2001 of 59.2% is statistically significant compared with the post-war mean of 75.2%. This implies that there was something particular about the 2001 and (less so) 2005 elections which caused especially low turnouts. That something, I would argue, was a general failure to engage with the electorate - the parties' campaigns, in other words, were deadly tedious.
2009/10, on the other hand, will be sensationalist - so far as politics can be. Some may argue that the two main parties' policy convergence will exacerbate apathy. To the contrary: the choice between Gordon "tax and spend" Brown and David "general well-being" Cameron will seem substantial, even if the difference is more one of personality than substance.
My only concern is that the newer generation of voters have grown up in a climate where voting is seen as far less imperative. I was amazed recently that some twenty students, supposedly of a humanities bent, failed to name the five most recent Tory leaders, or even identify the gentleman pictured to the left. Perhaps, rather than politically structural, apathy is demographically potent. My sense, though, is that the above analysis will hold sufficiently true - at least for the over-25s - in order to push turnout above that all-important figure of 70%.
Discussion and Debate on Westminster, British Politics, Economics and
Current Affairs
3 Comments:
While I disagree with the main argument of this post - that voter turnout will return to 70% I do agree with some points you made. For example I too doubt that the poor turnout in 2001 was a result of Labour rejecting the Jenkins report, however I believe a more proportional will encourage voting if only because it makes the average voter feel more empowered, perhaps this did not matter much in the past but now I think it does.
I also believe that the reasons voter turnout will remain lower than previous years is because the public's attitude to politics has changed. This I believe is at least partly due to people being apathetic and not motivated enough to visit their polling station (though maybe i'm being cynical yet again) but perhaps because people's lives have improved since the post-war period. The inflation of the 70s has gone and people might not feel a need to vote, nost people care about politics only when it affects them directly and there maybe a degree of 'if it ain't broke don't vote against it'.
Another and in my opinion a more important argument is the narrowing of the political parties. Since the 70s and more importantly since 1997, Labour has been moving towards the centre ground. Abandoning clause 4 and Labour's commitment to socialism in the form of nationalsiation has made the division between the parties less obvious. The edges are getting more blurred and if Dave 'the chameleon' Cameron has his way they will get blurred yet more.
While the turnout for 2005 was greater than 2001 I believe this was in response to the war in Iraq, yet even with this as an added incentive to vote, Labour held onto power and the turnout was still significantly less than the post-war average.
Low voter turnout may have damaging concequences, already some Lords do not feel bound by the Salisbury convention citing the low voter turnout as proof the elected government does not have a true mandate.
I hope turnout recovers but fear the decline is more of a social phenomenon- the cause of which is elusive to all- which will continue into the next election. It was first discernible in 1997 I think, when even the huge excitement of a major change of regimne after 18 years only managed to elicit turnout of just over 70%. I'd put money on it being below that level in 2009-and probably will as I've bet on turnbout for the last two elections: won once, lsot once.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home