Voter Turnout in UK General Elections 1997 – 2005

When the Labour Party came to power in 1997 they did so with a massive majority, indeed as Pippa Norris (1997, p1) describes; 'After eighteen years in the opposition wilderness, Labour surged to power with 419 MPs (including the Speaker), their highest number ever, overflowing the government benches in the Commons. ' In 2001, after four years in power, the Labour Party were re-elected with an almost equally large majority of 167 seats reduced from 179 in 1997 and with the loss of only 6 seats . Worcester and Mortimer, 2001, p3) However there was one striking difference between the two General Election results and that was the drastically reduced turnout of the electorate in 2001.The turnout for the 1997 General Election was 71. 4%, in 2001 this dropped to 59. 4% with only a slight recovery in the 2005 General Election to 61.

4%. (Electoral Commission, 2005, p27) This meant that the 2001 General Election produced 'the lowest (turnout) since 1918, and the lowest ever under the full democratic franchise. (The Electoral Commission, 2002, p6) What is also evident from these recent election results is the disparity between younger (18-24) and older (65+) voters. This is clearly demonstrated in the 2001 general election where only 39% of 18-24 year olds voted compared to 70% of those over 65 years old. (Electoral Commission, 2002, p6) This essay will analyse the possible reasons behind the substantial decline in turnout since the 1997 General Election and its only slender improvement in 2005.It will examine and attempt to provide some explanations for the strong contrast between the turnout of the youngest and oldest of voters and will also explore possible solutions to rectifying the problem of low voter turnout.

A point that should first be addressed is why voter turnout is important. According to Pateman (1970, cited in Scully et al, 2004, p522) there are; 'two broad attitudes towards participation in contemporary democratic theory; the proponents of representative government ... nd the champions of participatory democracy'. In a representative democracy, such as the UK, political participation can be achieved in a number of ways including protesting, campaigning or joining sectional or cause groups, however by far the most common form of political behaviour is through the exercise of voting.

(Jackman, 1987, p405) It is therefore logical to conclude that the recent low voter turnout in general elections has meant fewer people participating in the political process.A low voter turnout can also call into question the democratic legitimacy of a Government, representative government theorists would argue, however, that this is not the case; 'Theorists of representative government see no particular intrinsic merit in securing high turnouts at elections. All that is necessary is for turnout to reach 'the minimum necessary to keep the democratic method (electoral machinery) working'. ' Pateman (1970, cited in Scully et al, 2004, p522) This is at odds with the proponents of a participatory democracy who argue that; ensuring high election turnout is ...

crucial. High turnout is associated with a healthy political system - a system that is not only an effective deliverer for the public good but also enjoys a high degree of public legitimacy. 'Scully et al (2004, p523) It is clear that the 2001 General Election was a terrific victory for the Labour Party but it is also worth noting that with only 59. 4% of the electorate voting and only 42% of them voting for the Labour Party, over two thirds of the British electorate didn't vote for government.

Worcester and Mortimer, 2001, p3) It can be argued that this raises doubts over the strength of the government's mandate from the people. In terms of explaining the reasons behind the low turnout, rational choice theory would indicate that this is a purely logical outcome, indeed Downs (1957 cited in Geys, 2006, p16) argues that according to his infamous model 'the instrumental voter axiom predicts large-scale abstention because no individual is likely to have an influence on the election outcome. '.The increase in turnout in closely fought elections and marginal seats adds weight to this argument because the benefits of voting begin to increase compared to the cost, as each vote is comparatively more important. This goes some way to explaining why the turnout in 2001 was so low, as Worcester and Mortimer (2001, p179) point out 'the certainty of a Labour victory (in 2001) must have had some effect in depressing the turnout'. They also argue that, as a result of the UK's first past the post electoral system, 'turnout in "safe" seats is and has been for many years, lower than in marginals.

Moreover it fell further in the safest seats in 2001 than elsewhere. ' With parties giving greater priority to marginal seats the effect of increased campaigning in these areas must also not be discounted. The Labour safe seats also traditionally tend to be those in the poorer areas of the country and as Henn et al (2005, p556) found 'voter turnout was lowest in constituencies of relatively high socio-economic deprivation. ' thus increasing the costs of the voter. In deference to rational choice theory the government attempted to reduce the costs of the voter by making it easier to vote.

Postal voting was introduced in 2001 and in the 2005 General Election 'the government revised the electoral procedures to simplify and extend postal voting' (Henn et al, 2005, p556). This resulted in 'a massive increase in postal voting, estimated to have increased from 1. 4 million to around 5 million. ' (Travis 2005, cited in Henn et al (2005, p556) However it would be difficult to argue that this sizeable reduction in voter costs has significantly influenced turnout given that it only increased 2 percent from 2001 to 2005.

Postal voting goes some way to explaining the slight increase in voter turnout in 2005 from 2001, another reason may be a greater engagement of some highly emotionally charged issues at the time. According to Whitely et al (2005, p809) there were 'a complex of issues that had been largely absent in 2001 was prominent in 2005' such as the Iraq war, terrorism, asylum seekers and immigration. However it cannot be ignored that a 2 percent increase in voter turnout from 2001 can hardly be claimed to be a recovery of the democratic process and there is still a long way to go.The only limited success of postal voting calls into question the notion of rational choice affecting turnout, Fiorina and Grofman (1990, 1993 cited in Geys, 2006, p16) argue that turnout 'is the paradox that ate rational choice theory'.

Worcester and Mortimer (2001, p179) also concede that 'only 5% of those who had said that they were certain to vote ....

afterwards admitted they had not done so cited "foregone conclusion" as their reason for changing their minds'.If rational choice is not the reason behind low voter turnout then it could be argued that narrowing ideologies of the main political parties may be the answer. As Worcester and Mortimer (2005, p117) illustrate, in answer to the 'Michigan' question, over the last 40 years we have seen a long term fall in party alignment with 'around twice as many of the public now declin(ing) to indentify themselves with any of the parties as was then the case' and 'may point towards a steadier long-term fall' in voter turnout.This they argue is 'evidence that the public are turning to single-issue pressure groups, NGO's or other channels for their political expression rather that political parties. ' (2005, p118) This would perhaps go some way to explaining why, particularly with young people, we see 'a high level of volunteering, campaigning and other social action activities' (Roker et al, 1999 cited in Henn et al, 2005, p558) rather than voting itself.

This fact seems to consolidate the claim the young people have an 'apparent aversion to formal politics' and prefer to carry out acts that are not considered political. (Henn et al, 2005, p558) Worcester and Mortimer (2005, p115) found that by far the most overwhelming reason for why people voted at the 2001 General Election was because of a sense of civic duty to do so, with 86% of voters agreeing it is their "duty to vote". What was also apparent in this poll was the difference in reaction from the oldest and youngest of voters with only 67% of the youngest voters agreeing with this statement.According to Worcester and Mortimer (2005, p111), the effect of voting due to habit is also important and 'is much stronger with older voters', therefore indicating another reason for voter apathy amongst younger voters. Kimberlee (2002, cited in Henn et al, 2005, p558) provides a 'politics focused' explanation for the lack of engagement in the democratic process by young people.

He argues that 'the political system is failing to provide the stimuli necessary to encourage young people to turnout and vote'.Kimberlee also argues that political parties 'focus their attentions on key groups of voters whose support is most likely to yield maximum electoral dividends'. Therefore due to their perceived lack of interest in voting and politics in general, the issues of young people are generally ignored by parties in favour of 'middle-aged, middle-England voters. ' (Henn et al, 2005, p559) Consequently a vicious circle is then formed with young people feeling alienated from the political process and therefore not wanting to participate in formal politics thus leading to further alienation by the political parties.There are a number of solutions that have been touted as the potential saviours of voter turnout.

Compulsory voting is a concept that has been used in other countries such as Australia to increase voter turnout. When Geoff Hoon was Leader of the House he was keen to open up the idea to debate, he stated that; 'International experience points to compulsory voting being the most effective way to increase turnout'. (The Guardian, 2005) This has been proven in Australia where voter turnout was approximately 95% in the general election of 1997. (Australian Election Commission, 1997).However it can also be argued that 'compulsory voting encourages 'donkey voting', i. e.

simply voting for anyone to get it out of the way' (Compulsory voting, The Electoral Reform Society, no date) and could lead to a culture of ill-informed voting. Following the rational choice theory, the government attempted to reduce the costs of voting by introducing postal voting and some believe that these costs should be reduced further through possible internet or SMS voting. However the 2005 election proved that reducing the costs of voting does not necessarily have a large impact on voter turnout.The Electoral Reform Society (cited on e-gov website, 2003) argue that it e-voting would just be 'tinkering around the edges of democracy' and that the government 'should be moving ahead with pilots which encourage people to vote by making voting more worthwhile or comprehension greater'. Another argument is to change the electoral system in the UK to one where greater perceived benefit is given to each vote, for example proportional representation, this would follow the rational choice theory that would mean more people were likely to vote if the benefit outweighed the cost.The Liberal Democrats argue that it is 'a fairer and better electoral system' (Liberal Democrat website, 2003).

However opponents of a change to PR argue that; 'It also prevents voters from removing an Administration, in that it creates perpetual coalition Government. An unpopular Administration can be kept in office by a minor party, despite the desire of the people to kick the rascals out' (Heald, Conservative party website, 2005) Voting is an important part of any democracy and in a representative democracy such as the UK it is a vital form of political participation allowing the people to choose its government and legislature.It is therefore of serious concern that voter turnout has declined so significantly in recent times. It is clear that there are many potential reasons for this decline in voter turnout and there are also many possible ways in which it could be rectified.

Compulsory voting would certainly achieve a higher turnout for elections, as proven in Australia, but it can be argued that ill-informed voting could arise, with people going to the ballot box just to get it out of the way. Also with the right to vote should a citizen also have the right not to vote as well.A higher voter turnout cannot be said to heighten the legitimacy of a government when the voters have been forced into giving their support. If the will of the voters is, ceteris paribus, to stay at home, it has a right to be reflected.

' (The Electoral Reform Society, no date) Changes in voting methods can surely not be the solution either as proven by the 2005 election where only a small increase in turnout was achieved through a large increase in postal voting. The rational choice theory, however, does hold a certain amount of sway, in terms of increasing the benefit of a person's vote by making each vote count.In the present electoral system many votes are wasted and as shown by the lower turnout in safe-seats, people can feel disenfranchised from voting. A change to a proportional voting system would give much more value to each vote and in turn should encourage more people to vote. There is a clear divide between the youngest and oldest voters in terms of turnout and although because of the early stage in adult life this could be attributed to lifestyle such as university, social life, partners it is important that young people have their voice heard too.Due to the vicious circle of politicians ignoring young people because they are unlikely to vote, the issues of younger voters are not being addressed.

Proportional Representation could help to solve this problem by promoting greater confidence in the electoral and political system and encouraging younger people to vote, this could result in greater attention to issues that concern the youth of today.