House of Commons - Home Affairs

Select Committee on Home Affairs Fourth Report

SECTION B: INCREASING PARTICIPATION: GENERAL FACTORS

Current participation rates

14. The available figures for rates of participation in elections in Great Britain and in other large western developed democracies are set out in the Table below:

Comparative election turnout (votes cast as a percentage of registered voters)

National elections[18]

European elections[19]

Local elections[20]

Larger EU[21] countries:

Italy* 83% (1996) France** 80% (1995)

Germany 79% (1994)

Netherlands 79% (1994)

Spain 77% (1996)

Great Britain 71% (1997)

Selected other countries:

Australia* 96% (1996)

Canada 67% (1997)

Italy 75%

Germany 60%

Spain 59%

France 53%

Great Britain 36%

Netherlands 36%

Italy 85%

Germany 72%

France 68%

Spain 64%

Netherlands 54%

Great Britain 40%

*These countries use a form of compulsory voting

**Although the turnout in the most recent elections to the French National Assembly was 68%, the more relevant comparison is with the presidential elections, the most recent of which was the 1995 election with the turnout shown above.

Thus whether one looks at national, local or European elections, Great Britain has the lowest or equal lowest turnout among the major west European countries. Internationally, in a survey of 163 countries by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, it is in 65^th place. It is true that turnout is lower in North America, especially when one considers the rate of voter registration. In the United States 50 million citizens are not even registered to vote. Turnout is less than two thirds of the registered population but less than half of the voting age population. But, North America apart, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest turnouts in national elections. In its evidence[22] the Home Office acknowledged that turnout is "relatively poor" and "towards the bottom of the league". When it comes to local elections it is unquestionably at the bottom. As the Environment Department noted in its consultation paper 'Modernising Local Government: Local Democracy and Community Leadership', turnout in local elections in Britain "is at the bottom of the European league table and below turnout in all industrialised nations".[23]

15. The turnout rates generally quoted for General Elections (United Kingdom) since 1950 are as follows:

1950 83.9%

1951 82.6%

1955 76.8%

1959 78.7%

1964 77.1%

1966 75.8%

1970 72.0%

1974 (Feb) 78.8%

1974 (Oct) 72.8%

1979 76.0%

1983 72.7%

1987 75.3%

1992 77.7%

1997 71.5%

But these figures do not tell the whole story. The figure for UK general elections represent the number of valid votes cast (31.286 million, in 1997) as a percentage of names on the electoral register in force at the time (43.846 million in May 1997).[24] The true turnout figure would be the number of votes cast as a percentage of the number of names which would be on the register at the time of the election if the register were totally accurate. This number is not known and cannot easily be worked out, but is almost certain to be higher than the actual register total; the true turnout figure would therefore be lower than the 71.5% figure. Accordingly, as Mr Harry Barnes MP put it to us, "the published turnout figures at elections should be handled with care".[25] We discuss the accuracy of the register, and how to improve it, in more detail in Section C of this Report, but we report estimates in paragraph 32 that only between 91% and 92.6% of the eligible population may have been on the effective register at the time of the election, which suggests that the 'real' turnout was around 67%, or two-thirds of the full electorate.

16. Of course this figure cannot be set against the figures for turnout in the other countries in the table above without making a similar assessment of the accuracy of the figures from those countries also. Nevertheless, we have no doubt in concluding that the participation rate in British elections—particularly at European and local elections—is low and that it would be desirable for it to be increased.

Factors affecting turnout

17. A number of factors were advanced in evidence as influencing turnout. There was however a widespread acceptance that a principal factor is the extent to which voters perceive that the election is important, in terms of the importance of the institution being elected. This is most clearly illustrated by the wide differences in turnout between parliamentary elections on the one hand and local or European elections on the other. As Lord Parkinson put it "... turnout reflects people's attitudes to the institutions they are being asked to vote about. They think Parliament is important, but they are not quite so sure about their local councils and about the European Parliament .... It is the enthusiasm for the institution which dictates the turnout".[26]

18. A further major factor is the extent to which people consider that the overall result may be uncertain[27] or that their own vote is significant. As Dr Butler noted "There is no rational reason why anybody should vote. We have not actually had a parliamentary election since 1919 decided by one vote ...".[28] Fortunately only a limited number of people take this observation to its logical conclusion, but it is still a factor. This may be particularly so in local elections: Professor Denver posed the rhetorical question "... what exactly is the point of voting (other than out of a sense of duty) in a ward which is always won by the same party in an authority which is always controlled by the same party. Electors are not fools. They vote in satisfactory numbers when it is worthwhile doing so...".[29] A foregone result can also lead to a very low level of canvassing, which will in turn compound the risk of a low turnout. Some witnesses went on from this to draw the conclusion that the change which would have the greatest effect on turnout would be reform of the voting system to some form of proportional representation.[30]

19. Another factor to keep in mind is the extent to which a low turnout reflects a positive decision to abstain. It would be fairly reasonable to suggest that the relatively low turnouts in the 1983 and 1997 General Elections reflected significant numbers of abstentions by regular Labour voters (in 1983) and regular Conservative voters (in 1997).[31] At present the only way to register an abstention on a UK ballot paper is to leave it blank (or to spoil it). We received insufficient evidence to come to a view as to whether it would be desirable to leave space on a ballot paper where people could, if they wished, register a blank vote in a way that left no doubt of their intention to abstain.

20. We fully recognise that the major factors affecting turnout relate to voters' general perceptions of the importance of the election, the importance of the institution being elected, the importance of their own vote, and their views of the particular candidates which they are offered. The Government, in their evidence to us, concluded that "Where the public consider it important to vote, they will do so and will not be deterred by the electoral procedures..."[32] In addition of course the weather and the timing of an election relative to holiday periods can be factors. It follows that reforms and improvements to the mechanics of the electoral process will not in themselves have a large impact on turnout. But this conclusion does not absolve government, Parliament and political parties from doing what can be done to increase the levels of interest in the system. We now consider two general issues which arise, before going on to discuss the registering and voting processes themselves.

Voter education

21. First of all, we discuss voter education. While it may be right not to be too concerned about people who do not vote because they have made a conscious decision to abstain, there are many potential electors who do not vote because they are uninterested, uninformed or cynical about the political and electoral process.

22. Although witnesses generally supported the idea that effort should go in to programmes to raise levels of awareness of civic life and of civic responsibilities, they were doubtful whether traditional programmes of this sort would achieve a great deal. The Home Office, discussing local elections, stated that while a variety of initiatives, such as multi-lingual leaflets and school visits, had been tried by different local authorities these had costs attached and their "success ... could best be described as limited".[33] Representatives of the political parties thought civic education could be helpful,[34] though Lord Parkinson noted that "the background of cynicism which is preached about politics and a lack of information about Parliament ... is creating a river of disillusionment, and civic lessons would be a very fragile dam to try to erect in the face of that".[35] The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives suggested that it was important that efforts to raise levels of interest should not be limited to "dull lessons" involving councillors or MPs talking to teenagers about how town halls and Parliament work; they noted a need instead for "something that is more appropriate to the next century and takes advantage of new technology".[36] Mr George Howarth MP, the Minister, noted that " ... there is not necessarily a hungry group of young [people] out there, waiting to be told how to vote and how important it is to vote. So we do have to find innovative ways of getting that message across".[37]

23. We do not as a Committee have any magic solution to this problem. We can only endorse both messages we have received, namely that measures to raise levels of interest and awareness of the political process are important and that every effort must be made to identify new ways of making those measures relevant and effective in modern circumstances. We note the establishment by the Department for Education and Employment of an Advisory Group on Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools. In its initial report, the Group recommended that "citizenship education be a statutory entitlement in the curriculum and that all schools should be required to show they are fulfilling the obligation that this places on them".[38] We strongly endorse this.

24. There is one particular aspect of voter education about which we are concerned. We were told that there are currently no plans to establish a special budget to explain to voters the new voting system for the European Parliament elections taking place next year though the Government are "supporting the efforts of the Institute of Citizenship ... and others to publicise" the new system.[39] The Parliamentary Under Secretary, Mr Howarth, drew attention also to the need for the political parties to play a role in this.[40] It is important that the new system, which is less straightforward and simple than the present system, is explained to the public if there is not to be a danger—albeit small, but nonetheless real—of confusion or even apathy arising from ignorance. The importance of this may grow if the public are to continue to be faced with a variety of different voting systems at the same time, as will be the case already for those in Wales and Scotland who will be voting for devolved assemblies as well as for the UK and European Parliaments, all under different systems.[41] We recommend that resources are found to fund a programme of voter education whenever a new electoral system is introduced.

25. One form of direct advertising already available to returning officers is the polling card itself. A number of suggestions have been made for additional information to be placed on polling cards. The DETR consultation paper Modernising local government suggested that brighter and larger cards might be used, with information included on the candidates and a map showing the location of the polling station.[42] Polling cards sent earlier in the election period could include information on how to obtain an absent vote, though the election timetable would dictate that if it was desired to give information on absent votes and on the candidates then two separate distributions would be needed, which would clearly have cost implications.[43] The Local Government Association called for loosening of the present restrictions on the wording and design of polling cards.[44] We would support initiatives to make greater use of the polling card as an instrument for encouraging turnout. We note that the Home Office Working Party has agreed that the guidance on good practice in the use of polling cards should be further developed.

Compulsion

26. One issue raised in evidence was the possibility of making it compulsory to participate in elections. There is already a legal or civil obligation of this kind in a number of countries, including Australia, Belgium, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Italy and four of the eight provinces in Austria. Although it is often referred to as 'compulsory voting', the elector is compelled only to return a ballot paper. It can be left blank. Indeed some countries provide blank ballot papers for those who wish to register an abstention. There has never been a serious debate about compulsory participation in this country and it is difficult to know what the public reaction would be. Professor Blackburn expressed the view that it might be timely to consider the option seriously, given appropriate safeguards,[45] and he was able to point to one opinion poll—the State of the Nation poll conducted by MORI for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust in 1991[46]—that showed that more people were in favour than against. Asked about their attitude to 'making voting compulsory', 49 per cent supported it and 41 per cent opposed it. Details from the poll show that it was not an issue for the 'chattering classes'. Professor Robert Worcester's figures show that the middle classes (AB voters) were on the whole against, but a clear majority of working class voters (C2 and DE) were in favour. There was no difference, however, between the political parties. Supporters of all three main parties were in favour by roughly equal margins. Professor Blackburn believed that a scheme could be made to work satisfactorily so long as it was introduced with cross-party support and without unduly harsh enforcement.

27. In its consultation document 'Modernising local government: local democracy and community leadership', the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions said the Government was therefore "not inclined to pursue this option".[47] However it did include compulsory voting as an option, albeit an 'extreme option', in its consultation document, leaving the door open for others to make the case. In his evidence the Parliamentary Under-Secretary George Howarth MP said the Government had "no plans" to consider compulsory voting, but he too added that he would not rule it out and "if there was an argument mounted we would have to consider it".[48] The Labour Party made it even clearer in its own evidence that it did not rule out compulsory voting and would welcome a debate on the subject. "While Labour has never been in favour of the introduction of compulsory voting for national or local elections," it said, "we are not opposed to a more open debate on the issue and as such welcome its inclusion in the DETR's document¼. Compulsory voting is clearly not a part of this country's traditional approach to such matters but it is far from clear that with certain safeguards it could not obtain public support and it may be that the Select Committee would want to take a closer look at this issue."[49] Both main opposition parties were opposed to compulsory voting. The Conservative Party Chairman Lord Parkinson opposed it on the grounds that "it is a democratic right, I believe, not to vote". He was less concerned about low turnout, arguing that "our system works pretty well and three-quarters of the people turn out¼ Actually¼we get quite a high turnout".[50] Mr Chris Rennard said the Liberal Democrats were "concerned about low turnouts" but opposed compulsory voting because they would not like to see people fined for not voting. If, however, people were given an incentive to vote, such as £5 off their council tax, instead of a fine for not voting, he could "not see any reasonable objection to that".[51]

28. Compulsory voting is normally discussed in the context of national parliamentary elections, but it would make far more difference in local elections - especially in areas where turnout is as low as 10 or 15 per cent - and would also raise far more difficult questions of enforcement. This may be why the Local Government Association says in its evidence that compulsory voting is "not generally supported by local authorities".[52] SOLACE warns that "a significant number of dissenters might be expected [and] it would be necessary to consider the sanctions, policing methods and enforcement agency for non-compliance". The chief executives do not however come out against compulsory voting, regarding it as more of a political than a technical issue, and point out that, while the British ethos has been against compulsion until now, Australia "has had compulsory voting for some considerable time without particular problems".[53]

29. Our view is that while it may not be desirable to have any form of compulsory voting we nevertheless consider that there should be a public debate over this, bearing in mind the much higher rate of voting in democracies where such a system exists.

18 Source: House of Commons Library, using data from IDEA Voter turnout from 1945 to 1997: a global report Back

19 Source: Eurostat - 1994 election Back

20 Source: Rallings, Thrasher and Downe Enhancing local government turnout 1996 Back

21 Information for other EU countries is at Appendix 10, Annex A (Local Government Association). Back

22 Appendix 1 para 1.20. Back

23 DETR (1998) para 3.11. Back

24 Figures supplied by the House of Commons Library; the figure for the electoral register in force is the total number on the 1997 register (see Home Office paper at Appendix 1, Table 1) adjusted for the number of 'attainers' estimated to have reached 18 by May 1997. Back

25 Appendix 12 section C Back

27 See Q 7 (Dr Butler), Q 379 (Lord Parkinson), Q 236 (Mr Turner, AEA). Back

28 Q 11. Back

29 Appendix 17 para 1(iii). Back

30 See Appendix 9 and Q 378 (Liberal Democrats); Appendix 17 (Professor Denver). Back