Written evidence submitted by Dr Scott
Orford*, Professor Colin Rallings**and Professor Michael Thrasher**
* Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research,
Data and Methods (WISERD), Cardiff University
** Directors, Elections Centre, Plymouth University
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This evidence specifically relates to the
Committee's work in relation to the reviews of polling places.
It urges the Committee to consider not simply the important issue
of accessibility in terms of physical access to the polling station
by disabled people but also accessibility in terms of distance
to travel by all electors in a polling district.
2. Distance to travel to vote affects turnout,
especially in lower-salience elections such as those to the European
Parliament and local council elections.
3. The Electoral Commission's good practice guidance
manual for Returning Officers managing local government elections
acknowledges the importance of distance to polling stations for
all elections. Our research that examines voter turnout at polling
stations in the London borough of Brent since the late 1970s supports
this.
4. Polling districts with longer average road
distances between postcodes of where the electorate live and the
polling station tend to have lower turnout than districts with
shorter average distances. This condition holds after social factors
such as deprivation are taken into account.
5. The impact of distance travelled to the polling
station varies with the type of election. The largest impact occurs
in European elections, with voter drop-off occurring after 500
metres from the polling station. For local elections voter drop
off occurs at around 600 metres. Distance has little influence
on general election turnout.
6. The impact of distance to polling station
is increasing. In the late 1970s, distance only had a marginal
affect in European elections but since then this affect has not
only become larger but has also become influential in local elections.
7. In the early 1990s, voter turnout was roughly
the same in local and European elections for similar distances
from the polling station, everything else being equal. By the
late 1990s turnout to local elections had become larger, by an
average of three percentage points, than that for European elections
for voters travelling the same distances.
8. Voter turnout to European elections is sensitive
to terrain over the same time period, with a drop in turnout of
4.8% for every 10 metre difference in height between where a voter
lives and the location of the polling station for the election
in the late 1990s, an increase from 3.6% in the early 1990s.
9. Similar research conducted in the US supports
the UK research findings and describes the extent to which electors
are becoming more sensitive to distance to travel to polling stations.
10. In particular voters are becoming sensitive
to polling station re-location. The 2003 California recall election
shows that consolidation of polling places in some areas had a
negative impact on turnout. In Brent we demonstrate that by moving
a polling station from its present location to another location
that represented the maximum density of voters in the polling
district, turnout could be increased by up to 5%.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
11. This is written evidence for the Political
and Constitutional Reform Committee regarding the draft legislation
relating to electoral timetables, polling place reviews and the
use of emblems on ballot papers (Standard Note: SN/PC/06055).
12. In particular, it is a response to the Electoral
Administration Act 2006 and the duty for local authorities to
review polling places every four years to ensure the improvement
of accessibility of polling stations for disabled people. The
draft clause in SN/PC/06055 concerns the timing of the reviews
of polling places and changes this to every five years in light
of the provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.
13. We recommend, however, an additional draft
clause that these reviews also take into consideration the accessibility
of the polling station in terms of distance travelled to vote
by all the electorate in the polling district and not simply cast
accessibility in terms of physical access to the polling station
by disabled people.
14. This is because the distance a person has
to travel to vote can affect their propensity to do so, especially
in lower-salience elections such as those to the European Parliament
and local council elections.
15. The Electoral Commission's good practice
guidance manual for Returning Officers managing local government
elections in England and Wales acknowledges the importance of
accessibility in terms of distance to polling stations for all
elections.
16. Part B of the manual—preparing for
an election—states in paragraph 5.14:
"The location of the building is important when
considering whether or not it should be used as a polling station.
If possible, it needs to be close to where voters live and to
be fully accessible. Questions to ask are: is it located close
to where most of the electors in the polling district live? Is
it at the top or bottom of a steep hill? Does it have suitable
access from a road? If there is a pavement, does it have a dropped
kerb close by? Are there any convenient public transport links?"
(The Electoral Commission (2007): Managing a local government
election in England and Wales: guidance for Returning Officers
- a good practice guidance manual, Part B, Page 25; added emphasis)
17. The Electoral Commission's good practice
guidance is supported by our own work in the London Borough of
Brent for elections between the late 1970s and 2001 (Orford et
al, 2009; Orford et al, 2011). This research reveals
that voters are very sensitive to accessibility to the polling
station and those voting in person will, for example, factor in
costs associated with the distance to travel and the estimated
journey time.
18. We have shown that polling districts with
longer average road distances between the postcodes of where the
electorate live and the polling station where they cast their
vote tend to have lower turnout than districts with shorter average
distances, and this condition holds after social factors such
as deprivation are taken into account. A similar result occurs
when average road distance is substituted for postcode density
within polling districts. In extreme cases, even marginal changes
to the distance travelled and time taken to vote can make a difference—distances
travelled to vote in the Brent example ranged from almost nothing
to two kilometres.
19. Our work also shows that the impact of distance
travelled to the polling station varied depending upon the type
of election. The largest impact occurred in lower-salience European
elections, with voter drop-off occurring after 500 metres from
the polling station; this occurred at 600 metres for local elections.
Distance travelled had very little influence on turnout to Parliamentary
elections.
20. The impact of distance to polling station
is becoming more important in recent years. In the late 1970s,
distance only had a marginal affect in European elections but
since then this affect has not only become larger but has also
become influential in local elections. In the early 1990s, voter
turnout was roughly the same in local and European elections for
similar distances from the polling station, everything else being
equal, but by the late 1990s turnout to local elections had become
larger, by an average of three percentage points, than that for
European elections for voters travelling the same distances.
21. In addition, voter turnout to European elections
was becoming sensitive to terrain over the same time period, with
a drop in turnout of 4.8% for every 10 metre difference in height
between where a voter lives and the location of the polling station
for the election in the late 1990s, an increase from 3.6% in the
early 1990s.
22. Research in the U.S. reveals comparable findings
to those in the UK. Work by Gimpel and Schuknecht (2003) shows
that, other things being equal, the perceived costs of travelling
longer distances to vote are far greater in higher-density urban
areas than in suburban and rural areas where traffic congestion
is lower and people expect to travel longer distances in order
to carry out daily activities. Haspel and Knotts (2005) demonstrate
that voters are sensitive to even small differences in distance
travelled.
23. Further confirmation of sensitivity to polling
place location comes from a study of the 2003 California recall
election (Brady and McNulty 2005), which found that the consolidation
of polling places in some areas had a negative impact on turnout;
for some electors the disruption to their voting routine and the
additional travelling costs proved a sufficient disincentive to
voting.
24. In our work in Brent (Orford et al,
2011) we demonstrate that by moving a polling station from its
present location to another location that represented the maximum
density of voters in the polling district, turnout could be increased
by up to 5%. Hence, even subtle changes in electoral procedure
and their effect on aggregate levels of turnout merely serve to
emphasise the importance of the perceived costs of voting and
the sensitivity of voters to this in terms of the decision to
vote.
25. Although our work is based on ecological
rather than individual level voting data, these results nonetheless
give support for the contention that accessibility in terms of
distance travelled to vote matters and it matters more at low
salience, second order local and European elections and is becoming
more important.
26. Reasons for the increasing importance of
distance may reflect the increased time pressures faced by prospective
voters, such as longer commuting time and changing work and home
commitments, meaning that the costs of voting have become more
significant. Hence, while it is clear that social factors continue
to be important for the explanation of turnout, it is also apparent
that electors are engaging in more assessment of the costs and
benefits of voting (Blais 2000).
27. Of course, we should be cautious when making
generalisations from a single case study based within a London
borough. Clearly, more research is needed that, ideally, should
include areas that are geographically different.
28. Such research should address some crucial
questions. Are electors that reside in less densely populated
areas (where polling stations may be further apart) more or less
sensitive to distance from polling station than their urban neighbours?
Is there a tipping point where the distance to travel rules out
the probability of walking and what, if any, is the subsequent
effect on participation.
29. It is time that more attention is given towards
facilitating voting by a more strategic approach to the siting
of polling stations. Given the increased emphasis in local authority
guidance on improving accessibility and reducing distances travelled
to vote, we would argue that a better understanding of how turnout
is affected by the location of polling stations should feature
in the five year polling place review.
REFERENCES
Blais, A (2000): To vote or not to vote? University
of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh
Brady, H E and McNulty, J E (2005): The costs of
voting: evidence from a natural experiment Annual Meeting of
the Midwest Political Science Association Chicago 4-6 March 2005
Gimpel, J G and Schuknecht, J E (2003): Political
participation and the accessibility of the ballot box, Political
Geography 22 471-88
Haspel, M and Knotts, G (2005): Location, location,
location: precinct placement and the costs of voting, Journal
of Politics 67 560-73
Orford, S Rallings C, Thrasher M and Borisyuk, G
(2011). Changes in the probability of voter turnout when re-siting
polling stations: a case study in Brent, UK, Environment and
Planning C, Government and Policy, 29, pp. 149-169
Orford, S Rallings C, Thrasher M and Borisyuk, G
(2009). Electoral Salience and the Costs of Voting at National,
Sub-National and Supra-National Elections in the UK: a case study
of Brent, UK Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
34, pp. 195-214
The Electoral Commission (2007): Managing a local
government election in England and Wales: guidance for Returning
Officers - a good practice guidance manual. The Electoral
Commission, London
September 2011
| 
