2 Reasons for low levels of voter
engagement
9. In our interim report we explored several reasons
for the current low levels of voter engagement.[12]
The main reasons we concluded were responsible for the current
low levels of engagement with elections, as well as politics more
broadly, were:
· Negative
views of politicians;
· Disengagement
with politics more broadly;
· How political
parties are structured;
· The role of
the media;
· The value of
voting; and
· Where power
lies in the UK.
The views expressed in response to our consultation
are set out below, and we have refined our conclusions and recommendations
in the light of these representations.
Negative views of politicians
and politics
10. We noted in our interim report that there were
broad negative stereotypes about Parliament and Government which
we felt went beyond healthy cynicism and, if unaddressed, could
undermine the basis of our representative democracy.[13]
Several responses to our interim report highlighted dissatisfaction
with politicians, political parties and the political system more
broadly as a reason for low levels of engagement with elections.
Points that were raised with us include:
· There
is a lack of choice available to voters, and parties are too similar;[14]
· Politicians
are not representative of the public;[15]
· There is a
lack of trust in and a poor view of politicians and political
parties;[16]
· The power of
the Executive and parties is too great.[17]
These points are very much in line with the evidence
we received ahead of producing our interim report.
Political parties
11. Our interim report concluded that the structure
of political parties should be reconsidered with a view to better
engaging with the public, and also recommended that talks around
the funding of political parties be resumed, to address concerns
about present arrangements.[18]
These are both issues that respondents to our consultation highlighted
as issues affecting how people engage with voting.[19]
Both the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional
and Political Reform and the Green Party for England and Wales
welcomed our recommendation that all-party talks on party funding
be resumed.[20] The evidence
from the Green Party for England and Wales highlighted its "bottom
up" decision-making process, the fact that candidates were
chosen by local members and that elected representatives of the
party were not subject to whipping.[21]
Bite the Ballot has called for parties to go "back to the
drawing board" to look at how their members and the public
can be empowered to craft and decide policy, and also to stand
for election.[22] The
Government has told us that it "is now clear that reforms
[to party funding] cannot go forward in this Parliament"
but that it hoped that "the principles explored [in this
Parliament] can inform further discussions on this topic and that
the parties will then return to this issue after the General Election."[23]
12. It is disappointing that the Government has
decided the issue of party funding will not be considered further
until after the General Election. This is an issue which has gone
unresolved for too long, and further delay is not acceptable.
We look to an early resolution to this issue in the next Parliament.
The role of the media
13. Our interim report noted the essential role of
the media in informing the public about political news, but raised
concerns that the focus of the media on negative news stories
and "the very worst of party politics" could have an
adverse impact on public engagement with politics and, therefore,
elections. Several responses to our consultation addressed the
role of the media in relation to voter engagement and coverage
of politics more broadly, with the majority raising concerns about
the focus of the media on conflict and a number of submissions
also addressing negative effects of "spin" and misinformation.[24]
We note that Bite the Ballot recently hosted a series of online
discussions between young voters and leaders of the main political
parties, an initiative that allowed the public to engage with
politicians away from the influence of the mainstream media.[25]
Similarly, the Digital Debate consortiuman initiative comprising
YouTube, the Guardian and the Telegraphhas suggested that
an online leaders' debate is the "logical progression to
build on the success of the 2010 television debates", stating
that "the interactivity enabled by digital technology provides
the opportunity for far greater engagement and participation in
the democratic process", particularly for young people.[26]
The value of voting
14. Our interim report noted that several witnesses
believed many people had concerns about the value of voting, particularly
because of the electoral system used for general and local electionsthe
First Past the Post (FPTP) system. We were told that this electoral
system could have a negative impact on the value of individual
votes and therefore people's perception of how worthwhile voting
was.[27] A large number
of responses to our consultation, including the evidence we received
from the Green Party for England and Wales, reinforced the evidence
we received previously, highlighted the adverse impact the FPTP
electoral system for parliamentary elections had on the value
of voting for many electors.[28]
By way of example, one respondent to our consultation stated in
relation to the electoral system: "I do not want to be a
disengaged voter, but the system effectively disengages me."[29]
15. A variety of voting systems are currently used
for different types of election across the UK, including:
· First
Past the Post: Voters pick one candidate and the candidate with
the most votes is elected (used for general elections and local
elections in England and Wales).
· Single Transferable
Vote: Voters rank candidates in preference and any candidate receiving
the necessary number of votes to be elected (the quota) is elected,
and any surplus votes are transferred to the remaining candidates.
If a candidate does not meet the quota they are eliminated and
ballots cast for them are transferred according to the voter's
preferences (used for electing the Northern Ireland Assembly,
local elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland and European
Parliament elections in Northern Ireland).
· Supplementary
Vote: Voters pick a first and second candidate and the winner
is the candidate that receives either 50% of first preference
votes or, if no one meets this criteria, the candidate that has
most votes after all but the top two candidates are eliminated
and second preference votes distributed (used to elect the Mayor
of London and other elected mayors).
· Additional
Member System: Voters cast two votes, one for an individual candidatewho
is elected under First Past the Postand one for a partywhere
representatives are elected proportionally to represent a larger
area (used to elect the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly
for Wales and the London Assembly).
· Closed Party
List: Voters pick the party they wish to support and each party
gets the number of seats in proportion to the number of votes
it has received in each constituency (used for elections to the
European Parliament, except in Northern Ireland).[30]
16. A large number of respondents to our consultation
felt that the First Past the Post electoral system disenfranchised
them, and meant that for them it was not worth voting. It is hard
to dispute that in safe seats, where the incumbent has a large
majority and the party of the elected representative is unlikely
to change at a general election, there is a reduced incentive
to participate at elections. This can only have a negative impact
on voter engagement. We note that a wide range of electoral systems
are already in use for various elections that take place across
the UK, and the supremacy of one particular electoral system should
therefore not be presumed.
Where power lies
17. Our interim report considered the impact that
centralisation of power in the UK had on voter engagement, and
concluded that this could only have an adverse effect on how people
engaged with elections, and local politics in particular. We also
received several comments stating that people felt there was less
reason to vote when so many decisions were perceived to have been
made at EU level. Several respondents to our consultation made
similar points.[31] The
evidence we received from the Chairman of the Conservative Party
highlighted the importance they believe these issues had for voter
engagement, stating: "First and foremost, we believe that
a crucial part of increasing voter engagement lies in giving powers
back to communities." He stated that a lack of accountability
and choice at a local level had resulted in political disenfranchisement
and that the Conservatives in government had sought to redress
this through devolution, localism and City Deals.[32]
The Green Party for England and Wales told us that they deemed
the principle of decision making at the lowest possible level
to be important at all levels of society, stating that the current
lack of power at local authority level is "undemocratic
and a disincentive for voters at council elections."[33]
18. Debates around devolution are now particularly
relevant to the question of voter engagement, as proposals for
further powers to be devolved to Scotland include those relating
to elections and the franchise, with discussions ongoing about
the possibility of similar proposals being extended to Wales.
The Smith Commission's report on the further devolution of powers
to the Scottish Parliament stated: "The Scottish Parliament
will have all powers in relation to elections to the Scottish
Parliament and local government elections in Scotland",[34]
and the Government has now published draft clauses for a Scotland
Bill to give effect to this proposal.[35]
The Wales Act 2014 empowers the Welsh Assembly to decide whether
16 and 17 year olds would be eligible to participate on any referendum
on the commencement of income tax provisions contained in the
Act.[36]
Conclusion
19. With respect to the reasons for current low
levels of voter engagement, the conclusions and recommendations
in paragraphs 15 to 40 of our interim report stand, although we
have expanded above on the concerns that have been expressed about
the value of voting. We hope the additional evidence we have received
on these points, as set out above, will inform progress on these
issues.
12 Voter engagement in the UK, paras 11-40 Back
13
Voter engagement in the UK, para 15 Back
14
Written evidence from Mary Beton [PVE 04], David Bowes [PVE 05],
A K Hart [PVE 60], Mr Christopher Heyes [PVE 86], PCRC survey results Back
15
Written evidence from David Bowes [PVE 05], Nigel Siederer [PVE 65] Back
16
Written evidence from Sean Wallace [PVE 03], Roger Edward Doran
[PVE 14], John Cartwright [PVE 16], Phillip Barnes [PVE 40], Jackie
Terry [PVE 70], Southern Branch of the Association of Electoral
Administrators [PVE 89] Back
17
Written evidence from David Bowes [PVE 05], Gordon Sheppard [PVE 45],
correspondence received by the Committee [Annex 2], PCRC survey results Back
18
Voter engagement in the UK, paras 21-22 Back
19
On party structures: Written evidence from Dr Christopher Pogson
[PVE 27], Bite the Ballot [PVE 115]. On funding of political parties:
Dr Christopher Pogson [PVE 27], Peter Davidson [PVE 66], Robert
Copeland [PVE 68], the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee
on Constitutional and Political Reform [PVE 106] Back
20
Written evidence from Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee
on Constitutional and Political Reform [PVE 106], Green Party
for England and Wales [PVE 96] Back
21
Written evidence from the Green Party for England and Wales [PVE 96] Back
22
Written evidence from Bite the Ballot [PVE 115] Back
23
Voter engagement in the UK: Government Response to the Committee's
Fourth Report of Session 2014-15, page 2 Back
24
Written evidence from Mary Beton [PVE 04], Adam Bastock [PVE 18],
Dr Christopher Pogson [PVE 27], Peter Davidson [PVE 66], Southern
Branch of the Association of Electoral Administrators [PVE 89],
the Green Party for England and Wales [PVE 96] Back
25
Written evidence from Bite the Ballot [PVE 115] Back
26
Written evidence from the Digital Debate Consortium [PVE 121] Back
27
Voter engagement in the UK, paras 32-33 Back
28
Written evidence from Mary Beton [PVE 04], David Bowes [PVE 05],
Angus Geddes [PVE 11], Kevin Cleary [PVE 26], Martin Warner [PVE 29],
John Cross [PVE 53], Thomas G F Gray [PVE 56], Dr Vere Smyth [PVE 57],
Michael Meadowcroft [PVE 63], Nigel Siederer [PVE 65], Peter Davidson
[PVE 66], Ross Lloyd [PVE 67], Norman Day [PVE 71], Anthony Tuffin
[PVE 73], Jim Halcrow [PVE 82], Dr James Gilmour [PVE 84], Keith
Underhill [PVE 85], Mr Christopher Heyes [PVE 86], Make Votes
Count in West Sussex [PVE 92], STV Action [PVE 94], the Green
Party for England and Wales [PVE 96], David Green [PVE 99], PCRC survey results Back
29
Written evidence from Nigel Siederer [PVE 65] Back
30
Voting systems in the UK, Parliament Back
31
Written evidence from David Bowes [PVE 05], Isaac Ingram [PVE 07],
Barry E Thomas [PVE 20], Avtar Singh [PVE 23], Phillip Barnes
[PVE 40], Professor Tom McGuffog [PVE 61], Peter Davidson [PVE 66],
Jim Halcrow [PVE 82], PCRC survey results Back
32
Written evidence from Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, Chairman of the
Conservative Party [PVE 116] Back
33
Written evidence from the Green Party for England and Wales [PVE 96] Back
34
Report of the Smith Commission for further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament,
The Smith Commission, 27 November 2014 Back
35
Scotland in the United Kingdom: An enduring settlement, Cm 8990,
HM Government, January 2015 Back
36
Wales Act 2014, Schedule 1 Back
|