Week 11: Elections and Voting

Introduction

• Course: GOV 366G

• Professor: David L. Leal

• Semester: Spring 2025

• Week 11 Focus: Elections and Voting

Chapter Overview

• Reference: Denver and Johns, “Studying British Elections” (Chapter 1)

• Key Theme: Elections and voters in Britain have become increasingly unpredictable and volatile.

Historical Context: Comparing Elections

1959 vs. 2019 Elections

• 1959 Election:

  • Era of relative calm

  • Broad consensus on policy

  • Little vote switching

  • Dominance of two parties (Conservatives and Labour): 94% votes and 99% seats.

• 2019 Election:

  • Only 78% of votes and 90% of seats secured by the main parties.

Rise of Smaller Parties

• Historical context for parties like SNP and PC that were once considered “fringe”.

• Introduction of new parties such as Greens, UKIP, and Reform.

• – Plus “old parties that refuse to die off”

• Emergence of local campaigners and independent candidates.

• Current alignment reflects changing political dynamics and voter expectations.

Electoral Dynamics and Theories

Factors Behind Changing Voting Behavior

• Major theories explored:

  • Decline in faith in major parties.

  • Economic and logistical factors for running a campaign (e.g. deposit fees, free mail delivery).

  • Deposit cost of £500 has not changed since 1985

    Free mail delivery to every household in a

    constituency

    Free radio-TV advertising for parties that contest

    one-sixth or more of constituencie

  • Despite easier voting processes, lower voter turnout is reported.

Voter Motivation

• Historically, elections were seen as events for social interaction and entertainment.

• Changes in legislation (e.g. Second Reform Act 1867,Corrupt Practices Act, Secret Ballot Act) impacted how campaigns were conducted.

• – Even afterwards, a form of public

  entertainment

Intensity of Election Coverage

• High levels of media coverage (newspaper, TV, social media).

• Elections considered a spectator sport, yet there are mixed public sentiments toward them.

• Lots of statistical data to analyze

  “psephologists”

• Involvement by many as candidates, party

  workers, pollsters, pundits

Voter Turnout Trends

• Electoral Swing: Measures the shift in support between two parties across elections.

  • Net change in support for two parties in consecutive

    elections

  • Way to understand the change signified by an

    election (compared to last election)

  • But growth of smaller parties complicates this

    e.g. Labour share of the vote in 2014 changed little

    from 2019, yet won large victory

• Petersen Index: Indicates increasing electoral volatility from 3.3 in 1959 to 8.1 in 2019.

Constituencies and Boundary Commissions

• 650 constituencies in the House of Commons, subject to redefinition every 8-12 years.

• Boundary Commissions established since 1944, operate non-partisan.

Voter Registration Process

• The government conducts annual canvasses; every household must register all inhabitants.

• Four; one for each “nation”

• Voting option includes mail-in, facilitating ease in participation.

Campaigning Dynamics

• Campaign period generally lasts 3-4 weeks.

• – Party matters more than the individual

  • Local campaigns are designed to reinforce national messaging, diminishing the personal vote.

• Spending limits are markedly low compared to the US.

Party Expenditure in Elections

• Parties have capped expenditures, e.g., maximum of £34.1 million for the 2024 election.

• Candidate expenditure limits

  • 2023 rule change: £11,390 + 12p multiplied by the

    number of voters

    • Very low by American standards

• Candidates allowed one free mail piece

  • Example: PM Rishi Sunak in 2024

    Total reported expenditures: £19,338.9

• Most advertising is done through the media, with limitations on paid ads.

• Try to shape media coverage (“free media”)

• Write manifestos; few sales

Varieties of Electoral Systems in the UK

• Elections

  • Elections For…

    – Parliament

    – Devolved legislatures

    – Local councils

    – Mayors (in some areas)

    – Police and Crime Commissioners

    – European Union Parliament (before Brexit

• System Types:

  • First-past-the-post (FPTP).—- house of commons, some welsh/english authorities

  • Multi-member, simple plurality.- some elnglish / welsh local authorites

  • Additional Member System (AMS).—— scottish parliment. Welsh assmebly. London Assembely

  • Single Transferable Vote (STV).—— Northorn ireland assmbely. all socttish councils.

  • Regional party lists.—— European parliment

  • Supplementary Vote—- MAyors of England

• USA

  • USA largely uses FPTP / SMSP

    “First past the post”

    “Single member, simple plurality” system

    Some states have runoff elections if nobody

    receives a majority (e.g. GA)

    • Today, UK uses wide variety of electoral

      systems for different institutions

      FPTP hegemony at an end

Considerations for FPTP Support

• Perceived clarity and accountability benefits compared to multi-party systems.

• system is coherant

  • Usually gives one party a majority

    People understand system, know who is in charge

• Concerns about adversarial politics and representation of smaller parties.

• System is responsive

  Incentive for Government and governing party to

  listen

• Governments are more stable

• Coalition governments tend to break apart more

  quickly

• System is effective

• Policies in manifesto are typically implemented

  • Mostly prevents coalitions…

    …which nobody voted for

• Prevents minor parties from skewing policy

  As cost for becoming decisive coalition partne

Critiques of FPTP

• Not delivering proportional outcomes; many votes considered wasted.

  • As some minority or coalition governments formed

    UK from 2010-2015; and 2017-19 arrangement

• Parties do not receive seats proportional to

  votes

• Voters as a whole do not get results wanted

• Many votes essentially do not count or are wasted

  • Smaller parties (especially LibDems and UKIP) often

    lose ou

• Large share of MPs elected without a majority of votes (e.g., half in 2015).

• And: FPTP Encourages Adversarial Politics

  – Winner-take-all elections

  – Manifestos more extreme

  – Disincentives to compromise or move to the

  middle

Alternative Electoral Models

• Alternative Vote (AV): Voters rank candidates, eliminating low-ranked until a majority is achieved.

  • – If no candidate receives majority, lowest

    candidate is eliminated and votes

    redistributed according to second preference

  • Process continues until someone receives

    majority

  • Failed in 2011 UK referendum by large margin

    (68% against to 32% in favor)

• Single Transferable Vote (STV): Votes redistributed among multiple nominees.

  • Multi-member electoral districts

  • Voters rank candidate choices

  • Redistribute votes of top (“surplus votes”) and

    bottom (losing) candidates

  • Often leads to no party with majorit

• List System: Votes go to parties rather than candidates; affected by party percentage results.

  • Proportional Representation (PR)

  • Parties create lists

  • People vote for parties, not individual candidates

    • The vote percentage for the parties determines how

      many winners from each list

      • Can be organized by region

      • EU elections (no longer)

• Additional Member System (AMS)

  • Each voter casts two votes

  • First for a candidate in normal FPTP election

    • And also vote for a party list

      • Party list voting can be organized by region

• Supplementary Vote (SV)

  • Like AV, but voter has only two choices

  • Polls show public not very supportive of

    such reform options

Trends in Voting Participation

• Continuous decline in voter turnout, particularly for less-prominent elections.

• Voter demographics: age, education, income affect likelihood to participate.

Social Dynamics of Voting

• Who Votes?

  • Socio-Economic Status (SES) model

    • Knowledge, skills, and time not evenly

      distributed across citizens

    • Age and education associated with likelihood

      of voting

    • And income, home ownership, occupation,

      marriage

      • (Generally true in the US, also)

        • Was not the case in 1960s, when survey

          research on voting began

Why Does Anyone Vote?

• In theory, irrational

• Benefits never outnumber costs

• Chance of changing outcome about zero

• Takes some time and effort

• One answer: sense of duty for citizens

  • About ¾ say it is duty of citizens to vote

  • Those who say no are less likely to vote

  • This sense increases by age

• But fewer people see voting as a duty

And Party Connections

• Stronger identification with a party leads to higher voting likelihood

• But fewer people these days strongly identify with a party

What about making voting easier?

• Such as voting by mail

• Not much effect

Party Support: Regional Variations

• Due to varying strength of the economy

• And different class dynamics

• We see differences within England

  • "North-South divide"

  • Actually, variations in North, Midlands, London, Southwest, and Southeast

• "Core-Periphery" theory

  • London and Southeast are the core; economically, culturally, politically

  • All else is the periphery; less prosperous and declining

Explaining Party Choice

• Previous theory

  • All about social characteristics

  • Such as class and occupation

• Then Butler-Stokes Model

  • PID (party identification) theory

  • Sense of attachment to a party

  • Often from parental socialization

  • Also allows room for class and current issues

• Today

  • Alford Index (class and party voting connection) has been declining

  • From class alignment to dealignment

• Explaining vote by choice

  • If party-class alignment weaker, then what matters?

    • Maybe “issue voting”

    • (1) “Position”

    • Example: What should be the income tax level?

      • We can debate what percent is best

    • (2) “Valence”

    • Example: Overall state of the economy

      • Everyone wants this to be good

    • Key role of “retrospective voting” vs. promises in manifestos

    • Retrospective evaluations of “valence” issues.

Political Participation Overview

• Definition includes all actions by citizens that influence decision-making.

  • – Mainstream (conventional)

    – Confrontational (unconventional)

    – Fundamental for a healthy democracy

    – Crucial to representation of the people

    – Steady decline

    – Recent (anecdotal?) evidence of revival

    – Individual vs. structural context

Conventional Participation

• Voting

• Contacting a politician

• Member/volunteer for party

• Member/volunteer for union

Unconventional Participation

• Demonstrating

• Joining an occupation

• Joining a strike

• Boycotting or ‘buycotting’

Today

• Voting less important today to citizens’ national identity

• Majority have little/no contact with parties or political organizations

• Table 8.2 activism data: high or low?

• Higher percentages for:

  • Searching for news online (52.5%)

  • Party/politician website visit (38.1%)

  • Boycotting (30.4%)

  • Contact politician or government (27.3%)

  • Buycotting (26.3%)

Lowest For…

• Personal violence (0.1%)

• Damaging objects (0.2%)

• Joining a strike (2%)

• Attending a demonstration/march (3.8%)

• The more “demanding” is an activity (time/effort), the fewer who participate.

Theories of Political Engagement

• Anti-politics Zeitgeist: Apathy and cynicism towards traditional forms of political participation. (crisis of citizenship)

• Rise of online movements, though some evidence suggests limited participation.

• Linked to post-materialist values, individualism

• Politicians more separated from grassroots

• Parties engage in depoliticized, technocratic

  management

  • Blair and Cameron?

Explainations Contd

• Diminished sovereignty in globalized world

  • EU (but no longer), WTO, global economic constraints

• Diminishing relevance of class

• New issues, identities, demands

  • But parties originally based more on economic and class issues

• Parties traditionally embedded in a network of other organizations, which are in decline

  • "Bowling Alone" book by Robert Putnam

    • talks about how people ar emore disconnected, decline of 3rd party spaces

      • ex fratenral orgs

        • one argument is that this decreasing participation in politics

• How much influence does britain have? Is it declining over time? Theory of thier power/influence declining= less interest in politics

• New Forms of Participation?

  • Claim that younger people are still engaged, but now online

  • “clicktivism” or “hashtag activism”

  • Claims about motivations of younger people

  • Less about class

  • Maybe now about “post-materialist” interests

    • Such as identity / lifestyle / single issues example enviroemnt or something specific

  • Young people ignored by political parties

  • Catch-22: thought to vote less, so not mobilized, so vote less; repeat

    • people particiapte less when younger so they are invested in less that continues the cycle

• On the Other Hand…

  • Cohort vs. generational effects

  • generational is like when ur born maybe when ur younger u act one ay and it changes when u get older

  • cohort is like you go through something togeth for ex covid or great depression

  • Analysis casts doubt on “new venues” argument

  • Young not more involved in unconventional politics

  • Many recent large protests in the news…

  • But numbers involved were relatively small

  • Many voters have economic grievances

  • And worried about traditional issues, like NHS

  • Which sounds like normal politics, not something new

• Inequalities in Participation

  • Table 8.4 and manual/non-manual activities

  • Only well-off willing/able to defend interests?

  • Voluntary organizations and civic skills’

• Developments in 2015:

  • Drop in votes for three traditional parties

  • Growth in votes for 'third' parties

  • Reflect trends developing for forty years

  • Four regions saw four different party winners:

  • Scotland: SNP

  • Wales: Labour

  • England: Tory

  • Northern Ireland: DUP

  • are different nations developing their own party system

• Changes:

  • No long-term growth in dissatisfaction with democracy or trust in politicians

  • Less connection to parties and elections

  • Voters more likely to 'float' from one party to another

  • Increase in 'valence' / 'retrospective' voting

  • Maybe smaller party growth represents voters who reject 'valence' model, prefer issues and ideology

• Gallagher’s Index:

  • Statistical measure of disproportionality between party votes cast and party wins

  • Finds some disproportionality in all systems, even those designed to be 'proportional':

  • Most for UK Parliament (FPTP)

  • Least for Northern Ireland Assembly (STV)

  • ENEP comparisons:

  • Least for House of Commons (FPTP)

  • Most for EU Parliament (Party List)

• Maurice Duverger (1954):

  • Electoral systems have (1) mechanical and (2) psychological effects:

  • How system translates votes into seats

  • How voters react to this knowledge ('wasted votes')

  • Trends show voters are increasingly likely to support smaller parties, so less restrained by vote wasting argument.

• Why Support for Third Parties?

  • Supporters as less familiar with electoral

    system, so don’t understand vote wasting?

  • to send a message?

    • To gradually build support for smaller parties?

    • Maybe growth in “proportional” systems in UK

      encourages support for small parties over

      time