Turnout at Elections

[Butts]

Not just how we elect politicians are we stuck in Victorian era. UK went decimal/metric about 40 years ago and we still cling on to expressing weights, distances and speed in obsolete 'Imperial' units.

By the way, I'm old enough to remember Decimalisation Day back on 15th February 1971 and know my height, weight and the UK speed limit(s) in metric units!

I remember February 71 as well, rushing down to the shop to get some of the new coins in my change.

One great thing pre-decimal was when you got change the coins could be hundreds of years old.

I prefer using Miles, Pints and Gallons - and don't even mention someone saying I am 1 metre 55 tall

 

[transmanche]

By the way, I'm old enough to remember Decimalisation Day back on 15th February 1971 and know my height, weight and the UK speed limit(s) in metric units!

I don't quite remember that, but everything we learned at school was metric.

Adapting from mph to km/h was easy - spending two years living in Ireland meant I had to! But it only took a could of weeks - and now I can convert from one to the other with ease.

However; at the time I lived in Ireland, all distance signs were in km - but all speed limits were still in mph. And they didn't think that was odd at all!

 

[Butts]

I don't quite remember that, but everything we learned at school was metric.

Adapting from mph to km/h was easy - spending two years living in Ireland meant I had to! But it only took a could of weeks - and now I can convert from one to the other with ease.

However; at the time I lived in Ireland, all distance signs were in km - but all speed limits were still in mph. And they didn't think that was odd at all!

Well it was Ireland - are you not old enough to remember the jokes.."There was an Englishman a Scotsman a Welshman and an Irishman...."

 

[Whistlekiller]

Hung parliaments aren't born out of a whim, you know. The people spoke by not voting, turnout was low, which led to a hung parliament.

The turnout in 2010 was higher than the previous two elections and neither of them was a hung parliament. Could you explain how your theory works as I'm struggling to understand the basis for it?

As a matter of interest, the last UK hung parliament prior to this latest one was in 1974 following a voter turnout approaching 80%.

 

[meridian2]

The turnout in 2010 was higher than the previous two elections and neither of them was a hung parliament. Could you explain how your theory works as I'm struggling to understand the basis for it?

As a matter of interest, the last UK hung parliament prior to this latest one was in 1974 following a voter turnout approaching 80%.

It depends how you quantify 'higher'. Obviously, the turnout in 2010 was sufficient to become one possible catalyst for the hung parliament in that year. That is reason enough to say that by not voting, you are also contributing to the shape of any future democracy.

 

[yorksrob]

I think one reason why people do not vote is that many people are fed up with hypocrisy / duplicity by rather too many politicians. They promise to do something in their manifesto, in the hope of getting elected. Then they do something complete different after they get elected. For example

Lib Dems (2010) - "We oppose student tuition fees" - did they vote against Cameron's tuition fee increases ?

Labour (1964) - "We will stop the Beeching rail closure programme" - after they won the election, they caved in to the "money mafia" pressure (treasury, etc.) and continued with rail closures.

Indeed. All occasions when people actively make a choice, but it turns out that all parties have the same policy.

 

[Whistlekiller]

It depends how you quantify 'higher'. Obviously, the turnout in 2010 was sufficient to become one possible catalyst for the hung parliament in that year. That is reason enough to say that by not voting, you are also contributing to the shape of any future democracy.

I'd quantify higher as meaning a greater percentage meridian. What you haven't explained is the sentence "turnout was low, which led to a hung parliament". I can't see how that can be. The turnout, as the results over the years have shown has had no influence on the likelihood of a hung parliament. You could just as likely achieve a hung parliament with a 100% voter turnout couldn't you?

 

[DownSouth]

What you haven't explained is the sentence "turnout was low, which led to a hung parliament". I can't see how that can be. The turnout, as the results over the years have shown has had no influence on the likelihood of a hung parliament. You could just as likely achieve a hung parliament with a 100% voter turnout couldn't you?

I agree.

In the UK, election success is all about getting out the vote, not about convincing people to change party allegience when the number of swinging voters is a rounding error. If Party XYZ is having a poor time then that party's voters aren't going to turn around and vote for Party ABC instead, they'll simply not bother at all.

A well-contested election where the major parties were equally successful at getting out the vote could theoretically be more likely to produce a hung parliament - some of the elections in the 1970s are probably the best example of this taking place. In a theoretical 100% election, electorates would be likely to revert to demographic-based results, where in a typical election many electorates might swing either way according to the varying performances of the different parties.

The same could be said to be possible for an election where the major parties do an equally poor job of getting out the vote. This is a possible explanation for the 2010 election where neither of the big two managed to get enough support to form government in their own right and there was an increase in two non-Lib/Lab/Con members elected compared to the previous election.

 

[radamfi]

The reason for the higher turnout in 2010 was that many people realised it was going to be a closer election. The previous two elections were widely expected to be easy Labour victories.

 

[Amberley54]

Remember, Turnout is only of those actually registered to vote.

An important point is that the proportion of eligible adults in the UK that actually register to vote has been declining at an accelerating rate, and in urban conurbations is currently at around 85%, whilst in rural and dormitory suburbs it is still above 95%.

Ulster is the exception, where registration is at around 98%' and turnout in parliamentary elections has often exceeded 80%.

 

[Whistlekiller]

I think the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the turnout, those choosing not to vote at the moment have absolutely no effect on the outcome of a general election whatsoever. Only those actually ticking a box do. We can see that because our governments are only elected by actual votes, not spoilt papers or absent voters.

As established, a hung parliament can be the result of high voter turnout or low voter turnout, so apathy cannot achieve anything there either. Unless those withdrawing their vote would have otherwise largely voted for one of the major parties I can't see how on earth any claim that it influences anything can be made as the political world will just carry on ignoring the elephant in the room - because they can.

Now, if people actually had the opportunity to have a proper registered choice, specifically stating that they felt none of the candidates worthy of their support, that figure would have to be published alongside the results for the standing candidates (not as an afterthought available to only those in the know) then maybe the embarrassment of it all may cause some serious reflection within the halls of democracy. Who knows, we may then get a little more involvement from the electorate and also from the political parties themselves.