2010 British Elections Analysis - Essay Example

Analysing Politics Section I: The Research Problem/Question The research question pertains to the British election study. This relates to the voting behaviour of the people and understanding the political behaviour of the nation in the pre election survey. This consists of collection of data, analysing and interpreting with a view of changing politics. The data were collected comprised of face to face interview, internet survey and continuous monitoring of the internet survey. The research question is important in the aspect of changing of people behaviour with regard to politics. The focus is mainly on analysing the factors which influenced mind during voting, particularly how their educational qualifications, religious leanings, gender income, etc., influenced their voting behaviour. Various political and social developments impacted the voting behaviour of the people in the British elections. As stated by Alvarez and Nagler (1997), in the United Kingdom, “the sustained revival of the Liberal Party since 1970, the rise of nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland, and the new Social Democratic Party, poised significant challenges to the established two-party system.” Apart from these aspects, studies were conducted to find out certain personal and social factors also impacted the voting behaviour. One of the key aspects which is thought to influence the voting pattern of the voters is their education and thereby intelligence levels. Deary, Batty and Gale (2008) in the 1970 British Cohort Study, examined the relation between childhood intelligence and how those people voted at the ages of 30 and above during the 2001 UK general election. The studies found that, “People with higher childhood intelligence were more likely to vote in the 2001 election (38% increased prevalence per SD increase in intelligence), People with higher childhood intelligence were more likely to take part in rallies and demonstrations, and to sign petitions, and expressed a greater interest in politics (40%, 65%, 33%, and 58% increased prevalence per SD increase in intelligence, respectively).” (Deary, Batty and Gale 2008). The other aspect, which could also influence the voters during the voting process, is their religious leanings. Kotler-Berkowitz (2001) points out how data from the 1991 and 1992 waves of the British Household Panel Study, when statistically analyzed (using multinomial logistic regression analysis) state that religions influence the voting decisions of sizable number of British citizens. “Religious belonging, behaviour and belief, as well as the religious context of households, continue to influence British voting behaviour. Interaction effects among religious variables and between religious variables and class also operate to influence vote choice.” (Kotler-Berkowitz 2001). From the understanding of these previous studies, it is clear that these factors have to be studied. The following Section 2 will examine the collection of data, methodology involved in data collection, name of the survey, mode of data collection and fieldwork dates, total number of cases being analyzed, statistical analysis involved in analyzing the data. Section III involves analyzing the data with various tools including Descriptive statistics, Crosstabs, etc. and give suitable interpretation. In the Section IV apt conclusion is given. Section II: Data Name of survey: British Political Survey 2010. Mode of data collection and fieldwork dates: Face to face interview, Internet survey and constant monitoring of internet. Total number of cases being analysed (i.e.: N) is 3512. Type of statistical analysis are (i) Descriptive statistics to just know the mean, median and mode of the responses given by the respondents. Cross tabs to check which category of people’s voting behaviour is what sort? Etc.. Section III: Statistical analysis Descriptive Statistics: In descriptive statistics we deal with the question “Intensity of interest in politics”. This question has 5 options: 1. A great deal, 2: Quite a lot; 3: Somewhat; 4: Not very much and 5: Not at all. By analysing the intensity of interest in politics, we observe that the mean is 2.83, median: 3 and mode 3 (Refer the attached file). This indicates that the respondents have neither too much interest nor less interest but have moderate interest in politics. They are aware of their political voting rights. Table 1: Table showing the respondents’ interest in politics S.No. Interest in politics No. of respondents No. of respondents 1 A great deal 309 8.8% 2 Quite a lot 948 26.99% 3 Some 983 27.99% 4 Not very much 625 17.8% 5 None at all 209 5.95% 6 Dont Know 1 0.03% 7 Missing 438 12.47% Total 3512 100% Interpretation: From the above table, it is observed that among 3512 respondents, 309 said that they have great interest in politics, 948 respondents said that they have a lot of interest in politics, 983 respondents said that they have some interest in politics, 625 respondents said that they have not very much interest in politics, 209 respondents said that they have not at all interest in politics and 438 respondents did not respond. Inference: 983 (28%) said that they have some interest in politics. Chart 1: Chart showing the intensity of interest in politics Table 2: Table showing whether belongs to any religion or not Response Frequency Percent Yes 795 22.6 No 780 22.2 Total 1575 44.8 Missing Refused 1 .0 Dont Know 1 .0 System 1935 55.1 Total 1937 55.2 Total 3512 100.0 Interpretation: The above table shows that majority of the respondents (55.2%) did not respond to the question whether they belong to any religion. Among the remaining 44.8% of the respondents 22.6% respondents said that they belong to a particular religion. Table 3: Table showing ethnicity of the respondents Ethnicity Frequency Percent White British 1399 39.8 Any other white background 7 .2 White and Black Caribbean 3 .1 White and Black African 5 .1 White and Asian 2 .1 Any other mixed background 1 .0 Indian 26 .7 Pakistani 6 .2 Bangladeshi 3 .1 Any other Asian background 6 .2 Black Caribbean 11 .3 Black African 19 .5 Chinese 4 .1 Other answers 83 2.4 Total 1575 44.8 Missing Refused 2 .1 System 1935 55.1 Total 1937 55.2 Total 3512 100.0 Interpretation: The above table shows that majority of the respondents (39.8%) are white British. Table 4: Table showing Gender of the respondents Gender Frequency Percent Male 1420 40.4 Female 1655 47.1 Total 3075 87.6 Missing System 437 12.4 Total 3512 100.0 Interpretation: The above table shows that majority (47.1%) of the respondents were females. Table 5: Tables showing age group of the respondents Age group Frequency Percent 18-29 360 10.3 30-39 508 14.5 40-49 554 15.8 50-59 509 14.5 60+ 1128 32.1 Total 3059 87.1 Missing System 453 12.9 Total 3512 100.0 Interpretation: The above table shows that majority (32.1% ) of the respondents belong to age group above 60. Table 6: Table showing marital status Marital Status Frequency Percent Married 690 19.6 Living with a partner 169 4.8 Separated (after being married) 61 1.7 Divorced 155 4.4 Widowed 184 5.2 Single (never married) 317 9.0 Total 1576 44.9 Missing Refused 1 .0 System 1935 55.1 Total 1936 55.1 Total 3512 100.0 Interpretation: Among the 3512 respondents, 55.1% did not respond to marital status. Among the remaining 44.9%, 19.6% are married. Others are living either never married or divorced or widowed or living with a partner. Among them unmarried are 9% Table 7: Table showing Annual Household Income Income Frequency Percent 0-5000 69 2.0 5001-10000 183 5.2 10001-15000 142 4.0 15001-20000 125 3.6 20001-25000 120 3.4 25001-30000 87 2.5 30001-35000 69 2.0 35001-40000 73 2.1 40001-45000 49 1.4 45001-50000 59 1.7 50001-60000 64 1.8 60001-70000 33 .9 70001-80000 29 .8 80001-90000 16 .5 90001 & over 51 1.5 Total 1169 33.3 Missing DK 166 4.7 NA 242 6.9 System 1935 55.1 Total 2343 66.7 Total 3512 100.0 Interpretation: Among the 33.3% valid responses, 5.2% of the respondents are earning between 5001 and 10000 followed by 10001 to 15000 (4% of the respondents) and 15001 to 20000 (3.6%). The following are among the main points that should be address in this section: Cross-tables (either two-way, that is examining the relationship between two variables or three-way crosstabs – examining the relationship between three variables). Table 8: Table showing Highest Qualification Qualification Frequency Percent Postgraduate degree 131 3.7 First degree 193 5.5 Univ/poly diploma 48 1.4 Teaching qualification 29 .8 Nursing qualification 31 .9 HNC/HND City&Guilds level 4 NVQ/SVQ 4/5 135 3.8 A level or equivalent 81 2.3 Scottish Higher or equivalent 19 .5 ONC/OND City&Guilds level 3 NVQ/SVQ 3 74 2.1 GCSE A*-C CSE grade 1 O level grade A-C 150 4.3 Scottish Standard grades Ordinary bands 20 .6 GCSE D-G CSE grades 2-5 O level D-E 36 1.0 City&Guilds level 2 NVQ/SVQ 2 or equivalent 66 1.9 City&Guilds level 1 NVQ/SVQ 1 or equivalent 37 1.1 Clerical and commercial qualifications 35 1.0 Recognised trade apprenticeship 32 .9 Youth training certificate skill seekers 4 .1 Other technical professional or higher qualification (WRITE 44 1.3 Total 1165 33.2 Missing Refused 2 .1 Dont Know 10 .3 System 2335 66.5 Total 2347 66.8 Total 3512 100.0 Interpretation: From the above table, most of the respondents (150, 4.3%) obtained GCSEA*C CSE grade 1 O level grade AC followed by HNC/HND City and Guilds level 4 NVQ/SVQ 4/5 (135, 3.8%). 66.8% of the respondents did not respond. Table 9: Table showing religion of the respondents Religion Frequency Percent Baptist 12 .3 Brethren 2 .1 Buddhist 3 .1 Church of England/Anglican/Episcopal 389 11.1 Eastern Orthodox 3 .1 Free Presbyterian 1 .0 Hindu 16 .5 Jewish 9 .3 Methodist 23 .7 Pentecostal 17 .5 Presbyterian/Church of Scotland 122 3.5 Roman Catholic 129 3.7 Sikh 4 .1 Sunni Muslim 14 .4 Shiite Muslim 4 .1 Other Islam/Muslim 8 .2 United Reform Church 4 .1 Jehovahs Witness 4 .1 Christian (no further detail) 11 .3 Other 20 .6 Not Applicable 2717 77.4 Total 3512 100.0 Interpretation: Among the 23.6% of the respondents who responded for religion, 11.1% of the respondents belong to Church of England, 0.5% of the respondents are Hindus, 3.7% of the respondents are Roman Catholic and 3.5% of the respondents are Presbyterian. CROSS TABLES: Crosstabulation is a tool for creating contingency table from bivariate/multivariate table. It is much used in statistical survey research which displays a matrix of valid responses from both the variable categories. The three way cross table is given for the combination of age categories x whether vote in the election x interest in politics. (See the SPSS output file). Based on the cross tabulation, chi square test is performed for various categories of age to find the relationship between interest in politics and voting preference in election (See the attached SPSS output file). Chi Square Test of Independence For a contingency table that has r rows and c columns, the chi square test can be thought of as a test of independence. In a test of independence the null and alternative hypothesis are: Null Hypothesis H0: The two categorical variables are independent or not associated. Alternative Hypothesis H1: The two categorical variables are related. Level of Significance: 5% level or =0.05 (usually). We can use the equation Chi Square = the sum of all the (Oi – Ei)2. Here Oi denotes the frequency of the observed data and Ei is the frequency of the expected values. The general table would look something like the one below: Category I Category II Category III Row Totals Sample A a b c a+b+c Sample B d e f d+e+f Sample C g h i g+h+I Column Totals a+d+g b+e+h c+f+i a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i=N Now we need to calculate the expected values for each cell in the table and we can do that using the row total times the column total divided by the grand total (N). For example, for cell a the expected value Ei would be (a+b+c)(a+d+g)/N. Once the expected values have been calculated for each cell, we can use the same procedure are before for a simple 2 x 2 table. Observed Expected |Oi - Ei| (Oi - Ei)2 (Oi - Ei)2/Ei  In this example, degrees of Freedom for 3x3 table= (r - 1)(c - 1) = 2(2) =4 Interpretation based on chi square test: 1. Age group 18-29: The chi square value is 80.64 with probability 0.000 for 4 d.f. It shows that there is a significant association between interest in politics and voting preference among the youth. 2. Age group 30-39: The chi square value is 64.5 with probability 0.000 for 4 d.f. It shows that there is a significant association between interest in politics and voting preference among the age group 30-39. 3. Age group 40-49: The chi square value is 85.79 with probability 0.000 for 4 d.f. It shows that there is a significant association between interest in politics and voting preference among the age group 40-49. 4. Age group 50-59: The chi square value is 78.55 with probability 0.000 for 4 d.f. It shows that there is a significant association between interest in politics and voting preference among the age group 50-59. 5. Age group 60+: The chi square value is 75.73 with probability 0.000 for 4 d.f. It shows that there is a significant association between interest in politics and voting preference among the age group 60+. Section IV: Conclusion The conclusions are based on the survey results. Many old aged people are drawn towards politics than the youth community in politics. Youth also should come forward to participate and show their political responsibility. Women respondents were the more to respond. It shows that men are lethargic towards the survey and showed a little interest. Regarding the ethnicity is concerned more British White have responded promptly for the survey. Since many of the respondents did not respond to many questions, the survey seems to be weak and requires a lot of more information about the political nature and more investigation is required to completely arrive at any conclusion. In future more respondents should be covered and minimize the non responses so that the survey will completely depict the real nature of living conditions of the people with regard to political survey. References Alvarez, RM and Nagler, J., 1997. A New Approach for Modeling Strategic Voting in Multiparty Elections, Social Science Working paper 1023, California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 91125 Deary, IJ., Batty, GD and Gale, CR., 2008. Childhood intelligence predicts voter turnout, voting preferences, and political involvement in adulthood: The 1970 British Cohort Study, Intelligence, vol. 36, pp. 548–555 Kotler-Berkowitiz, LA., 2001. Religion and Voting Behaviour in Great Britain: A Reassessment, British Journal of Political Science, vol. 31, pp 523-554 Read More