Voting Behaviour - Case Study Example

Introduction The study of voting behaviour calls for a multi-dimensional approach involving several social, economic and demographic factors. Voter preferences change over time, and it calls for the joint effort of researchers from diverse fields like political science, electoral geography and statistical modeling to understand the changing patterns. (Cathie Marsh Centre for Census and Survey Research). This paper will focus of the voting behaviour in Britain, as reflected in the results of the 2001 and 2005 general elections. The first part of the paper will deal with some of the social attitudes of British citizens and their voting behaviour patterns, as have been observed over the years. These are based on studies conducted by the Center for Research into Elections and Social Trends (CREST). This section will also deal with the changes in voting behaviour patterns that have been observed in Britain, and how changes in social and economic systems can impact voter behaviour. The next section will deal with the common theoretical frameworks used in the analysis of voting behaviour. Based on the discussions in the book, 'Political Choice in Britain' (2004), by Clarke, Sanders, Stewart and Whiteley, this part will deal with the traditional sociological framework, followed by the individual rationalist approach. Widening the scope of the individual rationalist approach, the focus will shift to what are termed valence politics models. In the next section, these models will be used to analyse the voting behaviour patterns in the 2001 and 2005 general elections. This section will also discuss the issues of voter apathy and the growing trend towards tactical voting. The paper will conclude with a discussion on the changing patterns of voter behaviour in Britain, and will also discuss how these can be very essential in predicting the outcome of future elections in Britain. Social Attitudes and Voting Behaviour in Britain. A key factor influencing voter behaviour is social attitude. CREST studies reveal that the British public is gradually becoming more liberal on moral issues. On the other hand, attitude towards economic issues, like unemployment, tend to fluctuate according to the state of the economy. Also, the British public prefers a raise in taxes to seeing a decline in the standards of health or education. Discussing voting behaviour, the CREST studies note that the social class remains a key influence on how people vote. Curtice (2002) states that this is in line with Pulzer's famous words, "Class is the basis of British politics; all else is embellishment and detail". The studies also note that a voter's behaviour is not motivated by self-interest and that the media, especially newspapers, have little influence on the election results. The studies also note the emergence of tactical voting as a means of expressing preferences. Changes in social attitudes and voting behaviour are a result of changing social and economic conditions. In the 21st century, the common man in Britain does not enjoy the social and economic certainty and cohesion that characterized life in the 1950s. The employment position is less secure, and the society he/she lives in is more diverse. In modern Britain, class boundaries are more fluid, and the average citizen has access to several sources of information, and the right to make the appropriate social and economic choices. (Clarke, Sanders, Stewart and Whiteley,2004, pg.2) The socio-economic changes have had an impact on the political thinking of the citizens as well. The biggest impact has perhaps been on the attitude of the British citizens towards politics, especially in how they vote at the time of elections. To understand the changes in voting patterns, the models of voting behaviour need to be studied. Models of Voting Behaviour There are several theoretical frameworks that analyse voting behaviour in elections. The foremost among them is the sociological framework proposed by Butler and Stokes in 1969. This framework works on three levels. To begin with, it states that the society a person is born into, namely social class and religion, can influence a person to make specific political choices. At the next level, these choices are reinforced by social contexts like place and nature of work, social circle and the neighbourhood in which the person resides. Finally, the theory states that these social characteristics and contexts produce a distinctive social psychology of voting. According to the sociological framework, over a period of time, individuals develop a stable and enduring attachment to a particular political party. (Clarke, Sanders, Stewart, Whiteley, 2004, pg.5) In the 1960s, political scientists believed that voter loyalties were emotional in nature, rather than based on any rational philosophy or calculation. Once formed, these party loyalties tended to endure over successive elections, producing stable blocks of voters. Voters tended to adjust their views on individual issues to fit in with their party loyalties, rather than vice versa. (Sociology Stuff) It is true that there has been no major fluctuation in the percentage of votes gained by the major parties, as the sociological framework indicates. However, it has been noted that several other factors like economy, party identification and individual preferences play a significant role in voter behaviour. (Sociology Stuff) It is thus necessary to analyse these factors for a better understanding of voter behaviour. The second theoretical framework, also called the individual rationality framework, is based on the idea of economics as rational choice According to this theory, a person casts his/her vote after calculating the personal costs and benefits of casting a vote. Here, it is expected that the individual is likely to consider the perceived impact of his/her vote on the election's outcome. The second aspect of this theory focuses on how people prefer to vote for parties that they feel are closest to their own positions on various issues of concern. Also, rational vote seeking parties also tend to state their position on any given issue with a view to gain maximum votes. (Clarke, Sanders, Stewart, Whiteley, 2004, pg.7). In the 2005 elections, for instance, the parties stated their stand on the Iraq war to gain votes. This theory also has its weaknesses, as it seriously understates the extent to which people, as political actors, perceive and evaluate the world in non-rational terms. (Clarke, Sanders, Stewart, Whitley, 2004, pg.8). Since non-rational factors are not considered, this theory often fails to explain the various patterns of voting behaviour that need to be analysed. Along with these theoretical frameworks comes the theory of 'valence'. This term was used by Donald Stokes to describe issues on which there is a broad agreement about the desired policy outcome. This could be in the case of issues like maintaining low levels of unemployment, inflation, good healthcare and educational facilities, and so on. On these issues, the voter is likely to consider the competence of the various parties, and select the one he/she feels is likely to do best. (Clarke, Sanders, Stewart, Whiteley , 2004,pg.8) In their approach to these valence issues, Sanders points out that people look at two main factors, leadership evaluations and party identifications. The understanding of a party itself can be a complex issue as the party might have different images at the national, regional and local levels. Hence, many people believe that the best way to judge a party is to evaluate the character and competence of its leader. (Clarke, Sanders, Stewart, Whiteley , 2004,pg.9) The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) provide additional leverage for discriminating among competing models. According to these evaluations, the party identification and party leader models are best. Again, the economic voting, issue-performance, and issue-proximity models occupy intermediate positions, and the social and general demographic models are ranked at the bottom. (Clarke, Sanders, Stewart, Whiteley, 2004, pg.105) The General Elections in 2001 and 2005 Matthew d'Anconna, in his article in the Telegraph, states that it is a combination of leadership, political context, social mood, and economic trends that bring a party to power. He states in the article that the people of Britain voted for the 'Blair party' in these elections as they had done for the 'Thatcher party' in the 1980s. This is in line with the valency model, which states that a leader can be significant to the image and success of a political party. In both these elections, Tony Blair had a significant advantage over his political rivals. According to a BES post-election survey in 2001, the party image data shows that many voters expressed serious reservations about the Conservative leader William Hague. Only on two accounts (caring and sticks to principles), did he come close to the others. While the Liberal democrat leader Charles Kennedy was regarded as one possessing several qualities befitting a successful leader, Blair overshadowed him with his image of a strong and decisive leader. (Clarke, Sanders, Stewart, Whiteley , 2004 pg 93) Similarly, in the 2005 elections, while Blair found his popularity waning, he still scored over his rivals. Oakley (2005), in his article 'Blair's Opponents', writes that the Conservative leader Michael Howard was seen as a seasoned veteran. As Financial Times columnist and biographer Philip Stephens says, he has the image of a credible and serious politician with a good presence. However, as Stephens points out, "He is a politician who is angry, annoyed. He is good at attacking Labour. He doesn't come across as somebody in tune with the concerns of ordinary voters". Regarding Charles Kennedy, Oakley, quoting Peter Kellner, Chairman of the polling organization Yougov, says that Kennedy "comes across like a decent, self-deprecating, witty, humorous human being." His challenge, however, was to persuade people that he was a serious contender. Tony Blair, despite being called a gimmicky media manipulator, was a powerful communicator who was viewed as a man willing to take tough decisions. Mathew d'Anconna (2005) states that opinion polls suggest that the 'Blair effect' may not sustain for too long, if he does not take radical steps to reform public service and bolster their security. People are reported to be tired of his gimmicks and the lack of progress in the country. Economic conditions too make an impact on voting behaviour. In both the 2001 and 2005 elections, the Labour party was in an enviable position with the economy doing well. In line with the party identification theory, Labour dominated over other parties as being able to manage the economy best. Some of the key issues in elections include management of infrastructure, healthcare and education, social issues like crime, and economy related issues like inflation, and unemployment. In 2001, surveys revealed that the public was not very satisfied with the Government's efforts on many of these issues. (Clarke, Sanders, Stewart, Whiteley , 2004 , pg 89) Quinney (2005) states that the Iraq war was an issue in the 2005 elections. A significant section of the population did not support the Prime Minister's stand on going to war. Yet, in both these elections, Tony Blair and the Labour Party won. Pre-election surveys in 2001 revealed that many voters had not made linkages between issues and parties. 30% stated that they did not know which party would do the best job on the issue they believed was most important. While this scenario changed slightly during the election campaign, 21% still believed that they either didn't know which party was best able to handle the issue deemed most important, or that 'no party' could handle the issue. (Clarke, Sanders, Stewart, Whiteley , 2004, pg 89-91) The same sentiment was reflected by Timothy Garton Ash in the Guardian. He says, "By the standards of most previous British elections, from 1945 to 1997, the differences between party policies are remarkably small." (Quinney, 2005) Perhaps as a result of this lack of trust in the ability of political parties, the voter turn-out has been very low. The 2001 elections noted a record low of 59.4% as compared to 71.5% in 1997. In 2005, it was around 61%. The voting patterns were rather similar in both elections, and a small change in voter preference could have resulted in the Conservatives coming to power. Labour MP Liam Byrne, writes that 2005 saw the closest election in 30 years, and the final margin of victory - 770,000 votes - represented just 1.8 per cent of registered voters. A significant trend noted in the last 3 elections has been the issue of tactical voting. Wikipedia defines tactical voting as one in which a voter misrepresents his or her sincere preferences in order to gain a more favorable outcome. This was the technique used by Liberal democrats to bridge the gap between their share of the vote and their representation in the House of Commons. In 2001, in several marginal constituencies where the Liberal democrats stood as the main challengers to the Conservatives, they appealed to Labour voters to cross party lines and cast a tactical vote in order to prevent the election of Conservative candidate. Similarly, in 2005, they scored a number of notable victories in several constituencies where the party stood as the main challenger to Labour (Alvarez). Conclusion The voting behaviour in the 2001 and 2005 elections show that an increasing number of people are disillusioned with politics and politicians. This is reflected in their general apathy and the poor voter turnout. A strong and charismatic leader with the ability to take strong and bold decisions can win votes in Britain. The ability to improve their standard of living, betterment of social welfare structures, and the ability to manage a buoyant economy and ensure national and personal prosperity are the other factors that determine voting behaviour. References: Alvarez,M. 'Parliamentary Elections in the United Kingdom - Elections to the House of Commons' Election Resources on the Internet:, Retrieved on 30th November 2005 http://electionresources.org/uk/ Bryne,L. 2005, 'Why Labour Won: Lessons from 2005', Fabian Freethinking Paper, Retrieved on 30th November 2005.http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/documents/ViewADocument.aspID=114&CatID=52 Cathie Marsh Centre for Census and Survey Research, University of Manchester, Retrieved on 30th November 2005 at http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/voting%20proposal%20rev.pdf. Centre for Research into Elections and Social Trends (CREST) website. Retrieved on 30th November 2005 at http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/intro.htm Clarke,H,D. Sanders,D., Stewart,M,C., Whiteley,P,F, 2004. 'Political Choice in Britain', Retrieved on 30th November 2005 at http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/book.html Curtice,J. 2002, 'Survey Research and Electoral Change in Britain', Centre for Reserch Into Election and Social trends (CREST) , Working paper No. 96. Retrieved on 30th November 2005. at www.crest.ox.ac.uk/papers/p96.pdf D'Anconna, M. 2005, 'It is Labour, not Blair, that is in mortal danger', Opinion. Telegraph, Retrieved on 30th November 2005 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtmlxml=/opinion/2005/11/13/do1303.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/13/ixnewstop.html Oakley,R. 2005, 'Blair's opponents' CNN. Retrieved on 30th November 2005.from http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/12/uk.election.rivals/ Quinney, J. 2005, Britain's 2005 General Election, Z Commentary Online, Retrieved on 30th November 2005 http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jun2005/quinney0605.html Sanders 'Voting Behaviour', Sociology Stuff, Retrieved on 30th November 2005 from http://www.rouncefield.homestead.com/files/a_soc_politics_2.htm Wikipedia, Tactical Voting, Retrieved on 30th November 2005 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting Read More