The electoral consequences of postal voting at the 2005 general election Colin Rallings & Michael...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of The electoral consequences of postal voting at the 2005 general election Colin Rallings & Michael...
The electoral consequences of postal voting at the 2005 general election
Colin Rallings & Michael ThrasherLGC Elections Centre, University of Plymouth
Paper presented at the Elections, Opinion Polls and Parties Annual Conference,9-11 September 2005, Essex University.
Data collected and some analyses conducted for the Electoral Commission. Not for quotation without prior permission.
Outline
The nature of the postal vote electorate The nature of the postal voter Some aspects of the increase in postal voters
The postal electorate
The postal electorate in 2005
Postal ballots
issued
% electors with
postal ballot
Change
2001-5
UK* 5,362,501 12.1 +8.1
GB* 5,334,821 12.4 +8.4
England* 4,739,753 12.8 +8.7
N. Ireland 27,680 2.4 -0.2
Scotland 312,036 8.1 +5.4
Wales 283,032 12.7 +7.8
* Some or all data are missing for 35 constituencies in England and 1 in Wales
Correlates of postal electorate
% prof/manager .048
% owner-occ .010
% renting -.006
% aged 18-24 .036
% aged 65+ .031
% degree .005
% no religion -.059
% no car -.009
% non-white -.064
% majority 2001 .004
Regional aspects of postal electorate
% electors with
postal ballot
Change
2001-5
East Midlands* 13.5 +9.7
Eastern 12.1 +7.3
London 10.9 +7.2
North East* 19.3 +13.6
North West* 12.7 +9.0
South East 12.3 +8.2
South West 13.8 +9.1
West Midlands 10.7 +7.4
Yorks & the Humber* 14.2 +10.5
* All-postal voting at 2004 European/local elections
Distribution of postal electorate by constituency
2005 % electorate issued with pv
44.040.0
36.032.0
28.024.0
20.016.0
12.08.0
4.0
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Std. Dev = 5.23
Mean = 12.4
N = 626.00
Effects of local election postal pilots
2002/3 all-postal pilots
% electors with
postal ballot
Change
2001-5
Pilot 18.3 +13.3
No pilot 11.4 +7.6
Party incumbency and postal electorate
2001 winner % electors with
postal ballot
Change
2001-5
Labour 12.5 +8.6
Conservative 11.6 +7.6
LD 12.6 +8.4
2001 majority and increase in postal electors
% majority 2001 change 2001-5
0 to 5 +8.6
5 to 10 +8.4
10 to 20 +8.0
Over 20 +8.7
The postal voter
The postal voter in 2005
% turnout postal votes as
mean % of
valid votes cast
UK 76.6 15.0
GB 76.6 15.4
England 76.5 16.0
Northern Ireland 86.3 3.0
Scotland 76.4 10.2
Wales 78.2 15.6
Postal voters by English region
* All-postal voting at 2004 European/local elections
postal votes as % of
valid votes cast
East Midlands* 16.7
Eastern 14.3
London 13.7
North East* 25.1
North West* 17.3
South East 14.8
South West 16.5
West Midlands 13.3
Yorkshire & The Humber* 18.6
Distribution of postal voters by constituency
2005 postal votes as % of total votes counted
56.052.0
48.044.0
40.036.0
32.028.0
24.020.0
16.012.0
8.04.0
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Std. Dev = 6.71
Mean = 15.5
N = 607.00
All-postal pilots and postal voters
2002/3 all-postal pilots Postal votes as % of valid votes cast
Pilot 23.8
No Pilot 14.2
Party incumbency and postal voters
2001 winner Postal votes as % of valid
votes cast
Labour 15.7
Conservative 13.9
LD 15.2
Comparing postal and in-person turnout
Mean % of
postal
voters casting
valid vote
Change
2001-5
Mean % of in-
person
voters casting
valid vote
Change
2001-5
GB 76.4 -3.2 59.3 +1.2
England 76.4 -3.1 59.2 +1.2
Scotland 77.2 -3.1 59.3 +1.8
Wales 75.0 -3.6 60.7 +0.1
Increases in postal votes and change in turnout
% point increase in postal votes cast 2001-5
overall % point change
in turnout since 2001
Less than 4 +1.3
4 to 6 +1.8
6 to 8 +2.2
8 to 10 +2.5
10 or more +2.4
Some aspects of increased postal voting
Comparing in-person and all-postal voting
rank of overall turnout
64
1
60
1
56
1
52
1
48
1
44
1
40
1
36
1
32
1
28
1
24
1
20
1
16
1
12
1
81
411
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
in person turnout
postal turnout
overall turnout
Staffordshire S. is excluded
Postal turnout higher than expected
Doncaster Central Gosport Cambridge
Postal turnout is lower than expected
Hull West and Hessle Liverpool Garston Solihull
A simple model of postal voter turnout
Unstandardised
CoefficientsStandardised Coefficients
Beta
(Constant) 46.68** (1.69)
2005 valid in person turnout 0.51** (0.03) .584
R2=0.34; standard errors in brackets; ** 0.01 level
Postal voting – the regional effect
2005 valid in person turnout
10090807060504030
2005
val
id p
v tu
rnou
t
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
compulsory pv
YES
no
Postal voting – the experiments effect
2005 valid in person turnout
10090807060504030
2005
val
id p
v tu
rnou
t
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
pv experiments
YES
no
Modelling the 2005 postal vote turnout
Unstandardised
CoefficientsStandardised Coefficients
Beta
(Constant) 48.95** (2.71)
2005 valid in person turnout 0.48** (0.04) 0.56
pv experiments 2002-2003 1.61** (0.57) 0.09
Compulsory pv 3.31** (0.47) 0.24
2001 majority shares -0.08** (0.02) -0.20
R2=0.42; standard errors in brackets; ** 0.01 level
Was the spread of postal voters political?
Unstandardised Coefficients
Standardised Coefficients Beta
(Constant) 7.34** (0.31)
pv experiments 2002-2003 5.00** (0.50) 0.38
Compulsory pv 1.73** (0.41) 0.17
2001 majority shares -0.002 (0.01) -0.005
Dependent variable is percentage point change in postal ballots issued as a percentage of total electorate
R2=0.20; standard errors in brackets; ** 0.01 level
Did the increase in postal voters help Labour?
Unstandardised
Coefficients
(Constant) -0.83 (0.62)
pv experiments 2002-2003 -1.12* (0.47)
Party control of seat prior to 2005: Conservative
-3.94** (0.59)
Labour
-5.58** (0.59)
Change in party control 2001/5 -2.66** (0.58)
2001 majority shares -0.05** (0.01)
Percentage points change in postal votes as % of total votes
0.09** (0.03)
Dependent variable is percentage point change in Labour vote share 2001-5
Data are for England only; R2=0.28; standard errors in brackets; ** 0.05 level; * 0.01 level