Unemployment and Voter Turnout in British Elections

In many countries where voting is a right but not compulsory, voter turnout levels have declined precipitously in recent years, causing a growing number of political scientists to examine the effects of various variables on these rates. By contrast, in countries where voting is compulsory — such as Australia, Belgium, and Italy — voter turnout levels approach 100% (Forman, 2002). Research on voter turnout to date has analyzed a wide range of variables that affect participation positively (such as mail ballots or electronic voting from home) or negatively (such as poll taxes or voter identification requirements) (Childers & Binder, 2012).

There has been far less research, however, concerning the potential impact of other variables — such as employment status — on voter turnout levels. As Incantalupo (2015) emphasizes, "At present, gaps exist in our understanding of how unemployment affects political attitudes and behavior in part because there has been so little attention paid to unemployment as a personal hardship and the disparate contexts in which someone can experience unemployment" (p. 4). In fact, it has been more than 30 years since unemployment levels were high enough that scholarship focused on the issue and theories of unemployment's political effects were created and evaluated (Incantalupo, 2015) — a gap that the proposed study will help fill, as discussed further below.

The importance of voter turnout has become the focus of a growing body of research as a result of differing rates of political participation by various economic and political groups (Schur & Shields, 2002). This research has built on an original study by Downs (1957) that described the expected utility theory of voting as a determinant of voter turnout levels. According to Nicholson and Miller (1993), "In its original form, this theory posits that decisions to vote hinge on two factors: the probability that a single vote will affect the outcome of an election and the costs associated with voting" (p. 199). Because the likelihood that a single vote will affect the outcome of an election is extremely small, many citizens may choose not to vote — the benefits of their participation are discounted relative to the costs involved (Nicholson & Miller, 1993).

From Downs' (1957) perspective, it is frequently more "rational" for citizens not to vote because they will have little impact on an election's outcome. As Abramson and Diskin (2007) note, "Although the cost of voting is low, the probability that a single voter will affect the outcome in a large election is negligible. Rational citizens, realizing that their probability of affecting the outcome is negligible, may choose to abstain" (p. 501). Downs (1957) conceptualized his theory with the following equation:

R = (B)(P) − C + D

In this equation, R is the total reward a citizen will gain after voting; B is the benefit one expects from having his or her preferred candidate win; P is an individual's perception of the probability that his or her vote will change the election outcome; C is the cost associated with voting in terms of time, money, and other resources; and D is the psychic satisfaction an individual would gain from the act of voting. If R is positive, the individual is likely to gain a reward from voting that outweighs its costs, and the more positive R is, the more likely citizens are to vote.

According to Harder and Krosnick (2008), this equation illustrates the so-called "paradox of voting" (p. 526). The paradox of voting holds that "voting yields benefits only when supported by collective action, so most people should never pay the costs because their effort will never ensure the acquisition of benefits" (Harder & Krosnick, 2008, p. 526).

The results of a study by Incantalupo (2015) identified a relationship between unemployment and voter turnout. Based on his analysis, Incantalupo (2015) reports that "the economic and social contexts in which [voters] experience unemployment structure the ways in which their economic situations influence their political behavior" (p. 3). Interestingly, this study found a negative relationship between voter turnout and low unemployment rates, and a positive relationship between voter turnout and high unemployment levels (Incantalupo, 2015). As Incantalupo (2015) adds, "Broadly speaking, personal experience with involuntary unemployment is a mobilizing phenomenon that increases voter turnout in high-unemployment contexts and a demobilizing phenomenon that decreases voter turnout in low-unemployment contexts" (p. 3).

Voter turnout levels are even lower when people are both unemployed and disabled. According to Schur and Shields (2002), "The lower turnout is concentrated among people with disabilities who are not employed" (p. 167). These findings indicate that unemployment can adversely affect voter turnout levels due to decreased social capital and reduced identification with mainstream society (Schur & Shields, 2002). Schur and Shields (2002) further note that "the findings also support the idea that general mobility and major life transitions can be important influences on voter turnout in general, and raise questions on the causal relations among age, employment, efficacy, and voter turnout that should be a focus of future research" (p. 168).

Some of the other salient demographic factors shown to affect voter turnout levels include the following:

Age — People are more likely to vote as they progress from early adulthood (early 20s) through middle adulthood (mid-30s and 40s). However, after about age 75, voter participation decreases. Older citizens tend to be more established in their communities, have more free time, and are generally more interested in political outcomes compared to younger citizens. By contrast, people aged 75 and above may vote less due to declines in physical health, mobility, and energy.

Gender — Though fewer women participated in the electoral process in earlier decades, women today vote at roughly the same rate as men and sometimes at even higher rates, reflecting increased political interest.

Education level — People with more formal education are more likely to vote, as education imparts skills that help individuals understand how the civic process works and how to navigate registration requirements. Education may also instill a sense of civic duty that motivates participation.

Race — White voters tend to vote at higher rates than other racial groups. Voter turnout rates among African Americans are lower than those of whites but have increased in recent years following the relaxation of discriminatory voter registration laws. Asian Americans also display lower voter turnout rates, with Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean Americans in particular showing low registration and participation rates.

Income — Wealthier individuals vote at higher rates. Less wealthy people have fewer time and informational resources to engage with the electoral process, and may also perceive themselves as having less at stake in election outcomes.

Marital status — Married couples tend to vote at higher rates than single-person households, possibly because politically motivated spouses can inspire less engaged partners through persuasion or by sharing political information. Divorce has also been associated with increased voter turnout, as divorced individuals may have more time to devote to learning about elections and politics.

Civic duty — Some people believe they have a moral obligation to participate in politics and are therefore more inclined to vote. Those who hold that all citizens have a duty to vote go to the polls more often than those who do not share this belief.

Trust — People who trust others are more likely to vote. Distrustful individuals may perceive the political system as corrupt, discouraging participation. However, low levels of trust may occasionally motivate some citizens to vote in order to minimize the harm they fear others might cause.

In the UK's parliamentary elections, registered voters in every area of the country vote for a Member of Parliament (MP) to represent them in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is an elected body consisting of 650 members. There are 650 geographical areas called constituencies. An individual can vote in a UK parliamentary general election if that person is registered to vote and meets the following criteria:

Is aged 18 years or over on polling day; is a UK citizen, Commonwealth citizen, or a citizen of the Irish Republic; and is not legally excluded from voting.

The United Kingdom is currently divided into 650 parliamentary constituencies, each represented by one MP in the House of Commons. These include 533 constituencies in England, 59 in Scotland, 40 in Wales, and 18 in Northern Ireland. At present, fully 82% of the seats in the House of Commons correspond to English constituencies (Boisvert & Smith, 2015). As a result, voter turnout for House of Commons elections varies both from region to region and constituency to constituency. According to Abramson and Diskin (2007), "In the United Kingdom's general election of 2005, the mean turnout for all constituencies was 60.9% of voting-age population, but the standard deviation among the constituencies was 6.4, ranging from a low of 37.3% in Staffordshire South to a high of 76.3% in Dorset West" (p. 501).

The dismally low voter turnout experienced in some constituencies during the 2001 general election became the focus of nationwide concern. Ferguson (2008) notes that "the United Kingdom began to register an interest in the issue of citizen engagement — or more precisely, citizen disengagement — following the 2001 general election" (p. 28). During that election, voter turnout reached its lowest level (59%) since 1918 (Ferguson, 2008). Similarly, voter turnout in 1997 was lower than in 1992, and although there was a modest 2% increase in general turnout in 2005, there was a corresponding 2% decrease among the youngest voters (Ferguson, 2008). Identifying the correlates of low voter turnout therefore represents a timely and valuable enterprise.

The purpose of the proposed study is to examine the effects of unemployment on voter turnout rates in Britain's 2001 and 2010 general elections, using unemployment and voter turnout data from those same years. The theory that unemployment levels affect voter turnout rates will be tested using data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in Britain, while controlling for variables such as age, gender, and marital status obtained from the 2001 and 2011 UK census, as well as electoral closeness measured by the 2001 and 2010 election results. In this context, the closer the pre-election polls for certain candidates appear prior to election day, the more convinced citizens will be that their votes could ultimately determine the outcome — thereby encouraging them to vote. However, if pre-election polls suggest a landslide victory is likely, voter turnout rates would be expected to decline. Likewise, the greater the attitudinal gap between a voter's preferred candidate and a competitor, the more likely the person is to vote; a strong preference for one candidate will increase willingness to turn out.

The proposed study will be guided by the following research questions:

Does unemployment affect voter turnout rates in Britain's general elections? If unemployment does affect voter turnout rates, do high unemployment levels result in an increase in voter turnout in a particular election? Does the relationship between unemployment and voter turnout rates differ across the 650 UK constituencies when controlling for age, gender, marital status, and electoral closeness?

The proposed study's guiding hypothesis is that unemployment has a definite impact on voter turnout rates in Britain's general elections. More precisely, constituencies experiencing high unemployment rates will eventually see an increase in voter turnout. It is expected that the relationship between unemployment and voter turnout will be stronger in constituencies with greater proportions of females than males, greater proportions of elderly citizens than younger citizens, greater proportions of married couples than single or divorced individuals, and in constituencies where the percentage share of votes won by the top two political parties is more closely contested. In other words, the closer the vote share between the top two parties in a constituency, the higher voter turnout is expected to be.

The majority of studies to date on voter turnout have used the rational actor theoretical framework. According to Schur and Shields (2002), "Central to this model is the recognition that the decision to vote, at least for most citizens, is a marginal (low cost / low benefit) action" (p. 168). A study by Nicholson and Miller (1997) employed the rational actor model and identified a relationship between the closeness of elections and voter turnout levels, reporting that "the closeness of elections is a central concern in rational actor models of voter turnout" (p. 200).

Although rational expectations about the size or closeness of an election have been identified as affecting voter turnout, other salient variables are involved as well. Abramson and Diskin (2007) cite seminal research by Merriam and Gosnell (1924), Lipset (1960), and Dahl (1961), who studied political involvement and participation rates. As Abramson and Diskin report, "Abundant evidence shows that many of the social variables identified by Lipset and Dahl correlate with turnout. For example, members of lower socioeconomic groups tend to be far less politically involved than those belonging to higher status groups" (2007, p. 501). These and other studies have identified similar correlations between low voter turnout and low socioeconomic status.

The rational actor model also holds that voter turnout depends on the extent to which citizens believe their vote will make a difference in an election outcome (Nicholson & Miller, 1997). It is therefore reasonable to posit that individuals who are already disenfranchised from mainstream society due to unemployment may be proportionally less likely to make the effort to vote. This assertion is consistent with Incantalupo (2015), who reports that "the financial burden of unemployment and the demands and stresses of looking for new work could lower one's likelihood of participation" (p. 5). Unemployed citizens may thus lack the same incentives to vote as their employed counterparts.

Despite the dearth of timely research on this relationship, the limited available literature indicates that unemployment can be a demobilizing phenomenon that adversely affects an individual's desire to vote. Incantalupo (2015) points out that "citizens who experience job loss are unlikely to get sufficiently aroused to make it a point to head to the polls on Election Day. To the extent that citizens perceive job loss as a personal problem with which they must cope and that they must remedy, job loss will not increase their likelihood of voting" (p. 5). While some researchers have suggested that unemployed citizens may have more leisure time to devote to politics, there is a growing consensus that unemployment causes declines in voter turnout. From a pragmatic standpoint, this finding makes intuitive sense: many unemployed citizens are more concerned with their immediate circumstances and survival than with abstract political issues. As Incantalupo concludes, "When a person experiences economic adversity his scarce resources are spent on holding body and soul together — surviving — not on remote concerns like politics" (2015, p. 5).