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.