Here are a couple of local election results, the lowest turnout and the highest.
CITY AND HUNSLET:
Electorate : 21,764
Turnout : 22.84%
Aziz Jahangir 354 Liberal Democrats
Buckland Nigel 785 UK Independence Party (UKIP)
Finch Mary Rosamund 87 Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts
Iqbal Mohammed 2,434 Labour Party ELECTED
Jankowski Glen Shaun 659 Green Party
Salt Richard Mark 631 Conservative Party
ADEL AND WHARFEDALE
Electorate : 15589
Turnout : 43.75 %
Flynn Billy 3018 Conservative Party ELECTED
Henley Mark 1312 Labour Party
Kebede Cheryl Lee 1154 Liberal Democrats
Marchant Paul Richard 336 Green Party
Steele Mal 966 UK Independence Party (UKIP)
The turnout in the leafy suburbs was double that of the gritty inner city. Does this mean that residents of LS1 are twice as as apathetic – and citizens of LS11 only half as bothered – as their more well-to-do fellow Loiners on the Northern outskirts? Do we need a campaign to get the inner city slackers to #Votein2015 else we are in danger of creeping fascism?
I’m not entirely convinced by the apathy argument. And if there is any danger of fascism – which I doubt, at least for a good long while – the least likely place it will flourish will be in places like City and Hunslet. Just because you didn’t vote it doesn’t mean you’re in favour of the jack boot.
Don’t get me wrong, I put my cross against the least repugnant candidate available, folded my bit of paper and popped it in the ballot box, then went about the rest of my with a fug of moral superiority clinging to me. I even tweeted how morally, intellectually, spiritually debased the non-polling booth visitors must be, not exercising their democratic right to elect the least abominable alternative. I’m not immune from the temptation of social media smugness.
I don’t know much about the leafy suburbs – my guess is that if fascism is going to breed anywhere it’ll be somewhere there are two SUVs in every drive, but that could be my prejudice showing – but I do know a bit about the places in Leeds where voter turnout is lowest. I don’t detect much apathy. But I didn’t notice any great efforts by the mainstream parties to engage people here in the political process – it’s just not of any benefit to them, we all know which way the vote will go so why bother wasting resources? If people don’t vote that suits the party machines. There’s less to worry about.
So I really don’t think the problem is voter apathy. Voters in places like City and Hunslet just don’t have anything to vote for, nothing that excites, encourages or enthuses them to get out and do the democratic thing. Most of the people I know – included me – voted out of duty, and by reflex, and with considerable distaste. Why would you wish that on anyone?
Let’s not blame the voter. There is a reason for the indifference and it’s not that people are lazy, don’t care or can’t understand. Give them something to vote for.
Could perhaps be as much about voter (non)registration as apathy. City centres often have shifting populations who don’t think about registering – or add it to the ‘do it later’ list. Also I’d guess Leeds City centre has a lot of students who, as well as the above, might still be registered (and vote (postally)) at their parents’ home address.
Non-voting overall is disappointing though. I think an important reason for that is ignorance – about what life was like before universal suffrage, the fights and sacrifices people made to get the vote also about what politicians can (and as importantly can’t) do, about the history and aims of political parties … and on.
Something local websites might address – registration at least.
Pete
Who was it who said that democracy is dictatorship by consent? Probably never true and pretty crass anyway though with under 50% turnouts, such a definition would need revisiting in any case. Where I voted only the Green candidate (who was re-elected to the Bradford council and received my vote) got off her backside to visit door-to-door and seemed remotely interested. As a result I even know her name; a level of recognition I can’t extend to the other candidates. I think they knew they were on a hiding to nothing and didn’t bother. Which surely represents a criticism of the first-past-the-post electoral system. I think this system favours the status quo with the main parties really only slugging it out in marginal constituencies with the resulting unsavoury spectacle of negative voting to ensure victory to the least obnoxious party rather than “wasting a vote” on who you actually would like. I’m sure this dreary charade chips away at enthusiasm to participate in elections. A cynic might say that first-past the-post makes good television whereas PR or STV, all calculus and algebra – the electoral equivalents of Duckworth-Lewis – though fairer are not as compelling. The results are more important than the process.
I can’t help feeling that another factor is the contraction of the political forum. When I was growing up Trades Unions and local councils had some clout. I remember that TUC leaders in the 60s and 70s were political heavyweights, I can even recall their names – folk like Vic Feather and Jack Jones. I don’t think I could name any from the last twenty years. Council leaders also used to be household names, not necessarily for the right reasons but even their notoriety was evidence of significance. The Thatcherite revolution emasculated both unions and councils and I can’t help feeling also knocked the stuffing out of participatory democracy at the same time. Despite his massive initial mandate, Blair did little if anything to reverse this.
I’m not sure that it’s just the demise of political forums and the characters they fostered, we’ve also lost anyone who talks about ideas. Politics has become managerial. Bring back the utopian dreamers!
We have two options. We wait for politicians to fix the system and engage voters. But they won’t; they’re happy with a low turnout, little oversight and not having to bother knocking on doors because nobody cares.
Or we – the ones who do care and who do vote – organise ourselves as I’ve suggested. That’s not blaming anyone, but it is saying if we care enough we need to do something. I’m willing to put some effort into encouraging people to vote because I care.
Are there only two option?
Let’s say we mount a campaign in City and Hunslet to double the vote … actually, how do we do that? People don’t just vote, they vote for something. Aren’t we always going to be faced with the question why? Who for? What do they stand for?
Most of the people I know voted with gritted teeth, because you “should” vote. It was a vote for voting and not for the thing voted for. It’s a doughnut vote – sweet, but with a big hole at the heart of it.
Doughnuts are fine once in a while but they won’t sustain you.
Thanks for writing this Phil; it’s a good, challenging, piece.
On Thursday I cast my vote for two candidates that I knew could not win. Rationally I shouldn’t have bothered, but I did. The social compulsion you mention was definitely a part of why, and I admit to feeling slightly superior about it. I now realise that my sense of superiority was based partly on a comparison of social background rather than any good reason. I regret that part of my thinking. I will be more careful in the future.
But there’s another reason why I voted, and why I still think far more of us should vote – even if it won’t make a difference. The idea isn’t simple, but I’ll try to explain.
You’ve said in the comments that people “vote for something”. I disagree. Yes, at times of widespread hardship and solidarity – rebuilding Britain and founding the NHS after the war – people voted for something. But most of the time, especially now when the majority are doing okay, they vote against something. We voted against the Tories and got New Labour. We voted against Gordon Brown, and got the coalition. Last Thursday we voted against the European Union. People were not voting for giving greater powers to a London government they distrust.
I want to pick up your example with Adel, not because I have an axe to grind or particularly want to live there. I’m just using it as an example of a much wider problem.
If elections are about voting for things then I’m fine with people not voting; I suspect City & Hunslet’s turnout was so low because people are more positive about change. But last Thursday in Adel people didn’t vote for better public transport, or more council houses – they voted against greedy developers, against building enough of the homes we desperately need, and against a trolleybus. If elections are about restricting other people’s freedom, then I think a majority needs to say that.
Adel seems like a nice place, but it’s a nice place that’s too expensive for most of us to live in. Saying that, I could afford part of a field near there, and I could put up a lovely home for a good price. In a free country, shouldn’t I be able to do that?
The majority has voted for national governments that have written national laws that presume that I can. Yet the people of Adel would oppose, inquire, and object my plans to death. A community action group would spring up, they would find a village green, an ancient ruin, a spotted newt, or a flying pig. I’ve seen it happen and I know how completely overpowered I would be. And yet the majority of Adel that would restrict my freedom have no mandate to do so! The majority in Adel was the party of do nothing, oppose nothing, can’t be bothered, do what you like. The majority did not vote!
The civilised place for a debate on whether or not a trolleybus should run through Headingley, or whether or not desperately needed new homes should be built on green fields was in the polling booth in Adel last Thursday. Since the majority chose not to take part we should do both. The people of Adel should stop moaning.
I have a question for people complaining about others not voting –
Question – If 100% of the electorate voted would the result have been any different?
And if you believe it would have been then state why you think that.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Surely the strength of the mandate is as important as the result. If I were a politician, I think I would feel I could be more confidently effective with 50% of a 100% (or high) vote behind me than with 50% of a 22.4% vote (so, in fact, support of only 11% of the ward – in other words that 89% didn’t want me or didn’t want me enough to turn out to vote for me).