Attitudes to Voting and the Political Process

The following summarises the key findings from the Phase 2 survey conducted between 9/18 June 2001. Reference is also made to results from the Phase 1 survey conducted 9/15 May. For technical details of these surveys see below. Links to the full topline results from the surveys can be found on the survey's home page

A full report incorporating analysis of both surveys will be produced by the MORI Social Research Institute in July. The surveys will also inform the Electoral Commission's own report on the 2001 general election which will be published by Politico's on 24th July 2001.

Why did people not vote on June 7th?

At 59%, turnout at the 2001 general election was the lowest in any general election since 1918. Given the UK's secret ballot, there is no definitive data on turnout among different age and sub-groups. However, MORI's estimates (based on aggregates of all its election polls) suggest that turnout fell to around 39% among 18-24 year olds. While the MORI/Electoral Commission survey claimed turnout is higher than the actual result, it does suggest lower turnout among younger people, black people and those living in urban areas. This higher reported turnout is , in part, likely to be related to the 'conditioning' effect mentioned above and likely to reflect over-claiming by people who associate voting with good citizenship.

Among non-voters, one in six (15%) claimed they were not registered to vote, a figure rising to 29% of 18-24 year old non-voters and 27% of blacks (although in the case of the latter this is based on a small base size). However, it is instructive that only 6% of non-voters spontaneously gave non-registration as a reason for non-voting (see below). In Phase 1 the reasons given for anticipated non-vote focused on "There is no point/all parties are the same" (8%), "no interest in politics" (8%) and "being away on election day" (7%).

In Phase 2 when asked why they did not vote, unprompted answers focus less on the parties and disinterest than on practical considerations:

• A fifth of non-voters (21%) say that they didn't vote because "I couldn't get to the polling station because it was too inconvenient". Women and those not in full/part-time employment are most likely to give this reason, although there is little difference between urban and rural non-voters.
• One in six non voters (16%) say they did not vote because they "Were away on election day." Taken with the above, these percentages equate to significant proportions of the electorate.
• One in ten (11%) say they did not vote because they "Did not receive a polling card/postal vote" and 10% say they are "Not interested in politics."

These results, particularly those relating to inconvenience and absence as barriers to voting, should be seen in the context of significant non-awareness of the increased availability of postal voting: 23% of the public say they were unaware of the law change and 44% of non-voters.

Did people change their mind about whether or not to vote? Only 2% of the Phase 2 respondents changed their minds from being "certain not" or "not very likely to vote" to deciding to voting on June 7. In contrast, 11% said they were either "certain" or "very/quite likely" to vote in May but ended up not voting. The main reasons given for changing from being a certain/likely voter to a non-voter include being unwell (11%), no time/too busy (7%), work commitments (10%).

Why did people vote on June 7th?

Phase 1 found a strong sense that voting is a civic duty and that it is a habit which people become accustomed to, or not. These themes come through at Phase 2; when asked why they did vote, 42% say that "It is my civic duty/everyone should vote". Other reasons given include "I wanted to have a say" (14%), "It is my right to vote" (13%) and "I always vote" (11%).

More than half (53%) of those who say they are "not at all interested" in politics still voted on June 7 (evidence that voting is a habit) and 68% still voted despite being "not at all interested" or "not particularly interested" in news about the election. Moreover, 67% of those who did not vote disagreed that "I didn't think it was important to vote" re-enforcing the findings from Phase 1 that voting is seen as important.

What did people think of the 2001 election and campaign?

A MORI poll for The Times on 29 May 2001, eight days before the day of the election, found interest in news about the election to be higher than it was in April 1997: 58% were "very" or "fairly" interested this year compared to 52% four years ago. Phase 2 respondents also recall being interested: 68%, more than twice the 32% who recall being 'not particularly' or 'not at all interested.' It is instructive that these figures are similar to the levels of interest in politics expressed by this group in Phase 1 - 65% and 34% - that is to say they were no less interested in the election than they are in politics generally. This suggests that declining turnout is not a function of declining interest in politics or elections but rather a failure of the campaign to connect with the electorate.

This is reflected in the finding that by more than 2:1 people disagree that "It was an interesting election campaign" (66% against 29%), although in considering the implications of this it is worth noting that recent MORI analysis has found that three-quarters say they decided which party to vote for before the campaign began. Even of those who at Phase 1 said they were very interested in politics, 61% said that, looking back, they did not find the election campaign interesting.

While, on balance, people disagreed rather than agreed that "voting would make a difference" (64% to 34%), that "none of the parties stood for policies I would like to see" (61% to 32%) and that "there was little difference between what the main parties were offering" (58% to 38%), it can be seen that in each case significant minorities agreed. More crucially, non-voters are more likely to agree than disagree with these statements, with the exception of the last on which opinion is divided. It is also instructive that 27% of those who in Phase 1 disagreed that "voting makes much of a difference", agreed that they "did not believe that voting would make much of a difference" this time. In other words, a significant proportion of those who are positive about the efficacy of voting in general, were negative about it at this election: that is to say the 2001 general election was viewed differently to the 'norm'.

Non-voters are also more likely than the full sample to think that the election was fought negatively (with the 'parties pointing out what was wrong with the policies and personalities in other parties') than it was fought positively (with the 'parties putting forward their own policies and personalities'). However, overall, people are less likely to think the 2001 campaign was fought negatively than was the case in both 1992 and 1997.

When asked for their impressions of the campaign, both favourable and unfavourable, most mentions are negative: 11% spontaneously say that it "Turned into a slanging match/not much talk about policies" and 10% thought it "Dull/boring." Non-voters are only marginally more likely to say that "It was a foregone conclusion" than voters (6% and 4%) but are much more likely to say they "Did not take any notice/not interested" (16% and 7%).

The role of information

The Phase 1 survey identified communications as an important issue in framing attitudes to voting with people agreeing by 2:1 that "I don't know enough about the candidates who stand at general elections." Lack of information has featured in other MORI polls as a reason for indecision about whether and how to vote. People are broadly satisfied with the amount of information they received about the party leaders and the parties' campaigns nationally with more saying they got 'about the right amount of information than saying they either got 'too little' or 'too much'. They are less satisfied with information on the policies of the parties - 44% too little, 48% about right - and the candidates in their constituency - 55% too little, 39% about right.

While this would suggest many people think they were short of information, they are more likely than in 1997 to say that the main media - television and radio - devoted 'about the right amount' of coverage to the election campaign and in judging both, less than 5% say that there was 'too little' coverage. This suggests that if the public did not necessarily want more information per se, they did want different types of information, that is to say more candidate-focused and more policy-focused information.

People are most likely to have seen election coverage on television or to have had political leaflets or letters through the letterbox - 89% recall these. This contrasts with 'receiving a personal call from party representatives', 19% recall this, and newer methods such as the internet with 7% saying they used this to access information on the election. This data combined with that of other MORI surveys among the general public this election, shows that the electorate was exposed to less direct marketing from the parties than was the case in either 1997 or 1992 (or alternatively that people are now less likely to remember it, having become more immune?)

More than half (55%) say they saw at least one of the party election broadcasts on television, down from 73% in 1997 and 71% in 1992. Recall is fairly uniform across the main age and other demographic groups and 49% of non-voters say they saw at least one broadcast. Among those who did, broadcasts are on balance seen as 'interesting' (51% to 33%) and 'informative' (48% to 34%) but they are not seen as being particularly 'useful' (38% to 45%). They are also thought to have had minimal influence on what people decided to do on election day; 77% say broadcasts had 'not very much' influence or 'none at all', similar to 1997 (74%) and significantly higher than equivalent figures for election coverage on television (50%) and in the newspapers (61%).

What could make a difference to turnout?

Phase 1 found support for reforming the mechanics of voting. Similarly, for each of several specific suggestions for reform, significant proportions of non-voters say that had it been in place on June 7, they would have been 'more likely' to have voted and as mentioned earlier, many of the reasons given for non-voting do relate to inconvenience and difficulties 'getting along'. Most popular among the suggestions are voting using the telephone/mobile phone with 66% of non-voters saying that this would have made them more likely to vote on June 7th.

It is instructive to note that 51% of non-voters say that voting by post would have made them more likely to vote and while this method was universally available this year, this survey shows that 44% of non-voters were unaware of the recent law change. This further highlights the challenge of effectively communicating reform of the mechanics of voting. In addition, it is important to remember that while younger non-voters appear to be more receptive to changes to the mechanics of voting, this age group are less committed to the idea of voting as civic duty, suggesting that they need additional reasons to turn-out. Qualitative research by MORI also suggests that it is likely to be the case that the outcome of voting is as important an incentive to people to vote as the method of voting.

Summing-up

Phase 1 of the research found that civic duty and habit are key motivators to voting (although less so for the young) and that people have positive attitudes towards voting - on balance, they believe it is important and they think it makes a difference. Interest in politics has remained very stable over the past three decades suggesting that people are no more 'turned-off' by politics per se than they were in the past.

Phase 2 confirms many of these themes. The main reason people give to explain why they did vote on June 7th is that "It is my civic duty/everyone should vote", mentioned spontaneously by 42% of voters. It would also seem that people voted despite the campaign not because of it. By 2:1 people disagree that "It was an interesting election campaign" with 61% of those who said they were very interested in politics at Phase 1, saying at Phase 2 that they did not find the election campaign interesting. Also, 61% of non-voters agree that they did not think that "voting would make much of a difference" and 54% agree that "None of the parties stood for the policies I would like to see." That said, when non-voters are asked why they did not vote, their answers focus more on practical considerations such as the "inconvenience of the polling station" and being "away on election day" than on the parties or the campaign itself. Non-registration and low awareness of the change to postal voting among non-voters are also issues highlighted by this survey.

Phase 1 found that the public's interest in politics has remained very stable over the past three decades, suggesting that people are no more 'turned-off' by politics per se than they were in the past and Phase 2 has shown people to be no less interested in the 2001 election than they are in politics generally. It is perhaps the case that the 2001 election did not connect with people and made them view it differently to previous ones: 26% of those who in Phase 1 disagreed that "voting does not make much of a difference", agreed this time that when it came to the 2001 election they "did not believe that voting would make much of a difference".

When asked what they think could be done to increase turnout, respondents mention a range of suggestions, including compulsory voting (17% mention this, although Phase 1 respondents were divided on the idea). Both Phases found support for reforming the mechanics of voting especially voting by telephone/mobile phone and 66% of non-voters say this would have made them 'more likely' to have voted this time. Information can also play a role as Phase 2 found significant proportions saying they received too little information about candidates and policies during the election campaign. These may all help to encourage people to vote but equally important are likely to be the perceptions people have of the political process in the long term, what they think of election campaigns in the short term, and how they view the outcomes both deliver.

Technical details

The survey has been designed to gauge public attitudes towards voting, elections and the political process to inform the Commission's report on the 2001 general election.

In Phase 1, MORI interviewed a sample of 1,801 adults aged 18+ across the United Kingdom. Interviews were carried out by telephone between 9-15 May 2001 (starting the day after the Election was called). The sample comprised a UK representative sample of 1,500 adults and a further 301 'booster' interviews among ethnic minority people.

In Phase 2, MORI interviewed 1,162 of the 1,472 Phase 1 respondents who agreed to be re-contacted. Interviews were carried out by telephone between 9-18 June 2001. The final sample includes 200 interviews with ethnic minority people surveyed in Phase 1.

This approach provided the opportunity to see how views had changed over time. However, it is important to remember that there may have been an element of 'conditioning' with respondents' interest and participation in the election being boosted by taking part in the Phase 1 survey. Additionally, while those who agreed to be re-contacted are demographically similar in profile to all Phase 1 respondents, there are some attitudinal differences, for example they are more likely to say that they are interested in politics and that they 'always' vote at general elections.