Constituency-level analyses of electoral turnout commonly uncover a correlation between the marginality of a seat and the level of electoral participation in the seat: the closer the local contest, the greater the rate of participation in the election. However, repeated efforts to assess the impact of constituency marginality on the propensity of individual electors to participate have met with failure. The 2001 British General Election was no exception to either result. This presence of an ecological aggregate-level relationship which is not replicated at the level of individual voters is paradoxical. However, the paradox can be resolved when two analytical steps are combined. First, nonvoters are classified into two groups according to their reasons for abstention: those who abstain on purpose (‘voluntary abstainers’), and those who fail to vote for reasons largely beyond their control (‘involuntary abstainers’). Second, attention is paid not only to actual marginality but also to perceived marginality. Individuals who think their constituency is competitive are less likely to abstain deliberately than individuals who think their constituency is safe.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AldrichJ H, 1993, “Rational choice and turnout”American Journal of Political Science37246–278
2.
BurdenB C, 2000, “Voter turnout and the National Election Studies”Political Analysis8389–398
3.
CreweI, 1981, “Electoral participation”, in Democracy at the Polls: A Comparative Study of Competitive National Elections (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC) pp 216–263
4.
CreweI, 2002, “A new political hegemony?”, in Britain at the Polls, 2001 Ed. KingA (Chatham House, New York) pp 207–232
5.
DenverD, 1995, “Non-voting in Britain”, in Electoral Abstention in Europe Eds FontJ, VirósR (Institut de Ciènces Politiques i Sociale, Barcelona) pp 181–198
6.
DenverDHandsG, 1974, “Marginality and turnout in British general elections”British Journal of Political Science417–35
7.
DenverDHandsG, 1985, “Marginality and turnout in general elections in the 1970s”British Journal of Political Science15381–388
8.
DownsA, 1957An Economic Theory of Democracy (HarperCollins, New York)
9.
DunleavyP, 1991, Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice: Economic Explanations in Political Science (Harvester Wheatsheaf, London)
10.
FieldingS, 2002, “No-one else to vote for? Labour's campaign”, in Labour's Second Landslide: The British General Election 2001 Eds GeddesA P, TongeJ (Manchester University Press, Manchester)
11.
FranklinM N, 1996, “Electoral participation”, in Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective Eds LeDucL, NiemiR G, NorrisP (Sage, London) pp 216–235
12.
FranklinM N, 1999, “Electoral engineering and cross-national turnout differences: What role for compulsory voting?”British Journal of Political Science29205–224
13.
GrayMCaulM, 2000, “Declining voter turnout in advanced industrial democracies, 1950 to 1997: The effects of declining group mobilization”Comparative Political Studies331091–1122
14.
HeathATaylorB, 1999, “New sources of abstention?”, in Critical Elections: British Parties and Voters in Long-term Perspective Eds EvansG, NorrisP (Sage, London) pp 164–180
15.
JohnstonR JPattieC J, 1997, “Towards an understanding of turnout at general elections: Voluntary and involuntary abstainers in 1992”Parliamentary Affairs50280–291
16.
JohnstonR JPattieC J, 2001, “Is there a crisis of democracy in Great Britain? Turnout at general elections reconsidered”, in Challenges to Democracy: Ideas, Involvement and Institutions Eds DowdingK, HughesJ, MargettsH (Palgrave, Basingstoke, Hants)
17.
JohnstonR JPattieC J, 2004, “The growing problem of electoral turnout in Great Britain: Voluntary and non-voluntary non-voters in 2001”Representation4030–43
18.
KingG, 1997A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
19.
LijphartA, 1997, “Unequal participation: Democracy's unresolved dilemma”American Political Science Review911–14
20.
LyonsWAlexanderR, 2000, “A tale of two electorates: Generational replacement and the decline of voting in presidential elections”The Journal of Politics621014–1034
21.
McDonaldM PPopkinS L, 2001, “The myth of the vanishing voter”American Political Science Review95963–974
22.
MatsusakaJ G, 1993, “Election closeness and voter turnout: Evidence from California ballot propositions”Public Choice76313–334
23.
MatsusakaJ GPaldaF, 1993, “The Downsian model meets the ecological fallacy”Public Choice77855–878
24.
MughanA, 1986Party and Participation in British Elections (Frances Pinter, London)
25.
OverbyeE, 1995, “Making a case for the rational, self-regarding, ‘ethical’ voter … and solving the ‘paradox of not voting’ in the process”European Journal of Political Research27369–396
26.
PattieC JJohnstonR J, 1998a, “Voter turnout and constituency marginality: Geography and rational choice”Area3038–48
27.
PattieC JJohnstonR J, 1998b, “Voter turnout at the British general election of 1992: Rational choice, social standing or political efficacy?”European Journal of Political Research33263–283
28.
PattieC JJohnstonR J, 2001, “A low turnout landslide: Abstention at the British general election of 1997”Political Studies49286–305
29.
PattieC JJohnstonR J, 2003, “Local battles in a national landslide: Constituency campaigning at the 2001 British General Election”Political Geography22381–414
30.
RobinsonW S, 1950, “Ecological correlation and the behavior of individuals”American Sociological Review15351–357
31.
SwaddleKHeathA, 1989, “Official and reported turnout in the British general election of 1987”British Journal of Political Science19537–551
32.
WhiteleyPClarkeHSandersDStewartM, 2001, “Turnout”, in Britain Votes2001 Ed. NorrisP (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 211–225
