Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The liberalisation of the rules covering postal voting attracted a good deal of attention during the 2005 general election campaign, including several allegations of fraud and malpractice. This article uses both survey and aggregate-level data to examine the increase in the numbers of postal voters and its impact on both turnout and party choice at that election. It demonstrates the legacy of the all-postal voting pilots held between 2000 and 2004 in prompting a rise in the postal electorate, and a consequent reduction in the correlation between constituency marginality and turnout. In general, however, postal voting on demand did not prove to be a panacea for the turnout ‘problem’ and had only a very weak effect on the distribution of party support.

Keywords

postal voting 2005 general election turnout absentee ballots

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berinsky

Burns

and Traugott

(2001) ‘Who votes by Mail? A dynamic model of the individual-level consequences of voting-by-mail systems’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 65:2, 178–197.

Butler

and Kavanagh

(1987) The British General Election of 1987 (London: Macmillan).

Butler

and Kavanagh

(1992) The British General Election of 1992 (London: Macmillan).

Butler

and Kavanagh

(1997) The British General Election of 1997 (London: Macmillan).

Butler

and Pinto-Duschinsky

(1970) The British General Election of 1970 (London: Macmillan).

Denver

Hands

and MacAllister

(2003) ‘Constituency marginality and turnout revisited’, in Rallings

Scully

Tonge

and Webb

(eds), British Elections and Parties Review (13 vols) (London: Frank Cass), 174–194.

Electoral Commission (2003) The Shape of Elections to Come (London: Electoral Commission).

Electoral Commission (2009) Performance Standards for EROs in Great Britain (London: Electoral Commission).

Hanmer

M. J.

and Traugott

M. W.

(2004) ‘The impact of voting by mail on voter behavior’, American Politics Research, 32:4, 375–405.

10.

House of Commons (2006) Postal Voting and Electoral Fraud, Library Research Notes.

11.

Karp

J. A.

and Banducci

S. A.

(2000) ‘Going postal: How all mail elections influence turnout’, Political Behavior, 22:3, 223–239.

12.

Massicotte

Blais

and Yoshinaka

(2004) Establishing the Rules of the Game: Election Laws in Democracies (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).

13.

New Zealand Councils (2003) Quality of Life in New Zealand's Eight Largest Cities (Auckland: New Zealand Councils).

14.

Norris

(2005) ‘Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? The impact of postal-voting-on-demand in Britain‘, Paper for APSA conference, Washington, DC.

15.

Pattie

Dorling

Johnston

and Rossiter

(1996) ‘Electoral registration, population mobility and the democratic franchise: The geography of postal voters, overseas voters and missing voters in Great Britain’, International Journal of Population Geography, 2:3, 239–259.

16.

Qvortup

(2005) ‘First past the post man: Voting by mail in comparative perspective’, Political Quarterly, 76:3, 414–419.

17.

Rallings

and Thrasher

(2007) ‘The turnout “gap” and the costs of voting—A comparison of participation at the 2001 general and 2002 local elections in England’, Public Choice, 131, 333–344.

18.

Sanders

Clarke

Stewart

and Whiteley

(2005) ‘The 2005 general election in Great Britain, report for Electoral Commission’. Available online at: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/47257/BESreportforTheElectoralCommission_18771-13876__E__N__S__W__.pdf

19.

Southwell

(2004) Five years later: A re-assessment of Oregon's vote-by-mail electoral process’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 38:1, 89–93.

Much Ado about Not Very Much: The Electoral Consequences of Postal Voting at the 2005 British General Election

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References