• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
8A_1_To vote or not to vote
 

8A_1_To vote or not to vote

on

  • 1,055 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,055
Views on SlideShare
1,055
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    8A_1_To vote or not to vote 8A_1_To vote or not to vote Presentation Transcript

    • 1
      To vote or not to vote?
      Investigating changes in the predicted probability of voter turnout when re-siting polling stations
      Scott Orford
      WISERD
      Cardiff University
      GISRUK 2010
    • 2
      Structure
      Introduction
      Micro-geographical factors that affect voter turnout
      Brent case study
      Binomial ML model
      Predicting changes in turnout
      Conclusions
    • 3
      Introduction
      Concern over low turnout and the ‘democratic defict’
      Turnout gap in GB largest of any Western liberal democracy (25 – 40 percentage points)
      Factors influencing turnout at elections well known
      Research tends to be election specific and not systematic
      Little still known about importance of spatial and micro-geographical factors in a UK context
    • 4
      People usually have to vote in person at a designated polling station
      Polling district boundaries and stations are determined by the council – administrative function
      Not accountable to the boundary commission
      Accessibility: “if possible, it needs to be close to where voters live and be fully accessible”
      A review of polling districts and polling stations must take place at least once every four years
    • 5
      Possible factors when siting polling stations affect turnout
      Distance
      Morphology (compactness)
      Voter density (compactness & distance)
      Terrain
      Ease of parking etc
      Opportunities
      How do these vary in different elections?
      Rural/ suburban/inner-city differences (US research says there are)
    • 6
      Known factors influencing turnout
      • Individual factors (age, education, social class, occupation)
      • Political Knowledge (party identification, interest in campaign)
      • Civic Duty
      • Second-order elections (rationale choice theory)
      • Weather
      • Geographical factors
      Local campaigning
      Marginality of seat (closeness of contest)
      Population stability
      Social composition “People who talk together vote together” (Pattie and Johnston) – clear evidence that conversation and context can influence voting behaviour
    • 7
      Constituencies and wards in the London
      Borough of Brent, 2001
    • 8
      Max 32.2
      Min 2.03
      Mean 21.8
      Std 4.41
      N 115
      Max 54.4
      Min 3.82
      Mean 36.2
      Std 7.4
      N 115
      Max 67.21
      Min 13.83
      Mean 49.15
      Std 7.27
      N 115
    • 9
      Wards, polling districts and polling stations in the London Borough of Brent, 2001
    • 10
      Polling stations in each election
    • 11
      Table 2: Polling station context in each election
    • 12
      Euclidean versus network distance
    • 13
    • 14
      100 metres
    • 15
      200 metres
    • 16
      300 metres
    • 17
      400 metres
    • 18
      500 metres
    • 19
    • 20
      100 metres
    • 21
      200 metres
    • 22
      300 metres
    • 23
      400 metres
    • 24
      500 metres
    • 25
      Voter dispersion (density) measures
      (combined measure of compactness and distance)
      Euclidean distance measures (metres)
      Percentage of postcodes in PD less than X metres from polling station
      Where X is 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 750, 1000, 1250, and 1500
      Road network distance measures (metres)
      Percentage of postcodes in PD less than X metres from polling station
      Where X is 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1250, 1500, 2000, and 2500
    • 26
    • 27
      Model Specification
      i = 1, …, 115 polling districts;
      j = 1, …, 31 wards;
      k = 1, …, 3 constituencies;
      Dependent variable is the proportion of turnout at the polling district with postal voters removed
      Model specification is binomial with a logit link
      Estimated using second order predictive quasi-likelihood (PQL) in MLwiN 2.10
    • 28
      ML Models: non-density variables
    • 29
      Significance of voter density on turnout
    • 30
      Voter density estimates (network distance)
      Election Maximum significance B-value T-stat
      European: Density ND < 500m 0.040 3.08
      Local: Density ND < 600m 0.070 3.07
      E.g. European and (Local) elections
      If 50% of voters in a PD live within 500m (600m) of polling station, turnout increases by 2% (3.5%)
      If 100% of voters in a PD live within 500m (600m) of polling station, turnout increases by 4% (7%)
    • 31
    • 32
    • 33
    • 34
    • 35
    • 36
    • 37
      Differences in the predicted probabilities of turnout by constituency and election at the locations of maximum, minimum and average voter densities
    • 38
      Percentage differences in the predicted probability of turnout at ward level when re-siting polling stations in the European election
    • 39
      Percentage differences in the predicted probability of turnout at ward level when re-siting polling stations in the local election
    • 40
      Percentage differences in the predicted probability of turnout at polling district level when re-siting polling stations in the European election
    • 41
      Percentage differences in the predicted probability of turnout at polling district level when re-siting polling stations in the local election
    • 42
      Percentage differences in the predicted probability of turnout at polling district level when re-siting polling stations at the maximum and minimum voter density locations for European and local elections
    • 43
      Conclusions
      Supports idea of second order elections and rational choice theory of voting
      Geographical factors are influential in lower salience elections
      EEA 4 year review – perhaps examine polling station location with regards to accessibility and voter densities
      Target certain polling districts and re-site polling station
      Problem – trade-off between existing polling station building and portable polling stations (cost effectiveness)
      New voting technologies may decrease numbers of polling stations and therefore increase accessibility and decrease turnout