1<br />To vote or not to vote? <br />Investigating changes in the predicted probability of voter turnout when re-siting po...
2<br />Structure<br />Introduction<br />Micro-geographical factors that affect voter turnout<br />Brent case study <br />B...
3<br />Introduction<br />Concern over low turnout and the ‘democratic defict’<br />Turnout gap in GB largest of any Wester...
4<br />People usually have to vote in person at a designated polling station<br />Polling district boundaries and stations...
5<br />Possible factors when siting polling stations affect turnout<br />Distance<br />Morphology (compactness)<br />Voter...
6<br />Known factors influencing turnout<br /><ul><li>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</li></ul>Local campaigning<br />Marginality of seat (closeness of contest)<br />Population stability<...
7<br />Constituencies and wards in the London <br />Borough of Brent, 2001<br />
8<br />Max      32.2<br />Min       2.03<br />Mean     21.8<br />Std       4.41<br />N          115<br />Max      54.4<br ...
9<br />Wards, polling districts and polling stations in the London Borough of Brent, 2001<br />
10<br />Polling stations in each election<br />
11<br />Table 2: Polling station context in each election<br />
12<br />Euclidean versus network distance<br />
13<br />
14<br />100 metres<br />
15<br />200 metres<br />
16<br />300 metres<br />
17<br />400 metres<br />
18<br />500 metres<br />
19<br />
20<br />100 metres<br />
21<br />200 metres<br />
22<br />300 metres<br />
23<br />400 metres<br />
24<br />500 metres<br />
25<br />Voter dispersion (density) measures<br />(combined measure of compactness and distance)<br />Euclidean distance me...
26<br />
27<br />Model Specification<br />i = 1, …, 115 polling districts; <br />j = 1, …, 31 wards;<br />k = 1, …, 3 constituencie...
28<br />ML Models: non-density variables<br />
29<br />Significance of voter density on turnout<br />
30<br />Voter density estimates (network distance)<br />Election   Maximum significance	       B-value	  T-stat<br />Europ...
31<br />
32<br />
33<br />
34<br />
35<br />
36<br />
37<br />Differences in the predicted probabilities of turnout by constituency and election at the locations of maximum, mi...
38<br />Percentage differences in the predicted probability of turnout at ward level when re-siting polling stations in th...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

8A_1_To vote or not to vote

791

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
791
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

8A_1_To vote or not to vote

  1. 1. 1<br />To vote or not to vote? <br />Investigating changes in the predicted probability of voter turnout when re-siting polling stations<br />Scott Orford <br />WISERD<br />Cardiff University<br />GISRUK 2010<br />
  2. 2. 2<br />Structure<br />Introduction<br />Micro-geographical factors that affect voter turnout<br />Brent case study <br />Binomial ML model<br />Predicting changes in turnout<br />Conclusions<br />
  3. 3. 3<br />Introduction<br />Concern over low turnout and the ‘democratic defict’<br />Turnout gap in GB largest of any Western liberal democracy (25 – 40 percentage points)<br />Factors influencing turnout at elections well known<br />Research tends to be election specific and not systematic <br />Little still known about importance of spatial and micro-geographical factors in a UK context<br />
  4. 4. 4<br />People usually have to vote in person at a designated polling station<br />Polling district boundaries and stations are determined by the council – administrative function<br />Not accountable to the boundary commission<br />Accessibility: “if possible, it needs to be close to where voters live and be fully accessible”<br />A review of polling districts and polling stations must take place at least once every four years<br />
  5. 5. 5<br />Possible factors when siting polling stations affect turnout<br />Distance<br />Morphology (compactness)<br />Voter density (compactness & distance)<br />Terrain<br />Ease of parking etc<br />Opportunities<br />How do these vary in different elections?<br />Rural/ suburban/inner-city differences (US research says there are)<br />
  6. 6. 6<br />Known factors influencing turnout<br /><ul><li>Individual factors (age, education, social class, occupation)
  7. 7. Political Knowledge (party identification, interest in campaign)
  8. 8. Civic Duty
  9. 9. Second-order elections (rationale choice theory)
  10. 10. Weather
  11. 11. Geographical factors</li></ul>Local campaigning<br />Marginality of seat (closeness of contest)<br />Population stability<br />Social composition “People who talk together vote together” (Pattie and Johnston) – clear evidence that conversation and context can influence voting behaviour<br />
  12. 12. 7<br />Constituencies and wards in the London <br />Borough of Brent, 2001<br />
  13. 13. 8<br />Max 32.2<br />Min 2.03<br />Mean 21.8<br />Std 4.41<br />N 115<br />Max 54.4<br />Min 3.82<br />Mean 36.2<br />Std 7.4<br />N 115<br />Max 67.21<br />Min 13.83<br />Mean 49.15<br />Std 7.27<br />N 115<br />
  14. 14. 9<br />Wards, polling districts and polling stations in the London Borough of Brent, 2001<br />
  15. 15. 10<br />Polling stations in each election<br />
  16. 16. 11<br />Table 2: Polling station context in each election<br />
  17. 17. 12<br />Euclidean versus network distance<br />
  18. 18. 13<br />
  19. 19. 14<br />100 metres<br />
  20. 20. 15<br />200 metres<br />
  21. 21. 16<br />300 metres<br />
  22. 22. 17<br />400 metres<br />
  23. 23. 18<br />500 metres<br />
  24. 24. 19<br />
  25. 25. 20<br />100 metres<br />
  26. 26. 21<br />200 metres<br />
  27. 27. 22<br />300 metres<br />
  28. 28. 23<br />400 metres<br />
  29. 29. 24<br />500 metres<br />
  30. 30. 25<br />Voter dispersion (density) measures<br />(combined measure of compactness and distance)<br />Euclidean distance measures (metres)<br />Percentage of postcodes in PD less than X metres from polling station<br />Where X is 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 750, 1000, 1250, and 1500<br />Road network distance measures (metres)<br />Percentage of postcodes in PD less than X metres from polling station<br />Where X is 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1250, 1500, 2000, and 2500<br />
  31. 31. 26<br />
  32. 32. 27<br />Model Specification<br />i = 1, …, 115 polling districts; <br />j = 1, …, 31 wards;<br />k = 1, …, 3 constituencies; <br />Dependent variable is the proportion of turnout at the polling district with postal voters removed<br />Model specification is binomial with a logit link<br />Estimated using second order predictive quasi-likelihood (PQL) in MLwiN 2.10<br />
  33. 33. 28<br />ML Models: non-density variables<br />
  34. 34. 29<br />Significance of voter density on turnout<br />
  35. 35. 30<br />Voter density estimates (network distance)<br />Election Maximum significance B-value T-stat<br />European: Density ND < 500m 0.040 3.08 <br />Local: Density ND < 600m 0.070 3.07<br />E.g. European and (Local) elections<br />If 50% of voters in a PD live within 500m (600m) of polling station, turnout increases by 2% (3.5%)<br />If 100% of voters in a PD live within 500m (600m) of polling station, turnout increases by 4% (7%)<br />
  36. 36. 31<br />
  37. 37. 32<br />
  38. 38. 33<br />
  39. 39. 34<br />
  40. 40. 35<br />
  41. 41. 36<br />
  42. 42. 37<br />Differences in the predicted probabilities of turnout by constituency and election at the locations of maximum, minimum and average voter densities<br />
  43. 43. 38<br />Percentage differences in the predicted probability of turnout at ward level when re-siting polling stations in the European election<br />
  44. 44. 39<br />Percentage differences in the predicted probability of turnout at ward level when re-siting polling stations in the local election<br />
  45. 45. 40<br />Percentage differences in the predicted probability of turnout at polling district level when re-siting polling stations in the European election<br />
  46. 46. 41<br />Percentage differences in the predicted probability of turnout at polling district level when re-siting polling stations in the local election<br />
  47. 47. 42<br />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<br />
  48. 48. 43<br />Conclusions<br />Supports idea of second order elections and rational choice theory of voting<br />Geographical factors are influential in lower salience elections<br />EEA 4 year review – perhaps examine polling station location with regards to accessibility and voter densities<br />Target certain polling districts and re-site polling station<br />Problem – trade-off between existing polling station building and portable polling stations (cost effectiveness)<br />New voting technologies may decrease numbers of polling stations and therefore increase accessibility and decrease turnout<br />

×