1. 1
What are the views of University of Reading
students (18-24 years), towards voting in elections
and political participation?
Department of Politics and International Relations.
Supervisor: Dr Alan Renwick.
Word count: 9, 654.
2. 2
DISSERTATION
Statement of Original Authorship
All
coursework
submitted
for
assessment
must
be
accompanied
by
a
copy
of
this
sheet.
Computer
username:
DG010458
Degree
programme:
Politics
and
International
Relations
Module
code:
PO3DIS
Dissertation
Title:
What
are
the
views
of
University
of
Reading
students
(18-‐24
years),
towards
voting
in
elections
and
political
participation?
Dissertation
Supervisor:
Dr
Alan
Renwick
Are
you
registered
as
having
a
learning
disability
which
you
wish
to
be
taken
into
account
in
the
assessment
of
this
assignment?
No
If
yes
to
above,
please
specify
the
learning
disability
which
you
wish
to
be
taken
into
account?
(eg
dyslexia).
Attach
a
green
sticker
to
hard
copies.
Add
word
count
(between
8,000
and
10,000
words
only).
Dissertations
of
insufficient
or
excessive
length
will
incur
a
penalty
of
5
marks
9,654
I
certify
that
this
is
my
own
work
and
that
the
use
of
material
from
other
sources
has
been
properly
and
fully
acknowledged
in
the
text.
I
understand
that
the
normal
consequence
of
cheating
in
any
element
of
an
examination,
if
proven
and
in
the
absence
of
mitigating
circumstances,
is
that
the
relevant
Faculty
Examiners’
Meeting
will
be
directed
to
fail
the
candidate
in
the
Examination
as
a
whole.
By
submitting
this
assignment
via
Blackboard,
I
confirm
that
I
have
read
the
"Information
for
Students"
(http://www.spirs.rdg.ac.uk/)
and
understand
that
this
work
will
be
submitted
to
the
JISC
plagiarism
detection
service.
Date:
……19/04/15…………………………..…
3. 3
Acknowledgements
I
would
like
to
thank
my
dissertation
supervisor
Dr
Alan
Renwick
for
his
guidance
and
support
while
writings
this.
I
would
also
like
to
thank
Nick
Foard
and
Matthew
Henn
for
granting
permission
to
make
use
of
their
questionnaire.
Finally,
I
would
like
to
thank
Rachelle
Speed
for
her
patience
with
me
while
writing
this.
5. 5
Abstract
This
paper
will
present
the
results
from
a
small
scale
cross
sectional
descriptive
survey
of
University
of
Reading
students
(18-‐24
years)
aimed
at
answering
the
question
“What
are
the
views
of
University
of
Reading
Students
towards
voting
in
elections
and
political
participation.”
Recently
in
the
UK,
there
has
been
concern
over
a
declining
trend
in
voting
in
national
elections.
(Rawlings
and
Thrasher,
2010)
Young
people
are
identified
as
the
least
likely
to
vote
and
have
limited
political
participation.
This
study
was
designed
to
explore
these
issues
and
follows
on
from
two
national
surveys
completed
in
2002
(Henn
and
Weinstein,
2003)
and
2011.
(Henn
and
Foard,
2011)
The
method
used
for
research
was
a
questionnaire.
A
fairly
representative
sample
of
260
was
achieved
from
the
population.
Results
from
the
study
were
compared
to
two
previous
studies.
Results
suggest
that
although
issues
such
as
alienation
and
disillusionment
are
apparent,
the
young
people
surveyed
appear
to
have
a
more
positive
view
of
formal
political
processes
and
a
desire
for
more
information
in
order
to
enable
greater
involvement.
Data
analysis
included
a
consideration
of
the
responses
of
females
vs.
males
and
older
vs.
younger
group
within
the
cohort.
Very
few
differences
were
highlighted.
Recommendations
include
the
need
for
further
investigation
of
the
personal
characteristics
and
context
influencing
young
people’s
political
participation
and
an
identified
need
for
politicians
to
actively
regain
the
trust
of
young
people
and
address
their
desire
for
greater
information
and
preparation
for
political
activity.
6. 6
INTRODUCTION
Democracy
can
be
defined
as
a
“system
of
government
in
which
all
of
the
people
of
a
state
are
involved
in
making
decisions
about
its
affairs,
typically
by
voting.”
(Oxford
English
Dictionary
Online,
accessed
14/04/15)
As
the
definition
highlights,
voting
is
a
key
mechanism
through
which
people
of
a
democracy
influence
the
decisions
of
government.
As
Holleque
(2011)
offers,
it
is
“widely
considered
a
vital
component
for
a
democratic
citizenry.”
(Pg
1)
Yet
recently
in
the
UK,
there
has
been
concern
over
a
declining
trend
in
voting
in
national
elections.
(Rawlings
and
Thrasher,
2010)
If
people
were
denied
the
right
to
vote,
they
would
be
termed
disenfranchised
but
in
this
situation
it
appears
people
are
choosing
not
to
use
voting
to
influence
government,
in
a
sense
disenfranchising
themselves.
In
particular
it
has
been
highlighted
that
young
people
may
be
the
group
that
is
least
involved
in
voting.
(Henn
and
Foard,
2011)
This
therefore,
seems
an
important
issue
to
explore
because
the
implications
of
not
voting
reduce
the
likelihood
that
the
government
is
representing
everyone
and
so
it
questions
the
legitimacy
of
the
government.
Also,
it
could
have
wider
implications
if
minority
groups
do
not
vote
as
then
their
voice
is
not
heard
and
they
are
less
likely
to
be
represented.
This
is
potentially
the
case
with
young
people.
If
we
believe
the
legitimacy
of
a
democracy
is
important,
there
seems
to
be
an
associated
duty
to
consider
how
the
members
of
that
democracy
can
be
empowered
to
take
part.
The
first
step
in
that
empowerment
in
relation
to
young
people
would
seem
to
be
a
need
to
gain
an
7. 7
understanding
of
the
involvement
of
young
people
in
politics
and
their
views
on
political
participation.
8. 8
Background and Lit Review
From
the
1960’s
until
the
1990’s
there
has,
with
occasional
peaks,
been
a
reasonably
steady
total
turnout
in
voting
in
UK
general
elections.
(See
Appendix
1)
Concern
with
a
downward
trend
really
started
with
a
fall
in
total
turnout
since
the
1992
election.
In
1992,
total
turnout
was
77.7%
(Dar,
2013)
and
fell
to
71.6%
in
1997
(Dar,
2013).
This
highlights
the
start
of
a
dramatic
increase
in
political
disengagement
from
voting.
A
trend
that
is
underlined
by
the
fact
that
“five
million
fewer
electors
voted
in
the
2001
election
than
in
the
1997
contest”,
(Electoral
Commission,
2002:
6)
with
59%
of
eligible
voters
exercising
their
right
in
2001.
(Electoral
Commission,
2002)
However,
in
2005,
there
was
a
slightly
higher
61.4%
turnout
and
this
increased
further
to
65.1%
in
2010
(Dah,
2013)
although
the
factors
influencing
the
fluctuations
are
unclear.
It
has
been
suggested
that
the
closeness
of
an
election
may
be
a
factor
(Electoral
Commission,
2002)
and
this
might
partly
explain
the
slight
increase
in
turnout
between
2005
and
2010.
But
the
overall
fall
in
voting
turnout
does
not
seem
matched
by
people’s
lack
of
belief
in
their
ability
to
influence
government.
The
National
Census
(Randall,
2014:
6)
posed
the
statement,
‘people
like
me
have
no
say
in
what
government
does’
to
UK
adults,
and
over
the
years
of
their
studies
the
percentage
of
those
who
have
agreed
with
the
statement
has
steadily
declined
from
71%
in
1986
to
59%
in
2012.
(Randall,
2014)
Therefore,
it
raises
the
question
whether
it
is
just
the
voting
process
in
which
people
lack
commitment
to.
Nevertheless,
despite
the
most
recent
increase
in
turnout,
is
still
relatively
low.
If
increased
participation
in
the
democratic
process
is
seen
as
important,
it
is
then
also
important
that
the
causes
of
this
lack
of
participation
are
investigated
to
see
what
may
help.
9. 9
The
Electoral
Commission
report
(2002)
identifies
that
“certain
types
of
people
are
more
likely
to
vote
than
others.
In
Britain,
turnout
has
been
shown
to
vary
by
area,
age,
gender,
ethnicity,
social
class
and
education.”
(Pg
6)
With
in
general,
“the
affluent
and
the
more
educated
middle
classes
are
observed
to
have
higher
levels
of
electoral
registration
and
turnout.”
(Pg
6)
Reasons
why
people
do
not
vote
are
identified
in
the
literature
as
stemming
from
a
lack
of
information
or
a
lack
of
choice,
lack
of
interest
in
an
election
or
lack
of
information.
(Electoral
Commission,
2002)
Choice
is
an
issue
complicated
by
perception,
citizens
might
just
dislike
all
of
the
available
candidates
and
can
feel
like
there
is
a
lack
of
effective
choice.
(Grant,
2000)
This
can
be
made
worse
by
‘safe
seats’
because
as
rational
choice
theory
(Farber,
2009)
would
suggest
the
likelihood
that
an
individual’s
vote
will
be
decisive
is
greatly
reduced
and
therefore
in
the
equation
this
reduces
the
benefits
of
actually
voting
and
potentially
increasing
the
perceived
costs.
(Farber,
2009)
Safe
seats
may
exacerbate
other
issues
because
voters
may
feel
like
their
vote
doesn’t
count
or
matter.
There
may
be
other
pragmatic
issues
with
voting
such
as
difficulty
in
getting
to
the
polling
station
or
the
complication
of
accurately
casting
a
vote,
leading
to
spoilt
ballot
papers.
(Grant,
2000)
In
the
2011-‐12
UKHLS
study,
36%
of
those
aged
16
and
over
agreed
or
strongly
agreed
it
took
too
much
time
and
effort
to
be
involved
in
politics
and
public
affairs.
(Dah,
2013)
10. 10
For
comparison,
it
is
useful
therefore
to
consider
the
reasons
given
by
non-‐voters
for
not
voting.
At
the
2010
election,
a
study
across
ages
reported,
“31%
said
that
circumstantial
reasons
prevented
them
from
voting.”
(Electoral
Commission,
2010:
47)
The
most
common
reason
given
was
“a
lack
of
time,
(12%
of
non
voters)”.
(Electoral
Commission,
2010:
47)
It
seems
therefore
that
pragmatic
reasons
are
the
most
influential
and
from
the
literature,
although
disillusionment
is
suggested
as
a
reason
for
not
voting
(Electoral
Commission,
2004),
only
“18%
said
that
they
abstained
because
they
did
not
like
the
parties
or
candidates
standing
at
the
elections.”
(Electoral
Commission,
2010:
47)
However,
it
could
be
the
case
that
when
asked
people
might
find
it
easier
to
justify
not
voting
through
pragmatic
reasons.
Interest
in
politics
does
appear
to
be
a
feature
in
involvement
in
voting.
Holleque
(2011)
identifies
that,
“political
interest
is
one
of
the
most
powerful
and
persistent
predictors
of
political
participation”.
(Pg
1)
Grant,
(2000)
suggests
that
people’s
decision
to
vote
depends
on
three
factors.
Firstly,
their
motivation
is
fueled
by
an
interest
in
politics
and
the
results
of
the
election.
At
the
1997
election,
82%
of
people
who
reported
they
had
‘a
great
deal
of
interest’
in
politics
voted
compared
with
38%
of
people
who
had
‘none
at
all’.
(Pg
21)
Secondly,
their
resources
of
time
or
the
stake
that
they
have
in
society
such
as
family.
(Grant,
2000)
Interestingly,
77%
of
married
people
turned
out
to
vote
in
1997
compared
with
62%
of
the
unmarried.
(Grant,
2000:
21)
Finally,
whether
they
have
received
encouragement
from
parties,
family
or
friends
to
participate.
(Grant,
2000)
However,
in
the
2011-‐12
UKHLS
study
(Randall,
2014),
only
44%
of
those
who
expressed
an
opinion
reported
to
be
fairly
or
very
interested
in
politics
(Pg5).
With
28%
reporting
they
were
not
at
all
interested.
(Pg5)
It
will
not
be
until
the
voting
is
reported
11. 11
from
2015
that
we
can
examine
whether
this
limited
level
of
political
interest
will
be
a
“powerful
predictor”
(Holleque,
2011:
1)
for
voting
turnout
in
2015.
In
the
study
(Randall,
2014),
men
were
seen
to
be
more
likely
to
be
very
interested
in
politics
compared
with
52%
of
men
very
interested
and
compared
to
only
32%
of
women.
(Pg5)
Political
interest
cannot
be
assumed
to
automatically
lead
to
political
participation,
however,
there
is
often
said
to
be
a
difference
between
male
and
female
political
participation.
(Electoral
Commission,
2004)
The
Electoral
Commission
did
a
report
on
the
subject
(Electoral
Commission,
2004),
created
an
index
and
found
an
activism
gap
existed
between
men
and
women.
Women
had
an
activism
index
of
3.58
and
men
of
3.87,
(Pg22)
which
suggests
only
a
small
difference.
In
addition
to
this,
the
turnout
of
women
in
elections
was
higher
than
for
men,
(Pg16)
indicating
fairly
equal
political
involvement.
This
activity
is
not
currently
reflected
in
the
number
of
elected
female
members
of
parliament;
only
22%
of
MPs
are
female.
(Parliament
Website.
Accessed
15/04/2015)
Which
might
have
been
presumed
to
impact
on
the
potential
for
identification
between
those
voting
and
those
being
elected
but
evidence
suggests
women
are
as
likely
to
vote
as
men.
(Electoral
Commission,
2004)
Possible
solutions
to
the
issue
of
disengagement
have
been
suggested.
(Electoral
Commission,
2006)
The
Electoral
Commission
(2006)
published
a
report
on
compulsory
voting
and
found
that
various
forms
of
compulsory
voting
“both
increase
the
aggregate
turnout
and
reduces
the
variation
in
turnout
rates
among
different
groups”.
(Pg6)
However,
it
found
that
“compulsion
is
less
effective
in
promoting
better
public
knowledge
of
politics
or
in
increasing
political
engagement”.
(Pg
6)
Therefore,
it
may
deal
with
the
issue
of
low
turnout
but
does
not
deal
with
the
cause.
Moreover,
maybe
12. 12
there
is
no
need
to
change
the
system
as
at
the
2010
election,
“among
those
who
said
they
had
voted,
80%
said
they
were
satisfied
with
the
voting
process.”
(Electoral
Commission,
2010:
7)
Of
these,
“satisfaction
levels
were
highest
among
those
aged
55
and
over
(83%)
compared
with
76%
of
18-‐34
year
olds
who
said
they
were
very
or
fairly
satisfied.”
(Pg7)
Perhaps
this
partly
explains
this
issue
in
that
those
who
are
most
satisfied
with
the
system
vote,
and
those
who
are
less
satisfied
do
not
exercise
their
right.
The
evidence
behind
young
people
being
perceived
as
uninterested
in
politics
is
often
demonstrated
through
turnout
levels
in
general
elections.
In
1992,
turnout
for
18-‐24
year
olds
was
10%
less
than
the
mean
average
at
67%.
(Dah,
2013)
The
difference
increased
to
17%
by
1997
when
18-‐24
year
olds
turnout
decreased
to
54.1%.
(Dah,
2013)
In
2001
turnout
dropped
considerably
and
in
the
age
group
of
18-‐24
years
was
estimated
to
be
39%
(Dah,
2013),
this
compares
unfavourably
with
70%
turnout
in
the
over
65
age
group.
(Dah,
2013)
In
2005,
while
overall
turnout
increased
at
the
election,
18-‐24
turnout
hit
an
all
time
low
of
38%.
(Dah,
2013)
However,
overall
turnout
went
up
at
the
2010
election,
possibly
because
it
was
a
closer
election
than
in
recent
times
(Rallings
and
Thrasher,
2010)
and
18-‐24
year
old
turnout
followed
this
trend
and
appears
to
have
increased
to
52%
(Dah,
2013).
This
is
the
percentage
reported
to
parliament.
However,
IPSOS
MORI
estimate
this
to
be
as
low
as
44%
(Randall,
2014),
perhaps
highlighting
that
politicians
may
not
be
fully
aware
of
the
extent
of
the
problem
of
youth
engagement.
Even
working
with
the
52%
figure
for
the
13. 13
2010
election,
there
is
still
a
13%
difference
between
the
turnout
of
the
youngest
age
group
of
voters
and
the
mean
average.
Young
people
are
identified
as
less
politically
active
(Electoral
Commission
and
Hansard,
2007)
and
less
likely
to
be
a
member
of
a
political
party
(Whitely
and
Seyd,
2002;
Sloam
2007)
with
Russell
et
al
(2002)
suggesting
that
the
political
participation
was
declining
at
a
faster
rate
than
that
of
older
adults
of
previous
youth
cohorts.
It
is
possible
that
young
people
are
as
subject
to
the
same
influences
as
their
older
counterparts
when
considering
lack
of
choice
and
the
impact
of
their
vote
but
that
does
not
necessarily
explain
the
general
fact
that
young
people
are
the
least
likely
to
vote
age
group.
(Electoral
Commission,
2002;
Phelps,
2004)
The
literature
suggests
reasons
for
why
young
people
don’t
vote
in
general;
“a
historical
political
disconnection”
and
an
“unwillingness
to
play
by
the
rules”
have
been
identified
as
possible
reasons
by
the
literature
(Henn
and
Weinstein,
2006:
519)
and
the
Electoral
Commission
in
2002
made
an
overall
summary
identifying;
a
feeling
of
disillusionment
because
it
does
not
make
a
difference
who
wins,
not
having
an
interest
and
being
apathetic,
feeling
like
your
vote
will
not
be
decisive,
a
feeling
of
alienation
and
that
politics
is
not
for
you,
not
knowing
enough
and
the
inconvenience
because
voting
is
too
time
consuming.
It
has
been
suggested
that
there
is
evidence
that,
in
comparison
with
older
contemporaries,
young
people
have
significantly
less
political
knowledge.
(Pattie
et
al
2004)
However,
during
the
2001
election
campaign,
young
people
were
the
group
that
was
most
likely
to
complain
about
a
lack
of
information.
(Electoral
Commission,
2002)
14. 14
The
political
discourse
for
young
people
appears
to
feature
much
more
on
social
media
than
with
older
age
groups.
The
social
context
of
how
voters
make
their
decisions
may
be
important
as
an
indirect
influence.
(Grant,
2000)
It
is
not
clear
whether
the
low
turnout
of
young
voters
indicates
an
uninterested
group
who
are
apathetic
or
signifies
a
more
deliberate
protest
by
a
group
who
are
disillusioned.
Celebrities
such
as
Russell
Brand
potentially
have
a
negative
influence
by
encouraging
young
people
to
not
vote.
(BBC
News
Article
A,
2014,
Accessed
14/04/2015)
This
is
also
a
position
supported
by
social
commentator
Will
Self
who
argues
that
there
is
little
point
in
young
people
voting.
(BBC
News
Article
A,
2014)
However,
there
are
more
positive
social
media
campaigns
to
encourage
young
people
to
vote
with
other
celebrities
such
as
Rick
Edwards
actively
campaigning
for
young
people
to
vote
(Edwards,
2015)
and
the
National
Union
for
Students
(NUS)
are
running
a
campaign
to
get
young
people
to
commit
to
positive
actions
by
promising
to
vote
and
to
not
vote
for
those
MPs
who
broke
a
promise
on
the
issue
of
tuition
fees.
(NUS
Website,
2015)
Therefore,
whether
or
not
young
people
vote,
they
may
feel
engaged
and
active
in
the
political
discussion
even
if
they
outwardly
appear
uninterested.
This
might
add
weight
to
an
argument
that
young
people
are
interested
in
politics
but
are
using
not
voting
as
a
form
of
protest
and
there
is
some
suggestion
that,
“young
people
were
becoming
involved
in
politics
in
more
informal
ways,
such
as
social
media
campaigns.”
(BBC
Article
B,
2014,
Accessed
14/04/2015)
The
British
attitudinal
survey
found
that
“non-‐electoral
participation
had
increased
from
30
years
ago”.
(Randall,
2014:
11)
In
fact,
in
2011,
37%
of
people
report
to
having
signed
a
petition
(Randall,
2014).
This
could
show
that
more
people
see
elections
as
not
the
only
way
to
participate
in
politics.
It
is
largely
surveys
and
turnout
at
elections
that
gives
the
indication
that
young
people
are
less
interested
in
politics.
However,
it
may
be
the
case
15. 15
that
young
people
do
not
self
identify
as
being
interested
in
politics
but
instead
much
more
interested
in
change
though
social
media
and
informal
processes.
Moreover,
before
the
2001
election
campaign,
young
people
were
most
likely
to
report
talking
to
family
or
friends
about
politics;
one
of
Grant’s
(2000)
important
motivating
factors,
but
were
least
likely
to
vote.
(Electoral
Commission,
2002)
This
adds
strength
to
an
argument
indicating
an
interest
in
politics
but
not
in
the
formal
participation.
However,
this
would
not
wholly
explain
why
young
people
as
a
group
show
more
interest
in
formal
politics
as
they
get
older
and
“become
politically
mature”.
(Phelps,
2004:
244)
However,
as
Phelps
(2004)
highlights
with
his
cohort
analysis,
whether
we
can
see
a
generational
effect
is
dependent
on
the
age
that
we
set
this
maturity.
The
turnout
for
an
age
cohort
may
not
increase
in
a
linear
fashion,
with
election
influences
having
an
impact,
but
there
is
definitely
an
increase
in
turnout
at
as
a
group
gets
older.
It
is
therefore
unclear
if
this
is
due
to
generational
effect
or
a
period
effect.
(Phelps,
2004)
Literature
suggests
(Henn
and
Foard,
2011)
part
of
the
alienation
that
18-‐
24
year
olds
feel
is
a
lack
of
affinity
to
politicians,
which
is
perhaps
understandable.
In
2001,
only
5
Members
of
Parliament
were
under
30
(Electoral
Commission,
2002
and
in
2010,
and
therefore
currently,
the
average
age
of
a
MP
is
50
(Parliament
Website.
Accessed
15/04/2015),
which
is
more
than
double
the
age
of
the
18-‐24
year
olds.
The
politicians
are
largely
at
a
different
stage
of
their
lives
and
so
to
younger
voters
it
may
seem
like
they
do
not
express
themselves
in
the
same
way
or
share
the
same
concerns.
While
the
literature
identifies
suggestions
for
why
young
people
do
not
engage
in
formal
voting
there
appears
far
less
about
why
specifically
young
people
do
not
feel
empowered
(Henn
and
Foard,
2011)
16. 16
Since
1992,
there
has
been
overall
downturn
in
voting
turnout
for
general
elections
in
the
UK.
In
general,
reasons
for
not
voting
have
been
identified
as
related
to
a
lack
of
choice,
lack
of
interest
in
politics
and
pragmatic
issues.
There
appear
to
be
some
differences
between
male
and
females
in
terms
of
the
level
of
interest
in
politics
but
more
similarity
between
males
and
females
when
considering
political
activism
and
voting
turnout.
Young
people
are
identified
as
the
least
likely
to
vote.
Suggested
reasons
for
young
people
not
voting
are
varied.
They
include
a
historical
disconnection
and
alienation,
disillusionment,
concern
with
the
impact
of
the
vote,
and
a
suggestion
that
the
political
participation
of
the
young
is
less
than
for
older
adults.
The
young
may
also
be
a
less
knowledgeable
and
informed
group.
It
is
from
this
understanding
that
this
study
was
designed.
17. 17
Methodology
The
original
interest
for
the
study
was
initiated
by
awareness
that
a
general
UK
election
would
be
necessary
in
the
near
future
and
my
personal
interest
as
someone
who
will
be
eligible
to
vote
for
the
first
time
in
a
national
election.
A
review
of
the
literature
then
identified
that
young
people
have
limited
engagement
in
the
formal
elements
of
politics
and
the
interest
of
this
author
was
further
stimulated
by
a
perception
that
this
lack
of
engagement
is
in
some
way
being
encouraged
by
individuals
in
popular
culture.
The
existence
of
two
major
studies
canvassed
the
views
of
young
people
in
2002
(Henn
and
Weinstein,
2003)
and
2011
(Henn
and
Foard,
2011)
on
participation
in
elections
and
politics
in
general
and
the
decision
was
made
to
use
the
opportunity
of
this
dissertation
to
design
a
small
scale
study
that
would
answer
the
question:
What
are
the
views
of
University
of
Reading
students
(18-‐24
years),
towards
voting
in
elections
and
political
participation?
This
was
in
order
to
provide
information
that
would
allow
for
the
comparison
of
findings
from
a
current
cohort
of
individuals
to
examine
for
similarities
and
differences
with
these
previous
studies.
The
objectives
are
therefore:
-‐To
access
and
record
the
views
of
a
number
of
University
of
Reading
students
on
voting
in
elections
and
political
participation
-‐To
compare
the
recorded
views
with
the
results
of
two
previous
studies
18. 18
Originally
the
design
was
intended
to
be
a
mixed
methods
approach.
The
quantitative
element
was
to
be
a
survey
using
a
questionnaire
and
the
qualitative
element
was
to
be
follow
up
semi-‐structured
individual
interviews
with
a
small
number
of
participants
who
had
previously
completed
the
questionnaire.
The
qualitative
element
would
have
adopted
a
phenomenological
approach
with
a
focus
on
the
lived
experience
of
the
participant
in
making
the
decision
to
vote
and
participation
in
politics.
This
element
has
been
omitted
from
this
current
study
as
I
have
become
more
aware
of
the
requirements
of
the
researcher
as
the
tool
in
such
an
approach
and
the
skills
and
preparation
required
for
rigor
in
either
meeting
the
needs
for
bracketing
in
descriptive
Husserlian
phenomenology
(Morse,
1994)
or
the
revealing
of
subjectivity
in
Heideggarian
interpretive
phenomenology
(Morse,
1994).
I
felt
that
the
constraints
of
the
time
limit
to
the
dissertation
and
my
own
novice
status
as
a
researcher
did
not
allow
me
sufficient
time
to
develop
these
skills.
However,
such
an
approach
had
been
considered
as
it
would
provide
rich
descriptive
data
that
does
not
appear
available
elsewhere
and
inform
a
deeper
understanding
of
the
experience
informing
the
views
thus
it
is
an
aspect
that
this
researcher
will
consider
as
a
development
to
this
current
study
at
a
later
stage.
It
is
acknowledged
that
a
simpler
follow
up
interview
might
have
been
undertaken
to
explore
responses
to
the
questionnaire.
This
has
not
been
included
in
this
study
because
the
interviews
were
meant
to
explore
elements
behind
responses
from
the
questionnaire.
Difficulty
in
accessing
sufficient
responses
impacted
upon
the
time
available
for
creating
interviews
that
would
particularly
target
issues
raised
by
the
sample.
Also
practice
interviews
identified
a
need
to
further
develop
interviewing
skills
to
avoid
influencing
the
discussion
responses
unintentionally
and
effecting
validity.
19. 19
This
current
study
is
therefore
a
cross-‐sectional
descriptive
survey
design
using
a
questionnaire.
As
it
is
part
of
an
undergraduate
dissertation
and
is
unfunded
other
than
by
the
researcher,
it
is
necessarily
small
scale.
Ethics
The
role
of
researcher
carries
ethical
responsibility.
(Dahlberg
and
McCaig,
2010)
Therefore,
permission
for
the
study
and
ethical
approval
were
sought
via
the
project
supervisor
and
the
University
of
Reading
through
the
submission
of
a
proposed
study
application.
The
target
sample
being
comprised
of
adult
University
students,
they
were
not
considered
particularly
vulnerable,
however,
respect
for
the
autonomy
of
the
participants
was
addressed
through
seeking
informed
consent
using
an
information
sheet
(See
Appendices
2
and
3)
and
making
clear
no
sanctions
would
accrue
for
non-‐
participation
or
withdrawing
from
the
study
at
any
point.
Non-‐maleficence
was
addressed
by
assuring
the
anonymity
of
participants
and
confidentiality
of
data
was
addressed
by
the
use
of
password
protected
secure
computer
files
(Data
Protection
Act
1998)
and
the
use
of
locked
cupboards
for
paper
copies.
Justice
in
the
study
is
considered
through
valuing
all
contributions
on
the
questionnaire
as
having
equal
value
and
in
presenting
the
responses
and
views
of
the
participants
in
as
accurate
and
truthful
a
manner
as
possible.
Sampling
The
final
sample
was
made
up
of
260
respondents,
of
these,
126
male
and
134
female
University
of
Reading
students
aged
18yrs
to
24years
who
are
eligible
to
vote
in
UK
national
elections.
As
the
variable
under
study
is
the
limited
involvement
of
young
20. 20
people
in
the
UK
in
elections
and
political
participation
the
first
requirement
is
to
define
what
is
meant
by
‘youth’.
Men
and
women
of
18
to
24years
have
been
included.
It
was
initially
considered
replicating
the
sample
from
the
two
previous
studies
and
recruit
only
18
year
olds.
It
was
decided
that
this
was
too
problematic
to
gain
access
to
enough
18year
olds
this
late
in
the
academic
year
to
ensure
an
adequate
sample.
Then
only
those
of
18
to
22
years
were
to
be
included
as
this
group
would
not
have
been
eligible
to
vote
in
a
national
election
previously.
This
age
range
has
been
extended
in
response
to
studies
in
the
literature
review
addressing
‘youth’
as
18-‐24
years
and
to
allow
consideration
of
whether
previous
eligibility
to
vote
influenced
responses.
The
population
for
the
sample
is
the
student
body
of
Reading
University.
Accessing
the
ideal
population
of
all
18-‐24
year
olds
in
the
UK
is
beyond
the
resources
of
this
small
scale
study
so
there
is
an
‘availability’
element
to
the
sampling
in
that
the
University
of
Reading
provided
an
accessible
population
of
18-‐24year
olds
who
would
meet
the
criteria
of
eligibility
to
vote
in
the
national
elections
and
the
likely
ability
to
articulate
relevant
results
(Polit
&
Beck,2013).
Gaining
an
adequate
response
rate
with
questionnaires
can
be
problematic
(Dahlberg
and
McCaig,
2010)
and
it
was
hoped
that
there
might
be
a
willingness
on
the
part
of
students
to
help
another
student
with
research.
The
total
number
of
the
student
body
was
17,000
and
allowing
for
the
more
mature
students,
this
provided
a
target
population
of
an
estimated
15,000.
Contacting
the
total
population
was
not
feasible
but
by
using
an
online
calculator
a
margin
of
error
of
6%
and
a
confidence
interval
of
95%
gave
a
target
sample
size
of
263.
260
individuals
actually
completed
the
questionnaire
and
this
sample
size
gives
a
margin
of
error
of
6.02%.
These
figures
for
confidence
level
and
margin
of
error
were
checked
using
the
21. 21
sample
size
calculator
available
at
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html.
(Accessed
16/04/2015)
Participants
were
accessed
through
face-‐to-‐face
encounter
on
the
University
campus
with
the
researcher
inviting
passers
by
to
participate
and
complete
questionnaires.
This
also
allowed
for
informed
consent
to
be
gained
through
allowing
paper
copies
of
the
information
sheet
to
be
distributed
and
questions
from
the
participants
to
be
answered.
Attempts
were
made
to
reduce
potential
bias
from
the
researcher
by
using
a
standardised
invitation
and
no
discussion
on
the
topic
area
with
participants
until
after
completion
of
the
questionnaire.
On
advice
from
the
study
supervisor
a
form
of
randomization
was
achieved
through
only
approaching
every
third
passer
by.
As
this
approach
achieved
an
insufficient
number
of
respondents
and
the
researcher
was
finding
that
sometimes
the
invitation
to
participate
was
being
offered
to
individuals
who
had
already
participated,
it
was
decided
to
make
the
questionnaire
available
on-‐line.
The
questionnaire
was
posted
on
a
social
media
forum
for
University
of
Reading
students,
along
with
the
information
sheet
and
a
contact
number
for
further
information.
All
those
who
completed
and
returned
the
form
were
deemed
to
have
consented.
In
addition,
I
spread
the
questionnaire
through
e-‐mail
contacts
and
then
some
of
these
shared
it
with
friends
of
friends
and
responses
snowballed.
Randomization
therefore
proved
difficult
to
achieve
with
the
online
questionnaire
and
this
has
introduced
an
increased
convenience
element
to
the
sample
as
participants
were
self-‐selecting
online.
This
study
therefore
now
has
non-‐probability
sampling
as
randomization
has
not
been
achieved.
(Parahoo,2014)
22. 22
Online
use
of
the
questionnaire
addressed
the
issue
of
the
number
of
participants
but
self-‐selected
online
response
makes
this
a
convenience
sample
and
may
have
increased
the
number
of
those
who
participated
who
have
a
particular
interest
in
the
topic
area.
However,
this
is
always
a
possible
feature
of
a
survey
where
there
is
no
other
incentive
offered
(Dahlberg
and
McCaig,
2010).
No
reward,
compensation
or
incentive
other
than
the
opportunity
to
share
views
and
support
a
research
study
was
offered
to
potential
participants.
This
was
decided
partly
to
avoid
possible
influence
of
participants
but
also
because
of
limited
resources
being
available.
Data
collection
Data
collection
was
achieved
through
the
use
of
a
questionnaire.
The
design
of
any
questionnaire
is
complicated
by
the
need
to
facilitate
usability
and
address
potential
bias
(Dahlberg
and
McCaig,
2010).
As
one
of
the
objectives
for
this
study
was
to
compare
the
recorded
views
with
the
results
of
two
previous
studies,
the
tool
for
data
collection
used
in
those
studies;
a
questionnaire,
was
considered
for
use
within
this
study
in
order
to
assist
comparison
and
to
provide
the
validity
and
reliability
of
a
tested
tool.
The
questionnaire
was
appropriate
as
it
addressed
aspects
of
disillusionment,
political
interest,
impact
of
voting,
identification
and
adequacy
of
information
that
had
been
identified
as
issues
in
youth
voting
in
the
literature
review.
The
original
researcher
was
contacted
and
gave
permission
for
its
use
(See
Appendix
4)
However,
the
original
questionnaire
was
too
lengthy
for
this
study;
in
addressing
wider
issues
around
political
participation
and
of
a
length
likely
to
deter
participation.
From
discussion
with
the
supervisor
it
was
decided
that
not
all
the
questions
would
be
included
for
this
study
tool.
The
original
wording
of
questions
was
retained
for
their
clarity.
As
the
adaptation
had
potential
for
influencing
the
sequencing
of
the
questions
and
it
was
hoped
to
23. 23
consider
whether
the
questions
introduced
any
element
of
risk
for
the
participants
e.g.
by
suggesting
blame
or
initiating
guilt,
the
adapted
questionnaire
was
piloted
with
a
non-‐population
focus
group
of
18-‐24
year
olds
but
no
further
adjustments
were
found
necessary.
The
questionnaire
appears
in
Appendix
5.
In
the
original
studies
2002
(Henn
and
Weinstein,
2003)
and
2011
(Henn
and
Foard,
2011),
data
was
collected,
some
months
following
a
national
general
election
but
for
this
study
the
data
collection
has
necessarily
been
undertaken
prior
to
a
national
general
election
because
of
the
timing
constraints
of
the
dissertation.
Data
analysis
Descriptive
data
has
been
achieved.
The
majority
of
responses
are
at
an
ordinal
level
but
two
questions
that
sought
comment
were
included.
The
comments
from
respondents
have
been
organized
under
themes
for
manageability.
To
enhance
confirmability,
examples
of
the
comments
will
be
incorporated
as
illustrations
of
the
results
(Dahlberg
and
McCaig,
2010).
Ordinal
data
will
be
presented
in
the
results
as
tables
and
in
discussion,
averages
will
be
used
as
this
has
been
done
the
in
original
studies,
(Henn
and
Weinstein,
2003;
Henn
and
Foard,
2011)
in
order
to
aid
the
comparison
made
with
those
studies.
Results
will
include
comment
on
female
and
male
responses
because
of
the
potential
perceived
differences
in
female
and
male
participation.
(Electoral
Commission,
2004)
The
responses
of
18-‐22
year
olds
and
23-‐24
year
olds
will
be
compared
to
consider
if
the
opportunity
to
vote
previously
in
a
general
election
may
have
any
influence.
Findings
will
be
compared
to
those
of
two
previous
studies.
24. 24
The
comparison
studies
in
2002
(Henn
and
Weinstein,
2003)
and
2011
(Henn
and
Foard,
2011)
with
which
results
are
to
be
compared
were
UK
large-‐scale
national
studies
with
over
1,000
18-‐year-‐old
participants.
These
were
descriptive
survey
designs
using
questionnaires
online.
The
second
study
was
a
decade
later
than
the
previous
study
but
the
same
primary
research
was
used
in
both.
25. 25
Results and Analysis
One
of
the
objectives
of
this
study
was
to
compare
the
recorded
views
with
the
results
of
the
two
previous
studies.
(Henn
and
Weinstein,
2003;
Henn
and
Foard,
2011)
This
provides
the
structure
for
the
discussion
in
this
section.
However,
it
is
accepted
that
the
comparing
of
results
must
be
considered
against
an
understanding
of
the
differences
between
the
original
studies
and
this
one.
These
differences
are
that
the
sample
size
is
far
smaller
and
not
random.
The
sample
is
not
reflective
of
the
population
under
study
but
not
of
the
national
population
as
in
the
original
studies.
This
studies
18-‐24
year
olds
whereas
the
original
studies
focused
only
on
18
year
olds.
Also,
this
study
collected
data
in
months
prior
to
a
national
election
whereas
the
original
studies
collected
data
in
months
following
a
national
election.
It
is
accepted
therefore
that
the
comparison
will
be
more
limited
because
of
these
differences
but
it
is
hoped
still
to
make
some
descriptive
comparisons
that
may
inform
the
design
of
future
research
exploring
the
issues
that
are
raised
more
fully.
This
study
would
have
ideally
achieved
a
similar
sample
size
to
the
previous
studies.
1000
respondents
would
have
achieved
a
margin
of
error
of
<4%,
a
confidence
level
of
99%.
However,
this
study
does
not
have
the
funding
or
resources
of
the
previous
studies
and
so
more
realistically
wanted
to
get
a
confidence
interval
of
95%
and
a
margin
of
error
of
5%
or
less.
This
was
achieved
with
a
sample
size
of
260.
This
meant
the
study
achieved
a
95%
confidence
interval
and
a
margin
of
error
of
6%.
This
means
that
the
study
has
less
accuracy
and
reliability
than
the
previous
study.
Therefore,
it
needs
to
be
26. 26
recognized
and
considered
in
evaluating
the
conclusions
drawn
from
this
study.
For
the
analysis
of
the
results,
this
report
will
accept
the
possibility
inaccuracies
in
results
and
compare
with
the
previous
studies.
The
study
had
more
female
than
male
respondents,
at
52%
female
to
48%
male,
which
is
reflective
of
the
population.
This
division
was
replicated
in
the
18-‐22
year
olds
and
in
the
23-‐
24
year
olds.
Differences
between
how
female
and
male
respondents
will
be
considered
here
as
will
differences
between
18-‐22
year
olds
who
will
have
had
no
previous
opportunity
to
vote
in
a
general
election
and
the
23-‐24
year
olds
who
may
have
had
that
opportunity
before.
All
respondents
responded
to
all
of
the
questions;
except
for
the
final
open-‐ended
question
that
requested
respondents
to
suggest
ways
that
political
parties
could
better
connect
with
young
people.
25
made
no
comment
and
two
replied
not
sure.
It
is
accepted
that
those
completing
the
questionnaire
may
have
greater
interest
and
knowledge
relevant
to
the
topic
area.
This
may
be
reflected
in
the
response
to
the
question,
‘How
much
interest
do
you
have
in
the
General
Election
to
be
held
in
2015?’
91%
of
respondents
had
at
least
some
interest
compares
to
64%
of
respondents
who
showed
interest
in
general
elections
in
2011
and
48%
in
2002.
The
9%
of
people
who
recorded
having
‘no
interest
at
all’
compared
similarly
to
the
2011
and
2002
studies
with
14%
and
13%
respectively.
In
the
2015
study,
>95%
of
the
18-‐22
year
olds
claimed
to
be
interested
in
the
general
election
with
slightly
less
at
85%
of
the
23-‐24
year
olds
claiming
at
least
some
interest.
27. 27
The
comparative
increase
in
reported
interest
might
be
explained
by
a
difference
in
context.
The
current
cohort
is
awaiting
a
general
election
rather
than
having
one
in
their
recent
past
but
might
potentially
also
be
explained
by
the
demographic
that
was
sampled.
University
students
may
be
more
open
to
learning
about
politics
and
voting.
The
University
environment
encourages
intellectual
interaction
where
ideas
are
shared.
As
part
of
this,
it
could
mean
that
they
have
a
better
understanding
and
interest
in
politics.
More
informal
politics
is
also
a
part
of
university
culture
through
student
elections,
campaigns
and
petitions.
The
students
are
encouraged
to
try
and
influence
change
that
they
want
through
a
‘Change
it’
scheme.
This
normalizes
politics
and
could
encourage
students
to
take
an
active
interest.
It
is
unknown
whether
having
a
higher
education
level
than
the
average
young
person
is
influential
or
impacted
upon
a
greater
civic
interest
in
this
case
but
there
is
evidence
to
suggest
that
the
more
educated
are
more
likely
to
be
interested.
(Electoral
Commission,
2002;
Phelps,
2004)
Respondents
were
asked
‘what
interest
do
you
have
in
politics
in
general?’
and
85%
showed
at
least
some
interest.
This
counters
the
common
thought
that
young
people
are
disengaged
and
uninterested
in
politics.
It
would
be
tempting
to
see
this
as
linked
to
the
trend
of
increase
from
63%
in
2011
and
56%
in
2002.
However,
this
might
be
the
effect
of
random
and
non-‐random
samples.
Similarly,
to
interest
shown
in
the
general
election
in
the
2015
study,
95%
of
the
18-‐22
year
olds
claimed
at
least
some
interest
in
politics
in
general
this
was
slightly
reduced
in
the
older
group
at
83%.
The
questionnaire
asked
students
to
specify
their
subject
to
understand
more
about
the
respondents.
They
appear
a
generally
representative
sample
in
that
there
was
representation
from
all
the
University
schools
and
across
35
different
degrees.
Degrees
28. 28
were
grouped
into
subjects
to
make
the
data
easier
to
digest.
Science
made
up
the
largest
part
of
respondents,
with
76
people
(29%).
Perhaps
unsurprisingly,
Politics
related
subjects
also
had
a
large
representation
with
52
respondents
(20%).
Business
and
Geography
shared
24
respondents
with
a
9%
share.
Lastly,
Building
related
subjects
had
20
respondents
with
8%
and
English
had
18
respondents
equaling
7%
share.
The
choice
of
degree
appeared
to
have
little
if
any
impact,
as
there
were
no
recognizable
differences
in
the
responses
between
these
groups.
To
further
unpack
their
interest
in
politics,
this
study
asked
respondents
an
open-‐ended
question,
‘what
is
the
single
most
important
issue
to
you
at
the
moment?’
(See
Appendix
6)
The
majority
of
respondents
were
concerned
with
two
issues,
the
economy
being
nominated
in
24%
of
responses
with
job
prospects
for
young
people
being
nominated
by
24%
as
well.
Immigration
was
the
third
most
common
issue
raised
by
respondents
with
13%
of
responses
comparing
with
4%
from
the
2011
study.
These
results
contrast
with
2011
results,
where
higher
education
fees
are
the
most
important
issue.
This
may
be
explained
through
a
differing
context.
In
2011,
all
respondents
were
18
and
were
facing
a
potential
increase
in
educational
costs.
Whereas,
the
2015
cohort
is
made
up
of
18-‐24
year
old
who
are
already
at
university,
so
tuition
fees
have
already
been
set
and
therefore,
don’t
effect
their
future
planning
as
much
as
the
previous
cohort.
There
is
a
large
comparative
increase
with
this
cohort
being
more
worried
about
future
employment.
There
is
no
difference
in
this
between
the
young
and
older
groups.
In
2011,
the
economy
was
the
issue
with
the
third
most
responses
with
11%.
This
is
13%
lower
than
with
the
2015
cohort,
and
in
2011,
immigration
was
not
identified
as
an
29. 29
issue
of
concern.
This
suggests
the
focus
of
concern
between
the
2010
and
2015
elections
has
potentially
changed.
When
the
results
are
examined
by
age
group;
split
into
18-‐22
year
olds
and
23-‐24
year
olds,
we
find
the
younger
group
identify
a
greater
range
of
issues
(n14)
but
the
top
seven
themes
are
replicated
in
order
in
both
age
groups
and
with
similar
numbers
of
support.
Nor
does
there
seem
to
be
a
particular
difference
between
male
and
female
divisions
either
within
or
across
the
age
groupings
apart
from
the
mainly
female
concern
with
the
NHS,
and
twice
as
many
males
identifying
concern
with
the
economy
than
females
across
both
age
groups.
(See
Appendix
6)
These
findings
might
be
related
to
evidence
that
female
political
activism
is
often
cause
related.
(Electoral
Commission,
2004)
Despite
the
high
levels
of
interest
shown
by
the
young
people
in
this
study,
there
are
still
a
significant
proportion
of
respondents
who
aren’t
secure
in
their
understanding.
Only
53%
of
respondents
feel
that
they
‘understand
enough
about
what
is
going
on
in
politics
in
general’.
A
notable
difference
when
compared
to
only
22%
of
young
people
in
the
2011
cohort
and
24%
in
2002,
who
felt
the
same.
Whereas,
in
2011,
and
2015,
47%
and
31%
of
respondents
respectively
considered
that
they
did
not
understand
enough
about
politics
in
general.
Nonetheless,
the
young
(18-‐22year
olds)
are
slightly
more
likely
to
feel
like
they
do
not
know
enough
about
politics
in
general
over
the
older
group
of
23-‐24
year
olds.
Females
are
less
likely
to
agree
that
they
know
enough,
both
in
general
and
political
parties
than
males.
Demonstrated
with
the
mean
average
of
>10%
less
than
the
overall
mean
average.
30. 30
However,
if
we
consider
how
confident
the
cohort
of
young
people
feel
in
their
knowledge
about
political
parties
when
deciding
how
to
vote
specifically,
the
2015
cohort
demonstrate
similar
levels
of
confidence
with
the
2011
and
2002
cohorts
with
45%
in
2002,
53%
in
2011
and
49%
in
2015
confident
in
their
knowledge
about
political
parties.
The
results
are
similar
between
both
the
18-‐22
and
23-‐24
year
old
age
groups.
This
shows
that
the
2015
cohort
are
slightly
less
confident
than
the
2011
cohort
with
regards
to
political
party
knowledge
but
a
lot
more
confident
than
the
2011
and
2002
cohorts
when
considering
their
knowledge
of
politics
in
general.
This
could
be
down
to
the
different
demographic
or
because
of
the
effect
of
increased
citizenship
education.
Having
investigated
how
much
young
people
feel
they
understand,
this
study
then
looked
at
how
much
young
people
feel
they
can
influence
politics.
In
2002
and
2011,
young
people
reported
feeling
very
politically
powerless
and
this
is
largely
similar
with
today’s
cohort.
The
statement
‘there
aren’t
enough
opportunities
for
young
people
like
me
to
influence
political
parties’
was
posed
and
as
with
the
previous
studies
the
majority
of
respondents
agree
with
the
statement.
There
is
a
comparative
level
of
feeling
with
previous
studies,
in
2002,
71%
agreed
and
7%
disagreed.
In
2011,
61%
agreed
and
7%
disagreed.
This
study
found
61%
agree
and
10%
disagree.
Despite
the
gap
between
those
who
agreed
and
disagreed
being
less
than
with
the
2011
cohort,
the
majority
still
agrees
that
there
are
too
few
opportunities
to
influence
political
parties,
suggesting
that
political
parties
are
still
not
doing
enough
to
engage
with
young
people.
There
were
a
slightly
higher
percentage
of
23-‐24
year
olds
agreeing
with
the
statement
at
65%
compared
to
55%
of
the
younger
group.
31. 31
The
2011
study
split
the
data
into
a
dichotomy
of
either
effective
or
not
effective
when
considering
how
effect
different
variables
are
for
influencing
government.
This
study
wanted
to
investigate
further
how
strongly
people
felt
about
this
and
so
asked
the
question
on
a
scale
of
0-‐10.
If
we
take
0-‐4
as
ineffective,
5
as
not
sure
and
6-‐10
as
effective,
then
we
can
compare
to
the
previous
study.
Perception
of
how
effective
voting
in
a
general
election
is
shows
a
comparative
increase
from
61%
in
2011
to
70%
in
2015.
This
may
highlight
a
change
in
the
perception
of
a
two
party
system
where
coalitions
seems
likely
and
smaller
parties
have
more
of
a
voice.
Moreover,
this
highlights,
as
explained
in
the
2011
study,
how
even
if
young
people
feel
politically
powerless,
they
still
have
at
least
some
faith
in
voting.
Although,
the
mean
average
of
the
responses
was
6.12/10
and
the
mode
was
6,
indicating
that
on
the
whole,
the
cohort
feels
it
is
only
marginally
effective.
In
this
study,
voting
in
a
local
election
was
felt
to
be
less
effective
than
voting
in
a
general
election.
In
2011,
53%
felt
it
was
effective,
compared
to
37%
in
2015.
In
fact,
more
of
the
group
felt
that
it
was
non-‐effective
with
43%,
compared
to
36%
in
2011.
This
is
supported
with
the
mean
average
response
being
4.84/10,
which
is
relatively
low.
This
study
does
not
have
the
same
demographic
as
in
2011
but
a
government
green
paper
(Ministry
of
Justice,
2007)
claims
that
people
have
become
“cynical
because
the
government
is
too
centralized
and
the
power
is
too
concentrated”
(Pg
10)
so
this
may
help
explain
why
some
young
people
feel
local
elections
are
less
important
than
general
elections.
There
was
a
difference
between
18-‐22
year
olds
and
23-‐24
year
olds
with
the
older
group
having
a
distribution
that
suggested
they
had
less
belief
in
the
effectiveness
32. 32
of
these
elections.
In
the
future,
it
would
be
useful
to
explore
if
this
was
the
result
of
previous
experience.
When
asked
about
how
effective
they
thought
being
a
member
of
a
political
party
was,
49%
thought
is
was
effective
compared
with
46%
in
2011.
This
is
similar
and
only
slightly
more
favorable
but
there
is
a
bigger
difference
when
considering
those
who
thought
it
was
not
effective.
Only
25%
of
respondents
thought
being
a
member
of
a
political
party
was
not
effective,
compared
to
37%
in
2011.
This
suggests
there
are
fewer
skeptics
and
maybe
a
less
negative
perspective
of
this
method
of
political
participation
in
this
cohort.
However,
the
cohort
didn’t
feel
strongly
either
way
with
the
mean
average
response
being
5.43/10.
The
older
23-‐24
year
olds
were
slightly
more
supportive
of
the
effectiveness
of
being
a
member
of
a
political
party.
Respondents
in
this
study
demonstrated
further
support
for
the
democratic
system
when
faced
with
the
statement
‘I
would
be
seriously
neglecting
my
duty
as
a
citizen
if
I
did
not
vote.’
In
this
study,
58%
agreed
with
the
statement.
A
comparative
improvement
when
compared
with
the
increasing
trend
of
respondents
agreeing
with
the
statement
in
the
previous
studies.
In
2002,
43%
agreed,
in
2011,
45%
agreed.
There
was
greater
similarity
across
the
studies
when
considering
the
level
of
respondents
who
disagreed.
In
2002,
32%
disagreed
with
the
statement;
this
was
22%
in
2011
and
27%
in
2015.
This
indicates
that
many
of
the
current
cohort
believe
that
citizens
have
a
civic
duty
to
participate
in
democracy
even
if
they
don’t
feel
that
it
empowers
them
personally.
In
this
study,
females
were
both
more
likely
to
agree
to
a
duty
to
vote
and
less
likely
to
disagree
with
the
statement
reflecting
evidence
that
women
are
more
likely
to
vote
than
33. 33
men
identified
in
the
Gender
and
Political
Participation
report.
(Electoral
Commission,
2004)
When
asked
about
whether
they
thought
elections
keep
politicians
accountable
for
policies.
More
respondents
from
the
2015
cohort
agree
with
the
statement,
but
not
a
majority
at
43%
of
the
cohort
while
37%
disagreed.
This
compares
similarly
with
the
previous
studies.
In
2002,
42%
agreed
with
the
statement,
36%
disagreeing
and
this
barely
changed
in
2011
with
43%
agreeing
and
31%
disagreeing.
This
viewpoint
was
reflected
across
the
sexes
and
age
groups
and
potentially
suggests
perceive
limitation
to
the
power
of
the
vote.
Skepticism
over
this
power
was
more
strongly
suggested
when
asked
if
they
thought
that
their
vote
could
really
help
to
change
the
way
that
Britain
is
governed.
In
the
2015
study,
this
was
more
marked
in
the
18-‐22
year
olds
with
more
than
half
at
54%
disagreeing
and
only
20.5%
agreeing
with
the
statement
compared
with
40%
and
41.6%
for
the
23-‐24year
olds
against
overall
mean
averages
of
30%
agreeing
and
47%
disagreeing.
Similar
responses
and
level
of
skepticism
was
shown
in
2002
with
28%
agreeing
that
their
vote
could
change
Britain
and
44%
disagreeing.
This
would
seem
to
support
the
suggested
disillusionment
that
was
indicated
in
the
literature
review.
In
light
of
this
skepticism,
it
is
potentially
surprising
that
young
people
value
elections
so
highly.
When
asked
what
they
thought
of
the
statement,
‘all
things
considered,
most
elections
are
just
a
big
waste
of
time
and
money’.
This
cohort
places
far
more
value
in
the
holding
of
elections
than
respondents
of
the
previous
studies
and
this
is
true
of
both
the
younger
and
the
older
elements
of
the
cohort.
In
2002,
49%
disagreed
with
the
34. 34
statement,
in
2011,
just
32%
disagreed
and
in
2015,
67%
have
disagreed.
There
are
also
far
lower
levels
of
respondents
who
agree
with
the
statement
with
24%
in
2002,
33%
in
2011
and
just
11%
in
2015.
There
is
a
large
difference
in
the
supporter/skeptic
gap
at
56%
in
2015.
The
reasons
for
this
are
unclear
but
may
be
reflective
of
the
demographic
sampled.
It
would
be
useful
to
explore
if
context
is
a
factor
and
positively
presented
events
such
as
the
2014
Scottish
Independence
referendum
or
the
2014
South
African
elections
have
influenced
this
cohort.
The
2002
and
2011
studies
asked
about
future
voting
intentions
and
split
the
answers
into
likely
or
unlikely.
Using
the
aforementioned
technique
of
scores
of
6
or
above
indicating
likelihood.
Respondents
were
asked
how
likely
they
were
to
vote
in
various
elections.
In
the
next
general
election,
contrary
to
popular
belief
regarding
young
people’s
interest
and
turnout,
83%
said
they
were
likely
to
vote
in
the
next
general
election.
This
is
notably
higher
than
the
2011
cohort
with
64%
and
the
2002
cohort
with
67%.
The
proportion
of
those
who
said
they
were
unlikely
to
vote
also
comparatively
decreased
to
only
12%
in
2015.
The
mean
average
answer
given
was
8.14/10
with
the
mode
answer
being
10.
This
shows
how
this
cohort
has
a
very
high
likelihood
of
voting
in
a
general
election.
Context
may
be
influential
with
expectation
of
a
general
election
but
may
reflect
demographic
features
that
are
predictors
of
voting,
(Electoral
Commission,
2002)
such
as
education.
Females
were
most
likely
to
score
10
with
a
strong
likelihood
of
voting
in
all
elections.
The
cohort
likelihood
of
voting
then
decreased
when
asked
about
the
next
local
council
election.
However,
there
is
still
a
greater
likelihood
of
this
cohort
voting
in
local
council
elections
than
respondents
of
the
previous
studies.
There
is
further
evidence
of
young
people
seeing
elections
other
than
General
Elections
as
less
important.
When
asked
how
likely
they
would
be
to
vote
in
the
35. 35
next
European
Parliament
election,
54%
said
they
would
be
likely.
In
2011
and
2002,
this
was
42%
and
35%
respectively.
In
2002,
37%
said
they
were
unlikely
to
vote
but
this
decreased
to
28%
in
2011
and
is
reflected
in
2015
at
28%.
The
elections
can
almost
be
seen
from
a
tiered
perspective
by
respondents
who
demonstrate
that
they
are
less
likely
to
vote
in
European
elections
than
Local
elections
and
less
likely
to
vote
in
local
elections
than
General
elections.
This
is
demonstrated
in
each
of
the
cohorts.
It
is
unclear
whether
some
elections
are
seen
either
as
less
important
or
that
the
vote
may
be
perceived
as
having
less
influence.
This
study
posed
the
statement
‘I
can
identify
with
a
particular
political
party’
and
across
the
studies
the
level
of
political
party
identification
has
been
low
and
generally
comparable
with
29%
agreeing
in
this
cohort.
However,
a
smaller
proportion
than
in
previous
studies
disagreed
with
the
statement.
In
2002
and
2011,
59%
and
58%
respectively
felt
this
way
and
this
compares
to
46%
in
2015.
Overall,
the
results
suggest
either
a
difficulty
of
identity
between
parties
or
that
the
parties
are
not
seen
as
representative
of
the
respondents.
This
seems
recognized
in
this
study.
When
asked
what
political
parties
could
do
to
connect
with
young
people,
3%
of
responses
suggested
a
change
was
needed
to
provide
different
MPs
who
were
‘real’,
‘normal’
and
‘more
representative
of
minority
groups’.
(See
Appendix
7)
When
asked
if
they
saw
difference
between
the
political
parties’
policies,
45%
agreed
that
their
policies
are
all
pretty
much
the
same,
whereas,
26%
disagreed.
This
was
generally
similar
to
results
of
previous
cohorts
but
with
the
smallest
percentage
of
undecided
in
the
2015
cohort.
The
23-‐24
year
olds
saw
a
greater
difference
between
the
36. 36
political
party
policies
over
the
18-‐22
year
olds.
This
ties
to
the
later
open
question
where
5%
of
responses
suggested
a
need
for
political
parties
to
be
clearer
and
greater
differentiation
between
them.
(See
Appendix
7)
There
was
some
evidence
of
alienation,
as
young
people
don’t
believe
political
parties
want
to
engage
with
them.
50%
agreed
that
political
parties
aren’t
interested
in
the
same
issues
that
concern
young
people.
This
was
however
down
from
the
2002
cohort
with
59%
and
64%
of
the
2011
cohort
who
agreed.
The
proportion
of
those
who
disagreed
was
up
from
7%
in
2011
to
21%.
A
notable
difference
in
views
of
political
parties.
The
gap
between
those
who
agreed
and
disagreed
differs
from
59%:
10%
in
2002
(49%
difference)
to
64%:
7%
in
2011
(57%
difference).
The
difference
was
down
to
29%
in
2015.
However,
when
considering
how
young
people
view
politicians
and
their
levels
of
trust
towards
them
it
was
clear
that
there
is
little
faith
in
political
parties
and
professional
politicians.
Just
as
with
the
previous
cohorts,
and
across
the
age
groups
in
this
cohort,
a
consistently
high
proportion
believes
that
there
is
a
big
difference
between
what
a
party
promises
it
will
do
and
what
it
does
when
it
wins
an
election.
79%
agree
with
this
sentiment
and
this
compares
similarly
with
75%
in
2011
and
a
more
skeptical
cohort
in
2002
with
87%.
Those
who
disagree
with
this
sentiment
are
massively
outnumbered
with
only
5%
disagreeing
in
2015.
Comparatively,
this
was
3%
in
2002
and
2011.
This
study
then
posed
a
statement
“on
balance,
UK
governments
(past
and
present)
tend
to
be
honest
and
trustworthy.”
63%
perceive
the
government
in
a
negative
light
37. 37
and
disagreed
with
the
statement.
This
is
broadly
similar
to
2011
when
66%
disagreed.
Also,
a
small
proportion
of
the
respondents
thought
the
governments
trustworthy
with
10%
in
2015
and
15%
in
2011.
This
shows
a
large
distrust
in
general
with
formal
politics.
The
changing
concerns
became
more
apparent
when
responses
to
the
open
question
investigating
what
young
people
thought
political
parties
could
do
to
connect
with
young
people.
81%
of
respondents
answered
the
final
question
and
on
the
whole,
in
this
researchers
opinion,
the
majority
of
responses
were
well
thought
through
and
considered.
The
question
allowed
for
more
than
one
response
to
the
question
so
the
results
are
a
percentage
of
overall
answer
and
not
of
all
respondents.
Many
saw
the
value
in
political
education
(19%
of
respondents)
(See
Appendix
7)
and
this
was
supported
by
those
who
thought
that
visits
to
educational
institutions
would
be
of
merit.
(10%).
(See
Appendix)
This
may
connect
to
the
lack
of
political
understanding
identified
earlier
by
the
questionnaire.
With
people
suggesting
Educate
people
more
on
politics
and
what
each
of
the
parties
stand
for.”
And
commenting
“there
needs
to
be
more
education
about
politics
from
a
younger
age
to
capture
the
interest.”
and
“I
am
interested
and
want
to
know
but
I
know
NOTHING
about
politics
because
it
was
not
taught.”
“Honesty
and
trustworthiness
was
clearly
an
important
factor
for
young
people
to
feel
like
they
can
connect
with
politicians.
5%
wanted
more
honesty/
trustworthiness
from
their
politicians
and
almost
4%
wanted
them
to
deliver
on
their
promises
asking
that
they
“stay
true
to
party
values
and
promises”
and
“regain
the
young
person’s
trust.”
Communication
can
also
be
seen
as
a
crucial
element
in
establishing
connection.
Talk
to
us
(10%),
Listen
to
us
(6%)
and
use
social
networks
to
communicate
(9%)
were
often
