Measuring turnout who voted in 2010
Download
1 / 27

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 61 Views
  • Updated On :

Measuring Turnout – Who Voted in 2010?. British Election Study - 2010. Harold Clarke, David Sanders, Marianne Stewart, Paul Whiteley, University of Essex and University of Texas at Dallas whiteley@essex.ac.uk. Turnout Figures in the 2005 and 2010 British Election Study Surveys for Britain.

Related searches for

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - sharona


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Measuring turnout who voted in 2010 l.jpg
Measuring Turnout – Who Voted in 2010?

British Election Study - 2010

Harold Clarke, David Sanders, Marianne Stewart, Paul Whiteley,

University of Essex and University of Texas at Dallas

whiteley@essex.ac.uk



The measurement of turnout in various studies percentages exceeding actual turnout l.jpg
The Measurement of Turnout in Various Studies – Percentages Exceeding Actual Turnout


Slide5 l.jpg

Likelihood of Voting Scale in the Pre-Election Survey Percentages Exceeding Actual Turnout‘Please think of a scale that runs from 0 to 10, where 0 means very unlikely and 10 means very likely, how likely is it that you will vote in the next general election that may be held soon?’


Slide6 l.jpg
Pre-Election Probability of Voting Scale as a Predictor of Post-Election Reported Turnout in 2010 (Eta=0.44)


Slide7 l.jpg
Pre-Election Probability of Voting Scale as a Predictor of Post-Election Reported Turnout in 2005 (eta=0.56)


Slide8 l.jpg
Pre-Election Probability of Voting Scale as a Predictor of Post-Election Validated Turnout in 2005 (Eta=0.43)






Reported turnout and other demographics 2010 l.jpg
Reported Turnout and Other Post-Election Demographics 2010


Logistic regression of turnout with demographic predictors bes panel data l.jpg
Logistic Regression of Turnout with Post-Election Demographic Predictors (BES panel data)

  • p<0.01=***; p<0.05=**; p<0.10=*


Rational choice model of turnout l.jpg
Rational Choice Model of Turnout Post-Election

  • Turnout = α0 + β1 Efficacy * Collective Benefits

  • - β2Costs + β3 Individual Benefits

  • + β4Civic Duty

  • Turnout: Self-reported voting, post-election survey

  • Collective Benefits: Party Differential weighted by Efficacy, pre-election survey

  • Individual Benefits: private benefits of voting, pre-election survey

  • Civic Duty: Perceptions of Duty to Vote, pre-election survey

  • See H.Clarke, D. Sanders, M.Stewart and P. Whiteley, Political Choice in Britain (Oxford University Press, 2004) chapter 8.


Collective benefits measures feeling thermometers for labour mean 4 56 l.jpg
Collective Benefits Measures Post-Election -Feeling Thermometers for Labour (Mean = 4.56)


Collective benefits measures feeling thermometer for the conservatives mean 4 99 l.jpg
Collective Benefits Measures Post-Election -Feeling Thermometer for the ConservativesMean = 4.99


Collective benefits measures feeling thermometers for liberal democrats mean 4 80 l.jpg
Collective Benefits Measures Post-Election -Feeling Thermometers for Liberal Democrats Mean=4.80


Collective benefits party differential l.jpg
Collective Benefits – Party Differential Post-Election

  • Party Differential

  • = (Con – Lab)2 + (Con – LibDem)2 + (Lab – LibDem)2

  • The greater the party differential the greater the incentive to vote


Slide20 l.jpg

Efficacy in the Rational Choice Model Post-Election ‘Please use the 0 to 10 scale to tell me how likely it is that the votes of people like you will make a difference to which party wins the election in this constituency’


Perceptions of the costs of voting people are so busy that they don t have time to vote l.jpg
Perceptions of the Costs of Voting Post-Election ‘People are so busy that they don't have time to vote’.


Individual benefits from voting i feel a sense of satisfaction when i vote l.jpg
Individual Benefits from Voting Post-Election ‘I feel a sense of satisfaction when I vote’.


Civic duty and voting i would be seriously neglecting my duty as a citizen if i didn t vote l.jpg
Civic Duty and Voting Post-Election ‘I would be seriously neglecting my duty as a citizen if I didn't vote’.


Logistic model of turnout with rational choice and demographic predictors l.jpg
Logistic Model of Turnout with Rational Choice and Demographic Predictors

  • p<0.01=***; p<0.05=**; p<0.10=*




Conclusions l.jpg
Conclusions Voting and Turnout

  • A theoretical model significantly improves the predictive power of a turnout model over and above demographic predictors

  • We might expect nobody with a score of less than 7 or 8 on the pre-election likelihood of voting scale to vote, but they do.

  • If we use demographics to model the discrepancy between the likelihood and actual voting they don’t help very much

  • However, the theoretical model does help to capture this discrepancy and with other theoretical models it can be used to weight the likelihood of voting measure to make it more accurate