Turnout in Cambridge local elections

In the Cambridge local elections last week, just 31.3% of the registered voters went to the polls, with nearly 70% staying away. This is a pretty typical level of turnout in our local elections – here is the graph for the last few years:

One factor that clearly affects local election turnout is whether there are any other votes being held on the same day. In 2005 and 2010 there was a substantial increase in turnout because the local elections coincided with the General Election, and  a smaller boost in 2011 when the Alternative Vote referendum was held. The European elections in 2004 and 2009 gave a much smaller, but still detectable, increase in turnout. But in years when no other election is held on the same day, turnout is pretty consistently in the range 30-35%.

Another factor affecting turnout is the level of campaigning by the parties. If voters receive election leaflets and are canvassed by party activists, you would expect that they would be more likely to go and vote than if they hear nothing from their local politicians. Since parties tend to concentrate their efforts on the marginal seats, with less activity in the “safe” seats, we should be able to see this factor at work in the results. This next graph shows the turnout in each Cambridge seat this year, plotted against the majority in that seat:

Seats towards the right of the graph, such as Queen Edith’s and West Chesterton, had a higher turnout, whereas in those towards the left, such as Market and Kings Hedges, fewer voters went to the polls. Similarly, seats towards the top of the graph were won with a large majority, whereas those near the bottom had a closer result. So, is there really a correlation here? There are clearly two separate groups, the six “safe” seats at the top, and the eight more marginal ones at the bottom, but you have to squint pretty hard at this graph to see a strong correlation between turnout and majority.

When statisticians don’t get the results they are expecting, they look for what are called “counfounding variables” – other factors at work that interfere with the straightforward relationship that they were hoping to portray. But there actually is a pretty good candidate for a confounding variable here – the fact that turnout among students tends to be significantly lower than the rest of the population. Much of the student vote in Cambridge is concentrated in three wards, Castle, Market and Newnham. Here is the graph again with those three wards shown separately:

Now a more convincing picture emerges, with three distinct groups:

  • the higher-majority, lower-turnout wards at the top left
  • the lower-majority, higher-turnout wards at the bottom right
  • the student wards

Market has the highest concentration of students in the city, and it duly produced the lowest turnout this year, despite being very closely-fought. Student turnout tends to be low for several reasons:

  • young people in general have a lower turnout than older people
  • many students feel less involved with local government than more permanent residents
  • student residences tend to be inaccessible to local party campaigners – colleges do not allow them access to knock on students’ doors, and some colleges refuse to accept election leaflets unless they are individually addressed
  • many students were away for the Easter vacation during much of the election campaign

In the non-student wards, however, there is a pretty clear correlation between turnout and majority, with all the “battleground” wards having higher turnout than the “safe” wards. But does this also hold in previous years? Well, up to a point. Here’s the graph for the 2012 local elections:

Again a bit of squinting is needed to see the correlation, but it is still there. Kings Hedges and Cherry Hinton are outliers, but the remaining non-student wards still form a high-majority, lower-turnout group and a low-majority, higher-turnout group. I’m sure political activists will be relieved to know that all that door-knocking and leaflet delivery is having a noticeable effect.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Turnout in Cambridge local elections

  1. “some colleges refuse to accept election leaflets unless they are individually addressed” – Some colleges won’t allow literature even in addressed envelopes. Talk abeout enemies of democracy!

    • em says:

      When I was a student in Cambridge, admittedly 20 years ago, the local parties coordinated with their corresponding student organisations within the university to leaflet student pigeonholes etc. That was never a problem. More so were the other issues raised i.e. students, despite living in the city most of the year, feel fairly well insulated from the effects of local government, especially if living in college (though I remember licensing & the cosy relationship between city & university, as it was then, were a big deal) and are exempt from council tax etc.; the proximity of vacations and/or exams to the elections. Assuming you actually want a higher turnout from students (I suspect not all permanent residents would!), it might be worth looking at where the polling stations are, as venues that are more familiar to students would probably help.

    • Addenbrooke’s is just as bad. They will not allow us to deliver any election communication or year-round party newsletters to hospital accommodation, thus disenfranchising over 100 residents.

  2. Pingback: Is your university undermining local government? | A dragon's best friend

  3. Pingback: Votes per seat in Cambridgeshire | Phil Rodgers

  4. Pingback: Breaking the vicious circle of safe seats and low turnout | A dragon's best friend

  5. Queen Edith’s, always in the top wards for turnout, also has a high student population. There are nearly 600 students at Homerton College alone, but we saw a lot of Homertonians at the St John’s polling station.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s