Does a vote matter? I remember hearing about a council leader who had improved services across the board for local people, but at the election at the end of his term, many people stayed home or voted on issues which had nothing to do with the council. His party lost control by one seat, and that seat was lost by one vote. Services then deteriorated, discontent mounted, and in some areas, support grew for scapegoat-hunting ‘populists’.
Why do so many people not take their vote more seriously? In the recent elections held in England and Wales, 80 per cent of registered voters did not bother to pick their Police, Fire & Crime Commissioner; 70 per cent stayed away from determining the control of their local council; and even with the hotly contested position of London Mayor, almost 60 per cent simply shrugged.
Some pundits suggest that it’s all about making voting more convenient – have it on the weekend and not on the traditional Thursday; facilitate electronic voting on the high street rather than relying on the old polling station; or even allow remote voting from home. But none of these would make people use their vote any more diligently if they remain unaware of the real difference their vote can make.
Remember those who voted for Brexit because they thought it was a harmless protest gesture against the ‘establishment’, when to their surprise it led to a multitude of social and economic problems afflicting everyone? Then there are people who keep voting for their local MPs because they seem ‘decent’ when those MPs are the ones who help push through legislation that diminishes the quality of life of many of their constituents. Millions won’t vote because they feel let down by the state of public services, and consequently politicians dedicated to improving public services lose out to those who inflict even more cuts to the public sector. Many in the US routinely complain that the President they elected is not getting things done, when they themselves have at the same time voted into Congress politicians from the opposing party whose overriding agenda is to block the President at every turn.
Those of us concerned with raising people’s political awareness – in education, the media, and community development – need to do more to engage the interest of voters, and explain more clearly what they are voting on in different cases. There are three main areas we need to help clarify: the power and responsibility of political institutions; policy implications; and the personal suitability of candidates.
The power and responsibility of political institutions
When the media trails the ‘coming elections’, it often tells people little about the political institutions their vote could be influencing. In the UK, many people don’t know the different roles and responsibilities of different authorities (e.g. district councils, county councils, unitary councils, combined authorities, the House of Commons, for example), and it’s not unknown for some to vote against someone standing for a local authority on the basis of their disagreement with what has been done by a national authority. If people are ignorant about the political institution in question, they may judge incumbents wrongly for not doing what is not within their power to do; or they may miss the chance to help secure a change of control when that is needed to solve a problem that has been besieging them and countless others. In the US, the widespread indifference towards school board elections in previous decades opened the door for those with extremist views to win control and push for the banning of books and punitive treatment of teachers who don’t fit with their ideological expectations.
Policy implications
Partisan media outlets naturally present one-sided reports on the implications of different policies (put forward in party manifestos or in a referendum). But even impartial providers tend to opt for oversimplification. For example, proposed changes to taxation are often presented as a potential net gain/loss to different income groups purely in terms of the amount taxed or not taxed, but not in terms of what improvements could be achieved with the higher tax revenue, or what services might be lost if taxes are cut. Many people may be inclined by default to vote for lower taxes, but not when they are made aware that a bigger contribution from everyone would bring better healthcare, greater security, more decent housing, improved transport infrastructure and so on – especially at a rate far below what private providers would otherwise charge. Expert analyses of what different policy options mean in practice should be widely communicated, while misleading soundbites ought to be swiftly exposed.
The personal suitability of candidates
Doctors, engineers and financial advisers need independent accreditation so that people can be assured of minimum standards they have met. Furthermore, in selection processes for important jobs, probing questions are put to candidates, and their claims about skills and track records are duly checked. Candidates for public office, however, receive much less quality scrutiny. Scandals in their private lives might get sensationalist coverage, but little is known about their competence and reliability. People who can’t seem to see any task through, who are known to be aggressive and demeaning towards others, who are persistent liars, who have been found to bend the rules to make financial gains at others’ expense or who have rarely shown any interest in helping the wider community should be recognised for who they are. Voters must not be taken in by the superficial charm of the inept, or vote into high office people who are untrustworthy.
If we want people to take their vote seriously, let them know how their vote can help to make a difference in what is done by political institutions which affect their lives, what policies are taken forward which may help or harm them, and if they are handing power to those more likely to serve the public rather than to those who are ill suited to the task. The more they realise what is at stake, the more they will make sure their vote counts.
Henry Tam is a writer, educator and former Head for Civil Renewal under the Labour government. He was previously a lecturer at the University of Cambridge, and Visiting Professor at Birkbeck, University of London. He has had a number of books published with Policy Press on the need for communitarian democracy and what that entails in policy terms:
- Time to Save Democracy– why we need to reinvigorate democratic culture and practices, and what changes should be implemented in nine key areas of socio-political development.
- Whose Government is it?– why and how cooperative relationships between citizens and state organisations are to be renewed to improve our common wellbeing.
- Tomorrow’s Communities– what lessons should be learnt from democratic collaboration that has brought about effective community-based transformation.
- Who’s Afraid of Political Education– what kind of learning is needed to raise civic competences and the level of democratic participation.
Henry Tam’s books are available here on Bristol University Press.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image: DEW / Alamy Stock Photo