280 likes | 387 Views
The electoral consequences of postal voting at the 2005 general election. Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher LGC Elections Centre, University of Plymouth. Paper presented at the Elections, Opinion Polls and Parties Annual Conference, 9-11 September 2005, Essex University.
E N D
The electoral consequences of postal voting at the 2005 general election Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher LGC Elections Centre, University of Plymouth Paper presented at the Elections, Opinion Polls and Parties Annual Conference, 9-11 September 2005, Essex University. Data collected and some analyses conducted for the Electoral Commission. Not for quotation without prior permission.
Outline • The nature of the postal vote electorate • The nature of the postal voter • Some aspects of the increase in postal voters
The postal electorate in 2005 * Some or all data are missing for 35 constituencies in England and 1 in Wales
Regional aspects of postal electorate * All-postal voting at 2004 European/local elections
Postal voters by English region * All-postal voting at 2004 European/local elections
Comparing in-person and all-postal voting Staffordshire S. is excluded
Postal turnout higher than expected • Doncaster Central • Gosport • Cambridge
Postal turnout is lower than expected • Hull West and Hessle • Liverpool Garston • Solihull
A simple model of postal voter turnout R2=0.34; standard errors in brackets; ** 0.01 level
Modelling the 2005 postal vote turnout R2=0.42; standard errors in brackets; ** 0.01 level
Was the spread of postal voters political? Dependent variable is percentage point change in postal ballots issued as a percentage of total electorate R2=0.20; standard errors in brackets; ** 0.01 level
Did the increase in postal voters help Labour? Dependent variable is percentage point change in Labour vote share 2001-5 Data are for England only; R2=0.28; standard errors in brackets; ** 0.05 level; * 0.01 level