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 u The nature of the postal vote electorate u The nature of the postal voter u Some aspects of the increase in postal voters

The postal electorate

The postal electorate in 2005 Postal ballots issued % electors with postal ballot Change UK*5,362, GB*5,334, England*4,739, N. Ireland27, Scotland312, Wales283, * Some or all data are missing for 35 constituencies in England and 1 in Wales

Correlates of postal electorate % prof/manager.048 % owner-occ.010 % renting-.006 % aged % aged % degree.005 % no religion-.059 % no car-.009 % non-white-.064 % majority

Regional aspects of postal electorate % electors with postal ballot Change East Midlands* Eastern London North East* North West* South East South West West Midlands Yorks & the Humber* * All-postal voting at 2004 European/local elections

Distribution of postal electorate by constituency

Effects of local election postal pilots 2002/3 all- postal pilots % electors with postal ballot Change Pilot No pilot

Party incumbency and postal electorate 2001 winner% electors with postal ballot Change Labour Conservative LD

2001 majority and increase in postal electors % majority 2001change to to to Over

The postal voter

The postal voter in 2005 % turnoutpostal votes as mean % of valid votes cast UK GB England Northern Ireland Scotland Wales

Postal voters by English region * All-postal voting at 2004 European/local elections postal votes as % of valid votes cast East Midlands*16.7 Eastern14.3 London13.7 North East*25.1 North West*17.3 South East14.8 South West16.5 West Midlands13.3 Yorkshire & The Humber*18.6

Distribution of postal voters by constituency

All-postal pilots and postal voters 2002/3 all-postal pilotsPostal votes as % of valid votes cast Pilot23.8 No Pilot14.2

Party incumbency and postal voters 2001 winnerPostal votes as % of valid votes cast Labour15.7 Conservative13.9 LD15.2

Comparing postal and in-person turnout Mean % of postal voters casting valid vote Change Mean % of in- person voters casting valid vote Change GB England Scotland Wales

Increases in postal votes and change in turnout % point increase in postal votes cast overall % point change in turnout since 2001 Less than to to to or more +2.4

Some aspects of increased postal voting

Comparing in-person and all-postal voting Staffordshire S. is excluded

Postal turnout higher than expected u Doncaster Central u Gosport u Cambridge

Postal turnout is lower than expected u Hull West and Hessle u Liverpool Garston u Solihull

A simple model of postal voter turnout Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients Beta (Constant)46.68** (1.69) 2005 valid in person turnout0.51** (0.03).584 R 2 =0.34; standard errors in brackets; ** 0.01 level

Postal voting – the regional effect

Postal voting – the experiments effect

Modelling the 2005 postal vote turnout Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients Beta (Constant)48.95** (2.71) 2005 valid in person turnout0.48** (0.04)0.56 pv experiments ** (0.57)0.09 Compulsory pv3.31** (0.47) majority shares-0.08** (0.02)-0.20 R 2 =0.42; standard errors in brackets; ** 0.01 level

Was the spread of postal voters political? Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients Beta (Constant)7.34** (0.31) pv experiments ** (0.50)0.38 Compulsory pv1.73** (0.41) majority shares (0.01) Dependent variable is percentage point change in postal ballots issued as a percentage of total electorate R 2 =0.20; standard errors in brackets; ** 0.01 level

Did the increase in postal voters help Labour? Unstandardised Coefficients (Constant)-0.83 (0.62) pv experiments * (0.47) Party control of seat prior to 2005: Conservative -3.94** (0.59) Labour -5.58** (0.59) Change in party control 2001/ ** (0.58) 2001 majority shares-0.05** (0.01) Percentage points change in postal votes as % of total votes 0.09** (0.03) Dependent variable is percentage point change in Labour vote share Data are for England only; R 2 =0.28; standard errors in brackets; ** 0.05 level; * 0.01 level