Why Do So Many British People Not Vote?

At the recent Labour Party Conference, Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced a new commission to explore reforms to the electoral system. He said he will work to ensure "everyone's vote counts, and everyone's voice is heard".

However, in this era of seemingly constant political change, is the electorate the most disengaged it has ever been? And will a new electoral system be enough to encourage people to vote?

The 2024 UK General Election (GE) saw the lowest levels of voter turnout in 25 years, down 7.6 percentage points from the previous election. In some constituencies, the turnout was as low as 40%. Turnout for local elections are typically lower.

So, why are British voters not turning up to the polls? Does it reflect a distrust of politicians, a lack of hope for change or simply apathy? Could compulsory voting be the answer?

We spoke to four of our academics to find out:

• Professor Andrew Blick is a Professor of Politics and Contemporary History and co-director of the Centre for British Democracy
• Dr Tom Barton is a Postdoctoral Research Associate
• Professor Roger Mortimore is a Professor of Public Opinion & Political Analysis and Director of Political Analysis at Ipsos MORI
• Professor Rubén Ruiz-Rufino is a Professor of Political Science

Why is voter turnout so low?

Tom: This has been a trend for a long time within the UK and other Western democracies. In the UK, there has been high levels of distrust and the perception that the two major parties are not that different from each other. This is perhaps one reason why the Greens and Reform received higher vote shares than at the last election. Yet this did not couple with greater turnout, this may reflect that there is apathy and a lack of trust of the system rather than just distrust of the previous 14 years of Conservative government or a lack of confidence in Labour to fix the issues voters care about.

Rubén: Electoral turnout can be low for many reasons. One has to do with the amount of resources people have like wealth and education. Those endowed with more tend to be more aware of what is at stake at elections and seem to vote more often than those without. Also, people who identify themselves with a particular party are more likely to vote. In the UK, party membership has declined over the years which could explain decreasing levels of electoral turnout.

Roger: It is tempting to blame low turnout on dissatisfaction with politicians and the political system, but that is only one factor of many. The lowest turnout general elections have been in 2024 and 1997, with two important factors in common: the result was a foregone conclusion, and many Conservatives were very dissatisfied with their own party. People are less likely to vote if they don't think they need to, or if they feel they can't support the party they would normally vote for.

In the 2024 GE, the constituencies with the highest turnout were generally more affluent and more deprived areas were among the lowest. How significant is this?

Andrew: This tendency can have the effect of reinforcing already existing inequalities in society. If people who are already marginalised do not vote, then politicians have less motivation to seek their votes, and therefore to develop policies that might improve their socio-economic position.

Tom: This is nothing new but, this doesn't mean it is not an important issue that needs addressing. If you have different groups participating at different levels and therefore their view is not being represented, then that does create a democratic deficit. Surveys increasingly show citizens feel like government doesn't work for them, this is particularly felt by those who turnout less. This doesn't necessarily mean they don't care or participate in politics, but they do not feel voting is an effective way to have their voice heard.

Roger: 2024 is a very misleading case to examine. Differences in turnout between marginal seats and safe seats are normally bigger than differences between rich and poor areas: turnout is highest in marginal seats because the result is in doubt, and because the parties spend much more and campaign more intensively there. In most elections, the marginal seats are politically and socially the average, middle-of-the road seats; but in 2024, the Conservatives were doing so badly that the battle was over seats they would normally win easily, much more affluent than average. So, the turnout differential was exaggerated: well-off constituencies that would have a higher-than-average turnout anyway had their turnout intensified by being marginal.

Could a different electoral system increase turnout?

Andrew: The electoral system we use for Westminster parliamentary elections means that many votes are 'wasted' - that is, they make no difference to the outcome. The Electoral Reform Society calculated that, at the July 2024 GE, 73.7 percent of votes cast did not have a direct impact on the result. Such a system arguably reduces the incentive for taking part in the election and means that politicians will seek to target the relatively small group of voters whose support counts. A different electoral system could mean that a far higher proportion of votes cast made a difference, perhaps giving people more reason to vote. However, we cannot know for certain what the difference would be.

Rubén: Yes, and there is a lot of empirical research showing this. The clearest empirical pattern shows that proportional representation (PR) electoral systems increase electoral participation compared to plurality electoral systems like the first-past-the-post (FPTP) used in the UK. The logic is straightforward: voters from minority parties have an incentive to vote under PR given the likelihood of the system to grant a seat to their preferred party.

Roger: It is impossible to say, and surveys asking voters whether they would be more or less likely to vote may be very misleading. The UK's FPTP system has advantages and disadvantages - people who feel strongly about the disadvantages may correctly predict they would be more likely to vote under a different system, yet others may not be fully aware of what they would consider its advantages until they lose them.

If you could implement one change to improve turnout in the UK, what would it be?

Rubén: There is one solution to increase turnout: to make it compulsory. Compulsory voting exists in Australia and Belgium where failing to vote would mean facing a fine. This posits a difficult dilemma: compulsory voting enhances electoral participation, but constrains the individual freedom of voters by imposing an obligation that some would say it is morally incompatible with how democracies should operate.

Tom: I would change how civic education is delivered in the UK, it is severely limited and patchy. It should go beyond just teaching young people how things in the UK work but include the discussion of today's issues and equip young people, fully, with the tools to understand the news. Whilst reforms proposed by the government around votes at 16 and automatic registration can be seen as good policies the benefit they bring will be limited if young people are not taught the value of and given the skills to participate in democracy.

Roger: I would stop obsessing about the numbers altogether. The real problem is not that people don't vote - it is that they don't want to vote; any 'change to improve turnout' that does not fix that is just papering over the cracks and postponing the need to fix the real problems with modern democratic politics.