27

I have noticed this image in social media recently:

Non-voters outnumbered the supporters of every single political party in 2010

Transcription:

  • Non-voters outnumbered the supporters of every single political party in 2010
  • Did not vote: 15.9m - these people could change everything
  • Tories: 10.7m
  • Labour: 8.6m
  • Lib Dems: 6.8m
  • Other: 3.5m

The image does not cite a source for its information and after an (admittedly brief) Googling exercise I was not able to find a source which provided actual numbers (although some secondary sources gave percentages).

Is the assertion that "non-voters outnumbered the supporters of every single political party" true?

user56reinstatemonica8
  • 8,942
  • 5
  • 40
  • 51
Richard Downer
  • 373
  • 3
  • 6
  • 3
    How is a "supporter" of a political party defined? Is it limited to those who voted for that party? Can it include those who did not or can not vote for a party, but agree with its platform or in some other way encourage voting for that party? Does it take into account those who don't like the party, but vote for it as the least of three evils? – Reinstate Monica -- notmaynard Apr 19 '17 at 15:03
  • 3
    @iamnotmaynard looking at the figures supporter of a party means voted for a party – mmmmmm Apr 19 '17 at 18:31

1 Answers1

38

BBC 2010 election page gives a summary. The data can be found at the Electoral Commission which oversees the votes.

Party           Seats   Gain Loss  Net    Votes     %    
Conservative      307   100    3    +97 10,726,614  36.1
Labour            258   3     94    -91  8,609,527  29.0
Liberal Democrat   57   8     13     -5  6,836,824  23.0

These numbers are on a turnout of 65.1%, which is the sum of all valid votes. Thus, 100 - 65.1 = 34.9% did not vote.

Turnout was 29,691,380 - this is all valid votes. So those not voting (including spoilt ballots and invalid postal votes) = 29,691,380 * 349/651 = 15,917,499.

From the Electoral Commission document

The UK electorate at the 2010 general election was almost 45.6 million

This is the number registered to vote, thus matching the graphic.

user812786
  • 231
  • 2
  • 9
mmmmmm
  • 671
  • 9
  • 13
  • Thank you. How is "turnout" defined - does it consider only those who are registered to vote, or does it include unregistered voters who would have been eligible to vote had they registered? – Richard Downer Apr 19 '17 at 14:51
  • 1
    Details of how turnout is calculated at: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/our-work/our-research/electoral-data - it's total number of registered voters. Also contains complete original data matching the above – user56reinstatemonica8 Apr 19 '17 at 15:02
  • So if you included those eligible to vote but never registered, the number of "non-voters" might be higher? (I don't know how voter-registration works in the UK; in the US it's entirely voluntary, so lots of unregistered folks.) – 1006a Apr 19 '17 at 18:06
  • 1
    @1006a the process is similar – mmmmmm Apr 19 '17 at 18:31
  • 6
    @1006a In the UK electoral registration is legally compulsory but rarely enforced, and in recent years has become more bureaucratic by moving from a household to an individual level. To make things more complicated, some UK-resident non-UK citizens should also register and can vote (Irish and Commonwealth citizens) but do not. Some people are registered in more than one place (e.g. students), but can only vote once in a single election, which will reduce apparent turnout of registered voters. Dead people often stay on the lists for some time (they are not allowed to vote) – Henry Apr 19 '17 at 19:01
  • 11
    @Henry "Dead people... are not allowed to vote." And yet zombies are very rarely turned away from polling stations. It's the scandal nobody talks about. – David Richerby Apr 19 '17 at 21:31
  • Maybe Belgium does it better, at nearly 90% turnout. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_federal_election,_2014#Results – Alexander Apr 20 '17 at 07:24
  • @Alexander In Belgium, voting is compulsory by law and said law is actively enforced with fines. Seems like that's having the desired effect of ensuring a high turnout rate. – Cronax Apr 20 '17 at 08:26
  • @Cronax That's exactly what I mean by "does it better" :) – Alexander Apr 20 '17 at 09:06
  • 2
    @Alexander They do less well at actually choosing a *government* though... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%9311_Belgian_government_formation – IMSoP Apr 20 '17 at 09:50
  • 3
    @DavidRicherby: The (vanishingly small, by the way) zombie population of the UK is well educated about election law and know they _would_ be turned away if they tried to vote. Therefore they don't even bother. The small number of actual rejections is a sign of a system that (at least in this respect) works! – hmakholm left over Monica Apr 20 '17 at 10:51
  • @DavidRicherby That depends on your perspective. An unengaged voter who still votes may not have made an *informed* choice, it may not be the *"right"* choice for them, but they have at least *made a choice* and thus are represented in their government. – Cronax Apr 20 '17 at 15:23
  • Note that this is "people registered to vote", not "people eligible to vote" which would more closely match the plain language of the graphic. As others have noted, "registered" can overcount (people still registered and not eligible, or registered more than once yet eligible once), but possibly it undercounts (people eligible yet did not do paperwork to register). – Yakk Apr 20 '17 at 17:34
  • @Yake but that does not effect the graphic as if they all registered they would increase the left hand column – mmmmmm Apr 20 '17 at 22:58
  • @Cronax I have never heard of anyone getting a fine in Belgium for not voting, and I have myself missed voting once. I remember seeing on TV someone who has never voted in the last 20 years without consequences. The worst that can happen is that you could get a vote ban. But indeed most people follow the rule. – Didier L Apr 21 '17 at 09:19