IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v29y2011i1p149-169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changes in the Probability of Voter Turnout When Resiting Polling Stations: A Case Study in Brent, UK

Author

Listed:
  • Scott Orford

    (Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research Data and Methods and the School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, 46 Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3BB, Wales)

  • Colin Railings
  • Michael Thrasher
  • Galina Borisyuk

Abstract

Recent initiatives for increasing participation in UK elections have yet to replace the traditional method of in-person voting at designated polling stations. Recent research has shown that voter turnout can be sensitive to geographical factors relating to the costs of voting, such as distance travelled to the polling station; government policy has stated that accessibility is a key criterion when siting polling stations. With this paper we directly address these important issues by predicting the probability of electoral turnout to parliamentary, local, and European elections when polling stations are resited to optimal and suboptimal locations based on polling district voter density in the London Borough of Brent. The differences in these predicted probabilities show that, for some polling districts, resiting the polling place could improve the probability of turnout by up to five percentage points. These findings lead to some recommendations for future policy relating to the siting of polling places in the UK.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott Orford & Colin Railings & Michael Thrasher & Galina Borisyuk, 2011. "Changes in the Probability of Voter Turnout When Resiting Polling Stations: A Case Study in Brent, UK," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(1), pages 149-169, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:29:y:2011:i:1:p:149-169
    DOI: 10.1068/c1013r
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c1013r
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c1013r?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Allers, M. & Kooreman, P., 2009. "More evidence on the effects of voting technology on election outcomes," Other publications TiSEM 76b3f561-a37f-4a29-bfd9-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher, 2007. "The turnout ‘gap’ and the costs of voting – a comparison of participation at the 2001 general and 2002 local elections in England," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 333-344, June.
    3. Maarten Allers & Peter Kooreman, 2009. "More evidence of the effects of voting technology on election outcomes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 159-170, April.
    4. Aaron Edlin & Andrew Gelman & Noah Kaplan, 2007. "Voting as a Rational Choice: Why and How People Vote to Improve the Well-Being of Others," NBER Working Papers 13562, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Aaron Edlin & Andrew Gelman & Noah Kaplan, 2007. "Voting as a Rational Choice," Rationality and Society, , vol. 19(3), pages 293-314, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marco Faravelli & Randall Walsh, 2011. "Smooth Politicians And Paternalistic Voters: A Theory Of Large Elections," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000250, David K. Levine.
    2. Evren, Özgür, 2012. "Altruism and voting: A large-turnout result that does not rely on civic duty or cooperative behavior," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(6), pages 2124-2157.
    3. Valentina A. Bali & Lindon J. Robison & Richard Winder, 2020. "What Motivates People to Vote? The Role of Selfishness, Duty, and Social Motives When Voting," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    4. Avi Ben-Bassat & Momi Dahan, 2012. "Social identity and voting behavior," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 193-214, April.
    5. Roland Iwan Luttens & Marie-Anne Valfort, 2012. "Voting for Redistribution under Desert-Sensitive Altruism," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(3), pages 881-907, September.
    6. Brad Taylor, 2015. "Strategic and expressive voting," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 159-170, June.
    7. Aloys Prinz & Tsjalle Burg, 2013. "Public bads and private firms: efficiency and sustainability with different allocations of voting rights," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 423-445, December.
    8. Joseph McMurray, 2017. "Ideology as Opinion: A Spatial Model of Common-Value Elections," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 108-140, November.
    9. Rodrigo Chang & Laura Castellanos & Esteban Penelas & Javier Torres, 2024. "Can Electronic Voting Shape Election Outcomes in Developing Countries? Evidence from Peru," Working Papers 203, Peruvian Economic Association.
    10. Lyytikäinen, Teemu & Tukiainen, Janne, 2019. "Are voters rational?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 230-242.
    11. Clemens Kroneberg & Meir Yaish & Volker Stocké, 2010. "Norms and Rationality in Electoral Participation and in the Rescue of Jews in WWII," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(1), pages 3-36, February.
    12. Lionel Page & Paul Antoine-Chevalier, 2016. "Zoon politikon or homo oeconomicus ? How do people vote?," QuBE Working Papers 037, QUT Business School.
    13. repec:agr:journl:v:3(604):y:2015:i:3(604):p:63-74 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Dan Usher, 2017. "Utilitarianism, Voting And The Redistribution Of Income," Working Paper 1385, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    15. Peeters, Marga, 2010. "Parliamentary election outcomes in the Netherlands during 1981-2010: Have they become more determined by regional than national (economic) performance?," MPRA Paper 24827, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Morton, Rebecca B. & Ou, Kai, 2015. "What motivates bandwagon voting behavior: Altruism or a desire to win?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 224-241.
    17. Dan Usher, 2014. "An alternative explanation of the chance of casting a pivotal vote," Rationality and Society, , vol. 26(1), pages 105-138, February.
    18. Joan Esteban & Debraj Ray, 2011. "Linking Conflict to Inequality and Polarization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1345-1374, June.
    19. Ján Palguta, 2011. "Voting Experiments: Measuring Vulnerability of Voting Procedures to Manipulation," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(3), pages 324-345, November.
    20. Rodrigo Schneider & Diloá Athias & Mauricio Bugarin, 2019. "Does enfranchisement affect fiscal policy? Theory and empirical evidence on Brazil," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 389-412, December.
    21. Erik Peterson & Shanto Iyengar, 2021. "Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information‐Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 133-147, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:29:y:2011:i:1:p:149-169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.