Tim Bale: Early election won't attract the punters

Prediction is a mug's game. But we all love a punt. Unfortunately, the TAB doesn't handle politics. So here goes. Whatever else happens in this election, I am prepared to bet it will see the lowest turnout in history.

How can I be so sure? Simply because almost everything we know about why people bother to vote points to a awful lot of them not bothering this time round.

Concern about low turnout at elections in the United States, and countries such as Britain and France, has prompted a rash of research interest in the topic. And, believe it or not, a lot of that research turns out to accord with common sense.

Turnout, it seems, basically depends on two factors - at least when you are comparing over time and within one country. Both factors clearly apply to the here and now.

The first is the length of time since the previous election. The more recently we voted last time, the lower the turnout for the latest contest. A decent gap, on the other hand, encourages people to go to the polls.

The second is the perceived predictability of the result. A seemingly foregone conclusion leads to lower turnout. A tight race, however, persuades people that it is worth making the effort.

Given that the Labour Party has decided to go early to capitalise on a seemingly unassailable opinion poll lead, a low turnout seems a certainty. But that isn't the full story. Research also suggests there are a couple of additional factors working against people turning out to vote.

They are less likely to bother if the differences between the main alternatives on offer seem to be small, and if they believe the connection between who is in power and the kind of policies pursued is vague.

Sure, there are differences between centre-right and the centre-left in New Zealand. But they are not that big, at least not where it really counts when it comes to most people making up their mind who to vote for - economic management and the quality and extent of public services.

Centrist pragmatism is a virtue claimed by both Helen Clark and Bill English. So it is hard to believe that, faced with similar challenges, their policy responses would be "typically Labour" or "characteristically National' - especially when they may have to rely on other parties to push them through Parliament.

There is, though, a glimmer of hope for those hoping for a high turnout. It is not one that often applies to proportional representation systems but, given the polling, it is one we have to consider.

Research seems to indicate that turnout increases in response to a situation in which the largest party is close to winning or just missing an overall majority. Given that Labour seems to be hovering just above the 50 per cent mark, and given the likelihood that polls during the campaign will see it dip below it, this could push up turnout. In other words, if the election comes to be seen mainly in terms of whether Labour makes it into government on its own, then there is a risk I may end up eating my words.

In some ways I hope I have to. And I'm sure I'm not alone. There must be plenty of politicians hoping for a high turnout - both because they have a vested interest in one and because they believe anything else has worrying implications for the country's democratic system.

Let's deal first with the vested interests. Labour clearly must be hoping that a fair number of us turn up to vote. As the predicted winner, it could suffer disproportionately if Labour voters in particular decide they do not need to bother turning out on July 27.

Talk of a fresh mandate - even if comes from over 50 per cent of those who do vote - will also ring a little hollow if the number of those who do not bother drops anywhere near levels experienced lately in other Western democracies.

For other parties it is rather more complicated. To take just one example, the Greens are well aware that their strength comes from their ability to mobilise young people - a group who (along with those on low incomes) are normally significantly less likely both to enrol and to turn out than other people.

But the fact that the election is early could harm the Green campaign to enrol potential supporters, something that surely cannot have escaped Labour strategists.

Conversely, a relatively low turnout from "mainstream" or "middle" New Zealand may mean that if the Greens nevertheless do succeed in mobilising both their committed core and potential Labour defectors, they will gain disproportionately.

Election results aside, will a low turnout be anything to worry about on a wider level? Compared with other countries, probably not. Turnout at the 1999 election was close on 85 per cent.

This figure drops to 75 per cent if turnout is calculated as a proportion of all those legally entitled, though not necessarily enrolled, to vote. But it is still respectably average in international terms.

Equally, a low turnout might reflect satisfaction rather than alienation and apathy. This argument, though, might be easier to swallow if study after study did not show a clear link between socio-economic deprivation and non-voting.

Indeed it is that link which means that we - and a Labour (or Labour-led) Government - should perhaps worry about a big drop in turnout at this election.

Democracy didn't arrive in this, or any other, country simply because it was a good idea.

It resulted partly from pressure on the part of the less well-off in society to ensure that their interests and welfare were not simply ignored.

A drop in turnout at just one election is not necessarily cause for concern. But if it ushers in a persistent trend, it could indicate that we are failing to create a society in which everyone has a stake.

Wouldn't we then be a democracy in name only?

* Tim Bale lectures in political science at Victoria University.

Full coverage:
nzherald.co.nz/election

Election links