Political Change in Britain

Generational Basis of Turnout Decline in Established Democracies

“…Newly enfranchised individuals are known to be particularly open to recruitment by new parties and to be largely responsible for such changes as occur in the support for existing parties (Campbell et al, 1960;Butler and Stokes 1974;Nie et al, 1976;Inglehart, 1977Inglehart, , 1990Inglehart, , 1997Rose and McAllister, 1990;Franklin et al, 1992;Franklin and Ladner, 1995;Miller and Shanks, 1996). The same importance of newly enfranchised individuals has been found in regard to turnout Shanks, 1996, Lyons andAlexander, 2000;Putnam, 2000Putnam, , 2002Blais et al, 2001;Franklin and Wessels, 2002;Franklin, 2003;Blais et al, 2004): change in turnout most often comes from a new cohort of voters turning out at a rate that is different from the turnout rate among the previous cohort when they were new.…”

“…The same importance of newly enfranchised individuals has been found in regard to turnout Shanks, 1996, Lyons andAlexander, 2000;Putnam, 2000Putnam, , 2002Blais et al, 2001;Franklin and Wessels, 2002;Franklin, 2003;Blais et al, 2004): change in turnout most often comes from a new cohort of voters turning out at a rate that is different from the turnout rate among the previous cohort when they were new. 6 Newly enfranchised individuals are also known to rapidly become immunized against changing their minds if they support the same party at even a quite small number of consecutive elections (Butler and Stokes, 1974). The implications of this last insight for turnout change have only recently started to be explored (Franklin and Wessels, 2002;Franklin, 2003Franklin, , 2004, although it may well supply an explanation for the fact that it took fifty years after female suffrage for the gender gap in US turnout to be eliminated (Christy, 1987;Norris, 2001).…”

“…Butler andStokes (1969, 1974), when studying party choice, suggested that it was not so much the number of years as the number of elections that counted: each election provided voters with the opportunity to reaffirm their electoral decision, or not. If their decision was reaffirmed each time, all it took was three elections to establish the habit of voting for a particular party.…”

Paro y voto: ¿afecta al voto la experiencia de desempleo?

“…Muchos de ellos, incluyendo los primeros que abordaron sistemáticamente la cuestión (Schlozman y Verba, 1979; Kinder y Kiewiet, 1979;Scott y Ropers, 1980), obtuvieron resultados negativos. 2000;Clarke et al, 2011), Francia (Lewis-Beck, 1983, Alemania (Rattinger, 1986; Anderson y Hecht, 2012), Reino Unido (Butler y Stokes, 1974;Hibbing, 1987;Paulson, 1994;Price y Sanders, 1995;), Noruega (Miller y Listhaug, 1984), Suecia (Jordahl, 2006), Dinamarca (Nannestad y Paldam, 1995, 1997, Grecia (Vasilopoulos y Vernardakis, 2011; Karyotis y Rüdig, próxima publicación), Hungría (Lippényi et al, 2013) o Turquía (Baslevent et al, 2009 Sin embargo, otros encontraron que la experiencia de desempleo lleva consigo una reducción significativa de la probabilidad de votar al partido gobernante (modelo de castigo/recompensa) (Kiewiet, 1983;Kinder et al, 1989;Maravall y Fraile, 2000;Healy, 2009;Fosatti, 2013) o un aumento de la probabilidad de votar al partido al que se atribuía especial sensibilidad y aptitud para abordar el tema del paro (modelo orientado a políticas o basado en la propiedad del tema del paro) (Kiewiet, 1981(Kiewiet, , 1983Jordahl, 2006;Wright, 2012;véase también Kwon 2008véase también Kwon , 2010. A la falta de una pauta única de resultados a favor o en contra del impacto electoral de la experiencia de desempleo hay que añadir otras complicaciones.…”

With a little help from my neighbours: A spatial analysis of the impact of local campaigns at the 2010 British general election

“…Early studies provided circumstantial evidence that similar people vote differently in different types of places (Cox, 1969;Crewe and Payne, 1971) while others put forward arguments consistent with the neighbourhood effects thesis (Butler and Stokes, 1969;1974);the spatial polarisation of party support exceeded what might be expected given the socio-demographic polarisation of the population (Miller, 1977;1978). This is often attributed to the idea that 'people who talk together, vote together' (Miller, 1978), especially people in the same kinship networks (Pattie and Johnston, 2000).…”