By Finbarr Livesey
While three quarters of voters want to be consulted before key votes, only one third believe it is their responsibility to find out about the issues and influence their MP. British voters want to control their representatives but don't want to make the effort to engage with them.
Possibly even worse is that half the voting public don't consider the candidate to be important when making their voting decision. Our members of Parliament are becoming ciphers to us, there purely as a conduit rather than as a decision maker.
These are the results of a new survey of over 2,000 adults carried out by the Centre for Industry and Government at Cambridge and YouGov@Cambridge. At a key moment in the evolution of the UK's democratic system, with the media under severe scrutiny, MPs stepping carefully after the expenses scandal, and an electorate trying to work out which way is up with the Coalition, voters appear to disagree with the system of democracy they have. In a system based on representation, where voters get to exercise their control every four to five years at the ballot box, there is an underlying sentiment of direct democracy.
In the minds of voters it is like they want their parliamentarians to be empty of mind but with the infinite powers of Santa Claus. Somehow they are supposed to be able to drop by the whole of their constituency in a single night and have a chat about how they should vote with each and every one of us.
This could explain why being a member of Parliament is such a difficult job. Essentially your constituents don't want to know you but will express their frustration and anger if you have not actively sought out their views.
This sense of a sofa bound electorate waiting for the politicians and issues to come to them, as if it were an episode of X-Factor or Strictly Come Voting, is reinforced by the lack of engagement with online tools and traditional means of communication. Over 70% of voters would never follow a Twitter feed or look at an online video for their MP. Over 60% would never read an MP's blog or their Facebook page, or even attend one of their clinics. This even though three quarters of us say it is the MP's responsibility to provide as many ways as possible for information to be made available to voters.
Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge elected in 2010, has first hand experience of how online tools are being used. "Postcards and bulk emails pour in in their hundreds. But it is difficult to judge the depth of feeling of people who have chosen simply to add their name to someone else's words." For Huppert the important thing is whether it is a personal communication. "I set much more store by letters and emails I receive from people who have put their thoughts into their own words."
The findings from this survey are broadly in line with those of the Hansard Society's audit of political engagement. As the director of that programme, Dr. Ruth Fox, noted "Public attitudes are highly complex, often contradictory and rarely uniform." This complexity creates significant problems if MPs wanted to be more open to taking the temperature of their constituency in a more direct fashion. Dr. Fox sums up the problem "As this latest research shows voters aren't willing to actively engage in ways that would help their MP determine what their views are."
This tension between control and disengagement is borne out by what influences our vote. According to this survey national issues are the strongest influence, important for 74% of voters as they decide on who to vote for. This is closely followed by the party manifestos (69%) and local issues (65%). The personalities come next, with the leader of the party voter's choose important for 58% of respondents, while the candidate themselves is only important for 52%.
A little surprisingly, the media appear to play a very small role in the voting decision of the great British public. Less than one in five of respondents said that how the election was reported, either the issues or the election itself, influenced their vote. Whether this is how we wish to view ourselves or the reality, perhaps this gives a lie to the level of influence for certain red tops in the results of recent elections.
The 2010 UK election and the referendum on the alternative voting system highlighted a long standing problem with many democracies. Do we all agree on what we are doing when we vote? Do we think we are sending a representative to parliament who we trust to make the best decision they can or a delegate who will faithfully represent our views? For Julian Huppert there may be a mismatch between the system and our expectations. "One of the main problems with our democracy is that most people in most constituencies are represented by someone they disagree with. What we really need is a better voting system so that people can go to the MP best suited to represent them."
Do we want MPs to be servants of the people, their manifesto or their conscience? Right now it looks like we want control without the need to engage. According to Dr. Fox "Ultimately the public are happier as critical spectators rather than participants. But that's not a route to a healthy democracy in the long-term." Perhaps we the people are the greatest weakness in the democratic system.
Finbarr Livesey is Director of the Centre for Industry and Government at the Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge University, and a subject-advisor to YouGov@Cambridge.
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov@Cambridge. Total sample size was 2,065 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 7th - 8th June 2011. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).
Full details of the survey, including a summary of the data, can be accessed online here
Follow YouGov-Cambridge on Twitter: www.twitter.com/YouGov
One response to the article has emphasised the importance of education, and I MUST second that. However, my experience as a teacher - sadly, not of politics or the political system - is that most teachers are ignorant not only of policies, but of how the system works, whether it is the role of the media, the electoral system, or even what MPs do. If - and it's a huge if - political education ever becomes a central part of our education system, we will have to employ specialists to deliver it; just filling it with any old teacher will improve nothing.
The permanent crisis of democratising legalistic societies has been with us since. How do you democratise when most people are undereducated, ill-educated?
You educate. Thus through the 19th century democratic activists achieved much, extending compulsory education to the masses leading to great waves of humanising legislation across Europe and the Americas.
Now, different problems. Corporate and consumer-driven idiocy is destroying the planet. Our leaders whimper in the face of these irrational, greedy forces driven by us. Yes, us.
The West requires a generation of leaders who do what is right. Which may not be what we want.
We need stronger leaders who are willing to talk clearly on major issues. Obama started out well. But he made a really old-fashioned, late modern progressive blunder. He got lost in complexity both at home and abroad. We need a streak of populism. Leadership which keeps it simple, cuts through complexity and gets things done. Like taxing assets of the very wealthy across the West and paying off ALL government debt. Simple. Horrific, a bit unjust, a bit wild, sure. But it solves the problem.
Folks with 10 million would be left with 8 million. Oh dear, what a crime against humanity!
The first hurdle to this has always been the 'established way'. I didn't vote in the last election, for example, because I lived in a Tory stronghold... no point.
Digital communication channels have given us more 'say' but there are still deep-rooted issues. Most people don't read enough to make a considered political choice. Most people still vote along traditional party lines. Our digital actions tend to 'saturate' the existing infrastructure - MPs would more likely act on one well-crafted letter than 300 emails all saying the same thing.
I'm sure that as more and more balanced information (like your surveys) becomes available people will vote more on the issues not for the party. However, the other side of that coin is why bother? Why bother if you know you're lobbying an MP from a party unsympathetic to your cause or if you believe the outcome is heavily influenced by a powerful force like Murdoch?
What we're seeing now is lobbying of a different kind - 38 Degrees and Hacked Off are examples. We don't know the party 'loyalties' of the 250,000 or so people who digitally signed those petitions - I was certainly one of them. I didn't march (arm-in-arm, empty-bellied) on Parliament. I 'voted'. It's how this democracy thing is supposed to work. And, for a change, my vote counted... and I felt strangely empowered!
There is far too much cynicism in society and too little faith and genuine interest in politics.
Education is the key. The British system of Government and the way our democracy operates should be an important part of our children's school curriculum. Not so as to indoctrinate them politically into voting for one particular party. But to generally understand how our system works? - Why it is constituted the way it is? And to develope in our children a healthy respect for, if not the politicians themselves as individuals, but the role they play and what they are there for.
This would take a lot of carefull devising. But I believe with an open un-cynical approach we could in a few generations develope a more informed electorate who would be equipped at holding our politicians to account far more effectively. Their judgement would be based not on, as it is now - silly whims, tribal loyalty, or ignorance of issues or how candidates groom themselves on TV - but on a more thorough knowledge of just where these politicians are coming from and what they are promising to do for them.
Active participation then - not passive gainsaying all the while. It's this passiveness that cretes the sense of powerlessness and cynicism.
Which is why i think it would be valuable to go to a multi-member constituency system. This would allow voters to keep voting for the party of their choice while still having a choice of candidate, it would also mean that perhaps 90% of the electorate would have an MP of their party, instead of perhaps 40% of the moment. Allegedly it would weaken the link between voter and MP - but, as this article shows, that hardly exists. having an MP you positively selected, even if one of several, would strengthen that link.
Isn’t evolution a process of adaptation to reality? What we have here is an artificial process, operating in isolation. Survival of the unfit, if you will.
"In a system based on representation"
Direct control over policy is replaced by divination, utilizing the cult of personality process. i.e. Shall I buy into this product with regard to the requirements that it might fulfil? Or because I like the salesman.
"In the minds of voters"
exists the implanted illusion that a republic is a democracy. If they have been told so enough times.
"the infinite powers of Santa Claus"
to make promises. With a complete inability to deliver the goods.
"Somehow they are supposed to"
possess and exercise a level of intellect greater than that of those who are being led.
"being a member of Parliament is such a difficult job"
that only those who vote as they are instructed are fit for the job.
"a sofa bound electorate"
controlled by a leather bound elite.
"What we really need is"
transparency, transparency, transparency.
"According to Dr. Fox"
We’ve got a terminal case of bad government, which we‘ve inflicted on ourselves?