Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:42:32.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canvassing, Turnout and Party Support: An Experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

J. M. Bochel  and
D. T. Denver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The contribution made by the efforts of local party organizations to the results of elections is much disputed. Butler and Rose, writing on the 1959 General Election, whilst conceding that ‘In seats with a majority of a few hundreds it would be absurd to deny that local organizations can make all the difference to the result’, nevertheless conclude that‘… if all constituency electioneering were abandoned, the national outcome would probably be little altered.’ Similarly, J. W. Grove in his editor's preface to Constituency Electioneering in Britain by D. A. Kavanagh, says, ‘It is clear that although many candidates and party workers derive considerable personal psychic satisfaction from the campaign, their efforts have little if any effect on the outcome.’ On the other hand, however, the authors of a recent study of party organization in a London constituency during the election of 1964, though they confess that ‘… it is impossible for us to say to what degree Labour's victory was tied to the more effective and more efficient campaign organization which the party was able to put into the field’, state in conclusion, ‘… but our research strongly suggests that organization was an important influence in the 1964 election in Baron's Court’.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , July 1971 , pp. 257 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Butler, D. E. and Rose, R., The British General Election of 1959 (London: Macmillan, 1960), pp. 119–20.Google Scholar

2 Kavanagh, D. A., Constituency Electioneering in Britain (London: Longmans, 1970), p. vii.Google Scholar

3 Holt, A. T. and Turner, J. E., Political Parties in Action (New York: Free Press, 1968), pp. 239–40.Google Scholar

4 Holt, and Turner, , Political Parties in Action, p. 298.Google Scholar The authors conducted their research largely by direct observation and relied on a study of party records, canvassing returns, etc. for their data. The relatively modest statements quoted above contrast with assertions made elsewhere in the book. Thus: ‘The Party organization that can cope most effectively with these problems (of recruiting manpower, canvassing, removals, etc.) will win the parliamentary seat’ p. 280, and ‘Effective and efficient committee rooms that are in close communication with the constituency headquarters… are the key to success on election day’ p. 197.

5 Our italics.

6 The Voluntary Worker and the Party Organisation. Organisation series No. 9, revised 1961 (London: Conservative and Unionist Central Office, 1961), p. 17.

7 Croft, H., Conduct of Parliamentary Elections (London: The Labour Party, 1969), p. 56.Google Scholar

8 Butler, D. E. and King, A., The British General Election of 1966 (London: Macmillan, 1966), p. 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences (New York: The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, 1968), Leach, E. R., ‘Rituals’, pp. 520–1.Google Scholar

10 The phrase is used by Kavanagh, , Constituency Electioneering in Britain, p. 87.Google Scholar

11 In addition to Holt and Turner, Political Parties in Action, see Brown, J., ‘Local Party efficiency as a factor in the outcome of British elections’ Political Studies, vi (1958), 174–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for an attempt to use the information provided by party agents and aggregate election statistics as a basis for speculation. Experiments conducted in the United States, similar in method to the present one, are reported in Eldersveld and Dodge, ‘Personal Contact or Mail Propaganda? An experiment in voting turnout’, in Katz, et al. , Public Opinion and Propaganda (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1954) pp. 532–42Google Scholar, and Eldersveld, S. J., ‘Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behaviour’, American Political Science Review, l (03 1956), 154–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Katz, and Eldersveld, ‘The impact of local party activity upon the electorate’, Public Opinion Quarterly, XXV (1961), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Kavanagh, , Constituency Electioneering in Britain, p. 80.Google Scholar

13 Since there were five candidates standing for five different parties (Labour, Conservative/ Progressive, Scottish National, Scottish Democratic and Communist) it was decided that the task of organizing and controlling the activities of all of them was too formidable, and so the co-operation of the Labour Party only was sought and obtained.

14 See Blondel, J., Voters, Parties and Leaders (London: Penguin, 1966), p. 55Google Scholar, for General Elections, and Budge, I. and Urwin, D., Scottish Political Behaviour (London: Longmans, 1966), pp. 78–9Google Scholar, and Bealey, F. et al. , Constituency Politics (London: Faber and Faber, 1965), p. 229Google Scholar for Local Elections.

15 See Rose, R., Studies in British Politics (London: Macmillan, 1967), ‘Voting Behaviour in Britain’ by Durant, H., p. 216.Google Scholar

17 There is some evidence of a relationship between length of residence and propensity to vote in local government elections. See for example, Sharpe, L. J., A Metropolis Votes (London: LSE, 1962), p. 191Google Scholar, and Budge and Urwin, Scottish Political Behaviour.

18 Unpublished data from a survey on ‘Political Life in Dundee’ conducted by the Department of Political Science, University of Dundee.

19 See, e.g., Lane, R., Political Life (New York: Free Press, 1959) pp. 209–16Google Scholar, and McPhee, and Glaser, , Public Opinion and Congressional Elections (New York: Free Press, 1962)Google Scholar, article by W. Glaser, ‘Fluctuations in Turnout’.

20 The relatively low turnout amongst respondents from households where someone – but not the respondents themselves – was contacted, can largely be explained by the fact that many of these respondents were young women who were at work when knocking up was done, and were working a shift that did not end before the polls closed.

21 Butler, D. E. and King, A., The British General Election of 1964 (London: Macmillan, 1965), p. 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 These figures are not standardized.

23 It is worth noting that the author of a report on turnout in local elections finds that turnout is higher in marginal wards and attributes this to party organization. Fletcher, P., ‘An Explanation of Variations in Turnout in Local Elections’, Political Studies, XVII (12 1969), 495–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar