Barriers to voting and the cost of voting among low socioeconomic, young and migrant voters in New Zealand

ABSTRACT

Downs’ concept of the cost of voting emphasises time, information and money. These costs remain central to the understanding of cost of voting. However, in this study conducted in Auckland, New Zealand, young, migrant and low-socioeconomic focus group participants, when asked about the costs of voting that make a difference for their turnout decision, pointed more often to intangible, psychological costs. These costs include risk (such as concerns about debt collectors using the electoral roll) or not being able to express oneself in the preferred way (e.g. the ban on voting booth selfies). The data also shows that some voters attach meanings to the act of voting that go beyond lending support to a political party or candidate – voting can be viewed as an act of belonging or acceptance of the ‘system’. These findings suggest that intangible costs of voting are important for some voters. In this article, I discuss the implications of these findings for election administration reform in New Zealand and I also apply the sociological institutionalist approach to discuss what these findings mean for our understanding of the cost of voting.

KEYWORDS:

• Voter turnout
• election administration
• political participation
• migrants
• young people
• barriers to voting

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Jennifer Curtin for reading an earlier draft and providing insightful comments. The comments and suggestions of Jack Vowles, the reviewer at the 2016 New Zealand Political Science Association conference, were most helpful in preparing the final draft of this article. An earlier version of this article was presented at the New Zealand Political Studies Association Conference 2016 at the University of Waikato, Hamilton. I would like to thank the audience at the 2016 New Zealand Political Studies Association conference for their questions and comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Ethics Approval and Availability of Research Data

This research was approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee on 20 January 2016 for 3 years, ref. number 016293. To ensure the anonymity of research participants, recordings and transcripts from interviews cannot be published, but are available for inspection from my PhD supervisor, Associate Professor Jennifer Curtin, University of Auckland ([email protected])

Notes

1. For an overview of studies and findings on factors affecting voter turnout, see André Blais (2007, 621) and Benny Geys (2006, 653).

2. The number of estimated non-enrolled eligible voters in 2008, 2011, 2014 and 2017 was 4.7, 6.3, 7.4 and 8.3%, respectively (New Zealand Electoral Commission 2015, 45–46). (Data for 2017 from NZ Electoral Commission election results at elections.org.nz).

3. See note [ii].

4. The Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Act 2010.

5. The Electoral (Administration) Amendment Act 2011; Electoral Amendment Act 2014.

6. See (Barnett [2014] 2015; Bradbury [2011] 2012; Geddis [2014] 2015; Haines [2014] 2015; Vowles [2011] 2012).

7. There exists an unpublished electoral roll, but only for those who can prove (e.g. by a having protection order) that having their details published would put them in danger.

8. For a detailed discussion of New Zealand electoral law, see Andrew Geddis (2014). Examples of countries with automatic voter registration include, among others, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland (United Nations 2005, 47).

9. More detailed data on the composition of the focus groups is in Appendix 1.

Additional information

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes on contributors

Celestyna Galicki

Celestyna Galicki is a PhD candidate in Politics and International Relations at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. She is working on her thesis which compares barriers to voting experienced by low socioeconomic, young and migrant voters in New Zealand and Sweden.