After collecting turnout information in cross-campus ballots since 2001 (with patchy data before then also available), some conclusions can be drawn, that will hopefully deal with the myth that there is such a thing as innate apathy, at least when talking about the Durham colleges. Whether the conclusions scale to elsewhere or not is unknown, but it seems probable.
Myth 1: Some colleges are just plain apathetic.
It's impossible to disprove this completely, partly because Ustinov and John Snow (post-UDSC split) have consistently failed to get good turnouts. However, there is some evidence that this is not generally true.
Over the small sample size (February 2001 to December 2003):
- Hatfield's turnout has varied from 5% to 45% in a single year. They have had the second highest turnout, and also the 3rd lowest.
- St. Chad's turnout increased from 10% to over 40% in just four months. They have had the highest turnout (twice), and also the 4th lowest.
- No colleges have never got less than the average turnout (though Collingwood and Grey have only failed one each).
- Likewise, only two colleges (John Snow and Ustinov) have never got more than the average turnout.
- Most colleges vary in their 'place' by 6-8 points.
If turnouts are expressed as percentages of the average turnout (to avoid skew from some elections being more interesting than others), similar patterns emerge.
Notably, St. Chad's did worse (44% of average turnout) in the NUS 2003 elections, than they did in the Sabb 2001 election when their Senior Rep forgot to open a ballot box (67% of average turnout despite this disadvantage). In the elections between these two, they consistently got between 160% and 220% of the average turnout.
Myth 2: Without a candidate from that college, it's difficult to get good turnout.
It might be difficult, and having a candidate almost certainly helped George Stephenson in Sabb 03, and St Chad's in NUS 04 and Sabb 06, but it's certainly possible to do well without one.
- Collingwood got the highest turnout in the Sabb 2003 election, despite having no candidates in any of the five elections.
- St. John's got the second highest turnout in both Sabb 2001 and President (re-run) 2001 elections, despite having two candidates in the first, and none in the second.
- Grey, in the elections it has had at least one candidate, has varied between 3rd and 10th.
- Trevelyan had no candidates in any of the recorded elections in the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 academic years, but came 4th twice and 7th once. When it had two candidates in NUS 2002, and a candidate in Sabb 2003, it did worse, coming 9th and 12th respectively.
Myth 3: It's all down to the Senior Rep
While it's self-evident that the persistence of the Senior Rep in getting a good turnout has some effect on the turnout, it's not the complete story. Comparing John's turnout in NUS 2005 (12th) and Sabb 2006 (2nd) makes this obvious.
Other points
- Collingwood, St. Chad's, Hatfield and Van Mildert, four very different colleges (in both size and general involvement), have all managed to get turnout over 40% at least once. St. John's and Hild-Bede, both the most active colleges in terms of DSU officers for several years, haven't yet done so.
Conclusion
There is no intrinsic reason why recent turnout could not be improved upon. Most colleges have got individual turnouts over the recent election high of 28% (Sabb 2004) at some point, and the lack of a candidate hasn't necessarily stopped them. Steps that could be taken to increase turnout include:
- Encouragement of candidates for sabb elections. Obviously there's not much that can be done if no-one stands, but the more contested elections (ideally with candidates from a wide range of colleges) there are, the higher turnout seems to be. There are several obvious reasons for this.
- Timing elections so that as many votes as possible are held simultaneously. On the other hand, there are good arguments for holding the Conference election separately.
- Widely publicising the election centrally.
- Independent publicity of the election by Senior Reps and assistants in their colleges. This includes a lot of pre-election preparatory work to convince people that DSU is important.
- Encouragement of candidates to use innovative publicity and use their full publicity allowance.
- Pre-vote reporting of the election by all three major media organisations.
- Use of college rivalry to make high turnouts a matter of college pride.