Skip to main content

Blog

Demographic change and political participation – The European elections 2019


Are European elections dominated by older voters as a result of ageing electorates and low participation among younger people?

Between 2008 and 2018 the population share of people aged 65 or older increased by 2.6 percentage points in the EU-28 countries and now stands at 19.7%. The median age of the population was 43.1 years in 2018, an increase of 2.7 years from 2008. And as we all know, the population of the EU-28 is projected to continue to age. By the end of the century, those aged 65 years or over will – presumably – account for 31.3 % of population, with the median age increasing by another 5.4 years (i.e. 48.7).

Ageing populations mean ageing electorates, and this shift in the age structure of the electorate is exacerbated by the fact that voter turnout tends to be relatively low among young people, below 50% in the EU elections.

If, however, we compare the 2019 European Parliament elections to the 2014 elections, we see an increase in the turnout among people aged 16-39 (as well as an increase in the overall turnout – from 42.61% to 50.66%). The increase in turnout was, moreover, larger among younger people than among older people, and so the gap in participation between older and younger age groups has narrowed. Even so, the turnout among younger people remains low and still lower than that among older people:

Age

Voted 2014

Voted 2019

16/18-24

28%

42%

24-39

35%

47%

40-54

45%

52%

55+

51%

54%

 

Hence, 70% of all people voting in the 2019 elections were 40 years old or older:

 

Age

Percentage of all people voting in 2014

Percentage of all people voting in 2019

16/18-24

8%

9%

24-39

21%

21%

40-54

28%

27%

55+

43%

43%

 

This gives us a crude measure of the extent to which the electoral influence of older people – their collective weight in the polls – is greater than that of younger people. If this is considered to be a problem, let’s say a problem of intergenerational justice, we can ask what might be done to moderate the electoral dominance of older people. 

Apart from introducing a system of “weighted voting”, i.e. giving more weight to younger people’s votes (probably incompatible with the principle of “one person one vote”), the obvious way of enlarging the number of younger people entitled to vote is to lower the voting age. The justification for this measure, however, surely has to rest on the intellectual capacity to vote, not on the electoral dominance of older people.

At present, the only member states which set the age of eligibility for voting in the EU elections below 18 are Greece (17 years), Austria (16 years), and Malta (also 16 years). Although the elections for MEPs have to observe certain common provisions established by EU law, they are still elected according to national electoral laws. As things stand, however, it could be argued that the differences in minimum age for the EU elections violate Art. 14 Nr. 3 TEU or “the principle of loyal cooperation” as all European citizens should have the right to vote under the same conditions in all member states.

Apart from the composition of the electorate, is there anything that can be done to increase the younger people’s participation? The recent 2019 post-electoral survey provides us with some evidence about the main reasons for non-participation.

Lack of interest:

The obvious explanation is lack of interest: 20% of the non-voters aged 15-24 and 18% of those aged 25-39 said they were not interested in politics as such, while only 7% of the non-voters aged 15-24 and 8% of those aged 25-39 said they were not interested in European matters.

Dissatisfaction:

Another reason is dissatisfaction: The post-electoral survey reported that 12% of the non-voters aged 15-24 and 22% of those aged 25-39 said they felt a lack of trust in or dissatisfaction with politics in general. However, only 4% of the non-voters aged 15-24 and 6% of those aged 25-39 mentioned a dissatisfaction specifically with the European Parliament as an institution.

Frustration:

But also frustration is a factor: 11% of the non-voters aged 15-24 and 13% of those aged 25-39 think that voting has no consequences and doesn’t change anything.

Work, holiday, free time activities:

And finally, there is the matter of opportunity and convenience: 12% of the non-voters aged 15-24 and 11% of those aged 25-39 said they were on holiday or away from home at the time of election; 6% and 7% respectively of the non-voters in these age groups stated they were involved in family or leisure activities. About twice this number (14% of the non-voters aged 15-24 and 15% of those aged 25-39) said that they were too busy, had no time or were at work.

The reasons for a low turnout are diverse and complex, and on this analysis at least, it seems difficult to develop an effective strategy for raising the turnout. Besides, unless the low turnout is regarded as a problem of legitimacy, there is no reason for thinking that anything has to be done. Younger people – like older people – are at liberty not to vote. But still, we can pose the question: is there anything that can be done?

Younger voters should be provided with well-balanced information about political institutions that helps them understand the importance and the meaning of their participation. Secondly, voting should be “comfortable” (regarding the election day and the modalities such as postal vote), as this may influence the turnout – especially among those younger people who don’t vote due to absence, work or free time activities. Thirdly, the electoral system should be easy to understand for all voters, but leave a maximum of choice to them, e.g. by allowing for preferential voting with open lists (as some member states already do).

There is no doubt, however, that the most effective way to increase turnout would be to implement compulsory voting. Although in some EU member states voting already is compulsory (with different sanctions in case of a violation of this obligation), the idea of “forced voting” is often considered incompatible with national legal provisions regarding free elections. However, the European Court of Human Rights deems compulsory voting compatible with Art. 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights on free elections as, according to the Court, the term “free elections“ does not mean elections in which voting is not compulsory but elections in which the exercise of electoral choice (between candidates) is free.

But free and secret elections can only be guaranteed if handing in invalid ballot papers remains a lawful option. And the legitimacy of the European Parliament depends on such elections. So even if a violation of the obligation to vote is subject to severe financial sanctions, compulsory voting cannot guarantee a higher number of valid ballot papers, but, at best, only a higher level of participation (handing in valid or invalid ballot papers). And even if compulsory voting raised the turnout in general, it wouldn’t necessarily raise the one among younger people. Finally, even if the turnout was raised, that itself could not solve the underlying problems that a low turnout displays.

But still, an obligation to vote might lead to more interest in politics (including among younger people) and a greater desire to participate.

To conclude: Although the general turnout remains low, European elections are dominated by older voters, mainly as a result of ageing electorates, but also as a result of lower turnout among younger people. Younger people’s turnout has increased lately, and if more young people decide to participate their influence can increase further. As for the legal framework, a lower voting age in all member states would increase the proportion of younger people in the electorate. Other changes to the electoral system could help encourage them to vote und thereby contribute to increase the turnout.


About the Author

Dr. iur. Silvia Pernice-Warnke, LL.M. was an Academic Visitor at the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing. Currently, she is a research assistant at the Faculty of Law, University of Cologne, Germany.

 


Opinions of the blogger is their own and not endorsed by the Institute

Comments Welcome: We welcome your comments on this or any of the Institute's blog posts. Please feel free to email comments to be posted on your behalf to administrator@ageing.ox.ac.uk or use the Disqus facility linked below.