Uptake and knowledge of voting rights by adult in-patients during the 2010 UK general election

James Mcintyre,Sobia Naz,Venkata Yelamanchili,Maria Clarke,Masum Khwaja

doi:10.1192/pb.bp.110.033662

James Mcintyre, Sobia Naz + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.110.033662

Copy DOI

Abstract

Aims and methodThis study explores knowledge and uptake of the voting rights of adult in-patients in the 2010 UK general election. A clinician-completed survey was used.ResultsEligible to vote psychiatric adult in-patients were half as likely to register as the general population and half as likely to vote if registered. Nine out of ten of those unregistered cited a lack of knowledge of their eligibility to vote or of the registration process. Long-stay patients were particularly disenfranchised.Clinical implicationsMany patients and staff remain unaware of the new rules which have given a greater proportion of in-patients the right to vote and have simplified the registration and voting processes. This information barrier may be addressed in future elections by providing timely written information to both patients and staff. Once registered, patients may need further support to overcome practical and psychological barriers, and cast their vote.

Highlights

The right to vote and the process of voting may be considered a Vygotskian sign,[13] conveying meaning both to a person carrying the burden of mental illness and to society as a whole that one is of value when ‘in remission and well’ and when one’s illness is active
The implications of ‘the right to free and fair elections’ under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were reviewed in Hirst v United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights[14] with regard to the rights of convicted prisoners to vote
With regard to mentally ill offenders, the first government consultation on this issue asked whether voting rights given to prisoners detained in mental hospitals should be determined on the same basis as for ordinary prisoners, or whether there were categories that should be treated exceptionally

Summary

Results

A total of 152 nominal ‘hospital’ patients were identified on 23 April 2010, of which 20 were in the process of transition to the community and were excluded from the in-patient study. 65%).[9] Registration and voting rates appear lower in the Westminster than the UK general population: 71% of the Westminster electorate (133 228 of 188 471) registered, and of those, 43% (57 233) voted.[10] This may reflect a relatively transient population (16% resident for less than 2 years),[11] a higher proportion of people from an ethnic minority background Voting rates of registered in-patients were lower (33%) than those of the registered Westminster population (43%), this did not reach statistical significance (w2-test, P = 0.35). This indicates that the main barrier to voting for psychiatric in-patients in this study was the registration process.

Method

Discussion