Voter Decision-Making in a Context of Low Political Trust: The 2016 UK EU Membership Referendum

Nick Clarke,Will Jennings,Jonathan Moss,Gerry Stoker

doi:10.1177/00323217211003419

Nick Clarke, Will Jennings + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217211003419

Copy DOI

Abstract

Using volunteer writing for Mass Observation, we explore how British citizens decided whether to leave the EU. The 2016 referendum was the biggest decision made by the British electorate in decades, but involved limited voter analysis. Many citizens did not have strong views about EU membership in early 2016. The campaigns did not help to firm up their views, not least because so much information appeared to be in dispute. Voters, often characterised as polarised, were reluctant and uncertain. Many citizens took their duty to decide seriously, but were driven more by hunch than careful analysis. In 2016, voters reacted against elites they did not trust at least as much as they embraced the ideas of trusted elites. This contrasts with the 1975 Referendum on the Common Market, when the vote was driven by elite endorsement. In low-trust contexts, voters use cues from elites as negative rather than positive stimulus.

Highlights

Introduction In the period since theEU Referendum of 2016, we have learned a lot about what people thought of the EU, Brexit, and related issues, and how this varied by locality, social group, and attitude to other issues (Clarke et al 2017a, 2017b, Curtice 2016, Goodwin and Heath 2016, Goodwin and Milazzo 2017, Hobolt 2016, Lee et al 2018)
6) Discussion Our main aim in this article has been to understand more about how citizens form opinions and come to decisions as voters in a context of low political trust
We have used volunteer writing for Mass Observation (MO)

Summary

Introduction

Introduction In the period since theEU Referendum of 2016, we have learned a lot about what people thought of the EU, Brexit, and related issues, and how this varied by locality, social group, and attitude to other issues (Clarke et al 2017a, 2017b, Curtice 2016, Goodwin and Heath 2016, Goodwin and Milazzo 2017, Hobolt 2016, Lee et al 2018). We have learned rather less about how people thought of these things; how they formed opinions in response to requests from politicians and pollsters, and how they came to decisions as voters in the period leading up to the referendum. We begin by emphasising the unique contribution of Mass Observation (MO) collections. The letters and diaries collected from panellists over a period of months in the runup to the vote allow researchers to explore how opinion and decision-making develops over time. Other qualitative methods such as focus groups allow us to explore the immediate thinking of participants, but MO data make visible the development of thinking

Objectives

Findings

Conclusion