Blank and invalid votes: a voice with little impact
Given the highly unusual and tumultuous nature of this election—both in its campaign, marked by a series of twists and turns with a domino effect, and in its outcome—the disqualification of traditional parties and the rise to power of a new political movement, foreshadowing a reshaping of the political landscape—the focus on blank and invalid votes (BIV) may seem out of place.
Aurélia Troupel, University of Montpellier
However, with more than 4 million blank or invalid ballots cast, this phenomenon is not as insignificant as it might seem in this election. For the first time, figures on blank and invalid votes were very quickly incorporated into election night commentary; for the first time as well, they were announced shortly after the abstention rate, thus rounding out the overview of voter (non)participation.
Stepping out of the shadows
Several factors help explain why the VBN has emerged from the shadow of abstention. First, there is a situational aspect. The call for blank votes—or at least the discussions within certain political parties and movements following their elimination in the first round—served as a reminder that a blank vote could be an alternative, even when the second qualified candidate belongs to the National Front. This alternative was confirmed—or at least chosen—by a significant number of voters, as evidenced by the record rate recorded on May 7, despite an intense campaign between the two rounds urging voters to “make good use” of their ballots and block the path of the far right.
Furthermore, as significant as the percentage of blank and invalid ballots was in this second round, the issue of blank ballots had already received some media coverage, albeit very limited. Since the law of February 21, 2014, which led to the separate counting of blank and invalid ballots, a few articles have addressed the issue of their true recognition (so that they are considered cast votes and factor into the calculation of candidates’ scores), fueled by a broader discussion based on the work of Jérémie Moualek.
But this is the first time that, in order to understand what was at stake in this second round, blank and invalid votes seem to need to be taken into account to such an extent, alongside abstention and other electoral choices. While the electoral options, in the first round and even more so in the second round, can largely explain the volume of blank and invalid votes, the motivations and meanings behind the blank vote remain relatively unknown.
The aim of the ongoing research project, titled “The Ignored Voter: Blank and Invalid Votes,” which seeks to quantitatively map the sociology of these voters—and of which we briefly present some results here—is precisely to shed light on these aspects.
For now, the presentation of three questions from the survey conducted after the first round by Respondi already highlights some aspects of how blank and invalid votes are perceived by the “voters” interviewed below. Despite the methodological precautions taken, the results presented are not representative of the French population, as only panelists registered on the electoral rolls and who voted in the first round were surveyed. Thus, first-round abstainers, in particular, are excluded from our survey. Nevertheless, this remains currently the only way to reach these voters and, more broadly, to collect data on blank and invalid votes.
A blank vote: a means of expression…
What do blank ballots signify? And what about invalid ballots? If dissatisfaction—or even protest—seems evident, how can we refine our analysis? How do these ballots compare to other forms of voter behavior?
To find out, two distinct questions were posed to panelists. The first has a rather positive connotation:
“In your opinion, what is the best way to convey your expectations for change to elected officials?”
The other, on the contrary, is rather negative:
“And how can you show that you’ve had enough? What’s the best way?”
To avoid influencing the responses, precautions were taken regarding the order and wording of the questions and answers. First, regarding the order: the questions presented below are the first ones that, through the possible answers, refer to blank votes and invalid votes; and they appear after questions about the campaign and a more standard question about voting. Particular attention was also paid to the wording of the questions: they are verbatim, meaning they are taken directly from statements made by other respondents in a previous study.
The same concern guided the selection of the proposed answers: on the one hand, blank votes and invalid votes were separated in order to assess their respective importance; on the other hand, they appeared alongside other options such as “voting for a minor candidate,” “abstaining,” and “you do not want change/you are not fed up.”
In both cases, the blank vote is the top choice (Table 1 below). It even outpaces abstention and voting for the far right. To help elected officials understand their expectations regarding change, the majority of respondents cited casting a blank vote (24.9%), followed by voting for a minor candidate (20.3%) and voting for the far right (17.9%)—which together account for nearly two-thirds of the responses. The “other” category, which was also frequently selected, was refined based on clarifications requested from the panelists.
Grouped subsequently into these subthemes, the qualitative responses highlight a spontaneously expressed attachment to the act of voting (among 53% of those who answered “other”), as well as to voting for a candidate aligned with their political stance (12.2%). As for change, it therefore seems to be perceived more as something achieved through the ballot box—whether by casting a blank ballot, voting for a minor candidate, a candidate from one’s own political camp, or a candidate from the far right. Indeed, for these respondents who vote, abstention does not appear to be the means of conveying this message.
On the other hand, when it comes to expressing their frustration with elected officials, the trio of “blank vote/vote for the far right/vote” for a minor candidate is somewhat shaken up. The blank vote continues to stand out very clearly from the other options, but this time it is the vote for the far right that rises to second place. Next, further behind, come voting for a minor candidate and abstention.
The difference between expressing a desire for change and expressing frustration shifts the dynamics for these options: voting for minor candidates loses several points while abstention gains them. Even the “other” option declines (-5 points); the act of voting—regardless of its form—is mentioned less spontaneously by those selecting “other” than previously. Only 50.8% of panelists who chose this response refer to voting.
Conversely, proportionally speaking, more of them opt for a more direct and less conventional form of expression (dialogue with elected officials, protest, revolution, etc.). Finally, nearly 10% of these “other” respondents express a form of defeatism with answers such as “none,” “they don’t understand us,” “I don’t see how to do it,” or advocating for widespread abstention.
… yet rarely heard
While respondents view casting a blank ballot as the primary way to convey their expectations for change or their frustration, they do not believe it is heard by elected officials. The follow-up question—“What do you think has the greatest impact on politicians?”—yielded widely varying responses. Thus, for more than a quarter of the panelists, voting for the far right has the greatest impact on elected officials, followed by “nothing.” Abstention, which had been fairly low up to that point—likely due to the composition of the respondents, who were first-round voters—increases, while the blank vote is relegated to fifth place, behind protests.
Once again, voting for the far left and, above all, invalid votes rank far down in the recorded responses. Surprisingly, blank ballots completely supplant invalid votes. The latter fails to really gain traction alongside blank ballots, despite its more assertive protest dimension (whether through the act of crossing out the ballot or the annotations sometimes made on it). While it shows a slight increase in response to the question about being fed up, the invalid vote nevertheless has virtually no traction among respondents after elected officials (1.9%). More channeled and more in line with democratic expectations, the blank vote appears, in the eyes of respondents, to be a more legitimate way to express their expectations regarding the two dimensions tested.
Another insight from these initial results: voting for minor candidates. In these times of calls for tactical voting, these “minor” ballots—which are also rarely studied—are viewed by respondents as a way to send a message. However, on the evening of the first round of the presidential election, the votes scattered among Jean Lassalle, Jacques Cheminade, and François Asselineau totaled nearly 830,000… almost as many as the VBN, which ran no campaign (950,000).
All these factors argue for broadening the perspective from which electoral behavior is analyzed. While abstention and voting for the National Front must obviously continue to occupy a central place in analyses due to their significance and implications, other behaviors—and particularly the blank vote—also deserve attention. On the one hand, to better grasp the various nuances of dissent toward the political system and observe potential shifts from one form to another. On the other hand, to fuel the increasingly recurring debate on the recognition of blank votes.
Methodological note: The survey was conducted in partnership with Respondi (thanks to J. Ruiz for providing me with access to the fieldwork and to the Respondi team), which distributed the questionnaires to its online panelists (of the 4,706 people surveyed, 4,424—who were registered on the selected voter rolls—were included in the final sample). The first-round survey was administered between May 3 and 6, 2017, to obtain a sufficient number of blank and invalid votes (151 for the April 23 election). The remaining respondents were then recruited proportionally to approximate thefirst-round results as closely as possible.First-round vote: blank/invalid: 3.4% (+0.9 compared to official results); Emmanuel Macron: 21.1% (-2.3); Marine Le Pen: 19.3% (-1.4); François Fillon: 13.9% (-5.6); Jean-Luc Mélenchon: 19.6% (0.5); Benoît Hamon: 7.1% (0.9); Nicolas Dupont-Aignan: 5.0% (0.5); Minor candidates: 4.5% (0.5).
Aurélia Troupel, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Montpellier
The original version This article was published on The Conversation.