Blank and invalid votes: a voice with little impact
Given this election—which was, to say the least, unusual and tumultuous, 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 (VBN) 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 trivial as it might seem in this election. For the first time, figures on blank and invalid ballots were very quickly incorporated into election-night coverage; for the first time as well, they were announced shortly after the abstention rate, thus rounding out the overview of voter (non)participation.
Out of the Shadows
Several factors help explain why the VBN has emerged from the shadow of abstention. First, there is a cyclical 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 qualifying 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 “use” their ballots wisely and block 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 mandated the separate counting of blank and invalid ballots, a few articles have addressed the issue of their proper recognition (so that they are considered cast votes and factored 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 require such careful consideration, alongside abstention and other electoral choices. While the range of electoral options—in the first round and , a fortiori, 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 develop a quantitative sociological analysis 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 by Respondi after the first round already highlights some insights into 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 who were registered to vote and who voted in the first round were surveyed. Consequently, first-round abstainers, in particular, are not included in our survey. Nevertheless, this remains the only current means of reaching these voters and, more broadly, of collecting data on blank and invalid votes.
A blank vote: a means of expression…
What do blank ballots mean? And what about invalid ballots? If dissatisfaction—or even dissent—seems evident, how can we refine our analysis? How do they compare to other forms of electoral 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 make elected officials understand your expectations regarding change?”
The other, on the contrary, is rather negative:
“And how can you express your frustration? 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 to mention—through the possible answers—blank ballots and invalid ballots; and they appear after questions about the campaign and a more conventional 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 approach guided the selection of the response options: on the one hand, blank votes and invalid votes were separated to assess their respective importance; on the other hand, they were included 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 was the most common choice (Table 1 below). It even overshadowed abstention and voting for the far right. To help elected officials understand their expectations for change, the majority of respondents cited casting a blank ballot (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 orientation (12.2%). When it comes to 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 is shifting the dynamics for these options: voting for minor candidates loses several points, while abstention gains points. Even the “other” option declines (-5 points); as the act of voting—regardless of its form—is mentioned less spontaneously by those selecting “other” than before. Only 50.8% of panelists who chose this response now refer to voting.
On the other hand, proportionally speaking, more of them are opting for a more direct and less conventional form of expression (dialogue with elected officials, protests, revolution, etc.). Finally, nearly 10% of those in the “other” category express a form of defeatism with responses 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 a blank vote 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 carries the most weight with elected officials, followed by the “none of the above” option. Abstention, which had been fairly low up to that point—likely due to the survey’s sample consisting of first-round voters—increases, while the blank vote is relegated to fifth place, behind protests.
Once again, votes for the far left and, above all, invalid votes rank far down among the recorded responses. Surprisingly, blank ballots have completely supplanted invalid votes. The latter have not really managed to gain traction alongside blank ballots, despite their more assertive protest dimension (whether through the act of crossing out the ballot or the annotations sometimes made on them). 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 votes for 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 concerns votes for minor candidates. In these times of calls for “tactical voting,” these “minor” ballots—which are also almost never 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… which is almost as many as the VBN received without a campaign (950,000).
All these factors argue for broadening the perspective from which electoral behavior is analyzed. While abstention and votes for the National Front must obviously continue to occupy a central place in analyses due to their significance and implications, other forms of behavior—and particularly blank ballots—also deserve attention. On the one hand, to better grasp the various nuances of dissent toward the political system and to identify potential shifts from one form to another. On the other hand, to fuel the increasingly frequent 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 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 sample). The first-round survey was administered between May 3 and 6, 2017, in order to obtain a sufficient number of blank and invalid votes (151 for the April 23 election). The remaining respondents were then recruited proportionally to match thefirst-round results as closely as possible.First-round vote: blank/invalid ballots: 3.4% (+0.9 compared to the 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.