Do undecided voters determine elections? Study finds many don’t even vote

EXETER, United Kingdom — When it comes to political elections, polls are always interested in which way the undecided voters will break. Well, a new study finds that the impact of undecided voters may be seriously overblown. Researchers in the United Kingdom have found that many undecided voters never make up their minds and just sit out the election altogether!

The findings, published in the journal Electoral Studies, reveal that voters who are torn between candidates are significantly less likely to turn out on election day compared to those with a clear preference. The research suggests that as party loyalties weaken and more options emerge, the very competitiveness meant to energize democracy may instead discourage participation. Simply put, the more political candidates people have to choose from, the more likely they are not to vote.

Using data from over 500,000 survey responses, University of Exeter researcher Hannah Bunting found that roughly 40% of British voters are “in competition” – meaning they rate two or more parties similarly in terms of how likely they are to vote for them. These undecided voters were 10 percentage points less likely to say they intended to vote compared to those with a clear party preference.

“Voters are now more indecisive, more likely to switch parties, and generally more volatile and unpredictable in their behavior. My research shows low levels of voting may be related to the more complex choices people have to make, and people becoming more indecisive,” Dr. Bunting says in a media release.

Bunting argues that when faced with multiple appealing options and uncertainty about their preferences, some voters may choose to abstain rather than make a difficult choice. All of this drives down voter turnout, making it a battle between supporters of the major parties.

The findings challenge the conventional wisdom that electoral competitiveness increases turnout. While close races between parties may motivate some voters, individual-level competition between multiple options seems to have the opposite effect.

Interestingly, the study found that how competitive a voter’s local district was had no significant impact on their likelihood of voting. What mattered was their personal indecision, not how close the race was expected to be.

Some factors did make voters less likely to be “in competition.” Those with a strong party identity and those who paid more attention to politics were more likely to have a clear preference.

“This is a positive sign for democracy. Citizens do seem to spend time deliberating between different parties during competitive elections. The expansion and complexity of choice can promote democracy if parties can convince voters to back them before election day,” Dr. Bunting says.

The study also found that older voters and men were also somewhat less likely to be undecided between parties.

The research’s implications are mixed. On one hand, lower turnout among undecided voters could skew election results toward the preferences of more partisan citizens. On the other hand, the fact that so many voters are carefully weighing multiple options suggests a healthy, competitive democracy where citizens thoughtfully consider the platforms on offer.

Bunting suggests that efforts to boost turnout should focus on helping voters develop stronger party identities and encouraging greater attention to politics. By giving citizens the tools to make more confident choices, campaigns may be able to convert more undecided voters into active participants.

“All of this means people are more likely to abstain from voting. It creates a greater cognitive burden for citizens and this complexity feeds indecision which increases the likelihood of making no choice at all. A high number of undecided citizens may thus result in low turnout rates,” the study author concludes.