Election turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. It is a key measure of public participation and political engagement. The conventional wisdom is that a high voter turnout is a sign of a healthy democracy, conferring greater legitimacy on the result and the elected government.

Turnout at UK general elections has fluctuated significantly over the last 75 years. After peaking at 83.9% in 1950, it fell to a post-war low of 59.4% in 2001.

The turnout at the 2024 general election was 59.7%. This represented a significant drop from the 67.3% recorded in 2019 and was the lowest general election turnout since 2001.

History of general election turnout

Turnout at general elections since the Second World War:

• 1945: 72.8% (Labour win)
• 1950: 83.9% (Labour win)
• 1951: 82.6% (Conservative win)
• 1955: 76.8% (Conservative win)
• 1959: 78.7% (Conservative win)
• 1964: 77.1% (Labour win)
• 1966: 75.8% (Labour win)
• 1970: 72.0% (Conservative win)
• 1974 (Feb): 78.8% (Labour win)
• 1974 (Oct): 72.8% (Labour win)
• 1979: 76% (Conservative win)
• 1983: 72.7% (Conservative win)
• 1987: 75.3% (Conservative win)
• 1992: 77.7% (Conservative win)
• 1997: 71.4% (Labour win)
• 2001: 59.4% (Labour win)
• 2005: 61.4% (Labour win)
• 2010: 65.1% (Conservative win)
• 2015: 66.3% (Conservative win)
• 2017: 68.8% (Conservative win)
• 2019: 67.3% (Conservative win)
• 2024: 59.7% (Labour win)

Turnout for major UK-wide referendums has often been higher than for general elections. The 2014 Scottish independence referendum saw a record turnout of 84.6%; the 2016 referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union (EU) had a turnout of 72.2%.

Who votes in the UK?

Participation is not uniform across the country.

Turnout by age

Age remains the single most reliable predictor of whether a person will vote. In recent years, turnout among 18-24-year-olds has been reported to be at least 20 percentage points lower than among those aged over 65.

In the 2019 general election, for example, turnout was estimated at 47% among 18-24-year-olds, compared with 74% among over-65s (based on pre-election surveys of voters).

This gap has not always been so pronounced. In the 1964 general election, turnout among 18-24-year-olds was estimated at 76.4%, almost identical to the 76.7% recorded for voters aged over 65.

For the 2024 general election, research by the think tank, IPPR, found a strong relationship between the age profile of a constituency and its turnout. Constituencies with a larger share of older residents recorded significantly higher participation than those with younger populations.

The turnout rate was reportedly 64% in constituencies where one-quarter of the population was aged over 64, compared to only 54% in constituencies where only a tenth of residents were over 64.

The pattern was reversed in younger areas. The turnout rate among registered voters was 50% in constituencies where one quarter of the population was aged 25 to 34, rising to 63% in constituencies where only a tenth of the population fell within that age group.

Turnout by Ethnicity

Analysis reveals a gap in participation across different ethnic groups.

A 2021 report found that while 11% of White British people in the UK were not registered to vote, the proportion rose to 14% among people of Indian heritage, 25% among Black African communities, and 39% among EU migrants.

For the 2024 general election, IPPR found that constituencies with a high proportion of people from minority ethnic backgrounds recorded lower turnout than areas with smaller minority ethnic populations. Turnout among registered voters was 54% in constituencies where three in five residents were from minority ethnic backgrounds, compared with 61% in constituencies where just one in ten residents fell into that category.

Turnout by social class

A 2022 report on political inequality found that income, education and homeownership have become stronger predictors of propensity to turn out to vote.

Turnout data for the 2024 general election

According to the House of Commons Library, turnout varied significantly across the constituent nations at the 2024 general election. Voting was highest in Scotland, at 68.1%. East Dunbartonshire – Scotland’s most marginal constituency – also recorded the highest turnout of any seat in the UK, at 80.3%.

By contrast, turnout in Northern Ireland was 61.8%.

In England, the highest constituency-level turnout was recorded in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, at 75.2%. The seat, in the East of England, was a Liberal Democrat gain from the Conservatives.

More broadly, nine of the 10 constituencies with the highest turnout changed hands. Seven of them Liberal Democrat gains from the Conservatives, largely concentrated in the South East and South West. Overall, 12 of the 20 seats with the highest turnout were won by the Liberal Democrats.

The lowest turnout was recorded in Manchester Rusholme, at just 40.0% – the lowest constituency turnout at a general election since South Staffordshire in 2005 (when turnout fell to 37.2%).

17 of the 20 constituencies with the lowest turnout were Labour-held seats; three-quarters of these seats were located in the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, or the West Midlands.

Seats won by the Green Party recorded the highest average turnout, at 68.9%. This was followed by constituencies won or held by the Liberal Democrats, with an average turnout of 67.5 %.

Average turnout in constituencies won by the Conservatives was 7.2 points higher than in those won by Labour.

Voter turnout and mandatory ID

The 2024 general election was the first in which voters across Great Britain were required to show a form of photo identification. This requirement was introduced by the Conservative government under the Elections Act 2022, with the stated aim of protecting the integrity of the ballot and preventing fraud. Those without an existing acceptable form of voter ID can apply online or by post for a free Voter Authority Certificate (VAC).

However, critics argue that the risk of such fraud is low and that the requirement even acts as a form of voter suppression.

According to the Electoral Commission, in the May 2023 local elections in England, 37,000 people arrived without the correct ID and around 14,000 of them (equivalent to 1 in 400 of the total number who turned out to vote) did not return.

The commission found that awareness varied across the population and was lowest among younger age groups (82% for 18 to 24-year-olds), Black and minority ethnic communities (82%) and those who said they never vote in local elections (84%).

In total, 4% of people who said they did not vote in these elections gave an unprompted reason related to the ID rules; 3% said they did not have the necessary ID and 1% said they disagreed with the need to show ID.

For the 2024 general election, the electoral commission found that at least 0.25% of people who tried to vote at a polling station were initially not issued with a ballot paper because they did not have an accepted form of ID. Around two-thirds of these people returned later in the day with an accepted form of ID and were able to vote.

A report by the University of Manchester found that almost 2 million people (5% of people eligible to vote) did not have the right ID to vote in the 2024 general election. The report found that around 1.3% of electors (over half a million people) were turned away or did not show up at all because of voter identification requirements.

The Labour manifesto for the 2024 election featured a commitment to “improve voter registration and address the inconsistencies in voter ID rules that prevent legitimate voters from voting.”

In July 2025, the Labour government published its policy paper on elections. It recommended that bank cards showing the person’s name and digital versions of ID should be added to the list of acceptable ID. It also called for VACs to be made available in digital form.

The policy paper stated: “Evidence consistently shows that at least 2% of people in Great Britain do not hold a form of ID on the current list.

“Certain groups of people are less likely to have accepted forms of photo ID and so are disproportionately impacted by the policy. In addition, around 4% of non-voters at the 2024 general election cited voter ID as a factor in their not turning out to vote

“The needs of future, younger voters and the increasing use of digital documentation must also be considered.”

Other impacts on voter turnout

It has been suggested that an increase in the number of elected institutions and election frequency contributes to “voter fatigue” and therefore lower turnout. Voters may be motivated to participate in one type of election (or in a referendum) while abstaining in others.

External factors such as the weather can further affect voting behaviour. Research suggests that for every centimetre of rainfall on polling day, turnout falls by approximately 0.95 percentage points. More sunshine, meanwhile, increases turnout.

Proposals to increase voter turnout

Electoral reform

It has been argued that the first past the post (FPTP) electoral system suppresses turnout. FPTP creates “safe seats”, where the same party almost always wins. In such constituencies, votes cast for the incumbent beyond what they need to win, or votes cast for losing candidates, can be seen as having little or no impact on the outcome. Such votes are said to be “wasted”.

Together, the phenomena of wasted votes and safe seats are said to fuel voter apathy and disengagement. It is argued that a switch to a more proportional representation system would make more votes count and therefore encourage participation.

Automatic electoral registration

Automatic voter registration could add millions of missing voters to the register, while reducing pressure on electoral administrators. The Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill 2024, introduced by the Welsh government, legislated for automatic voter registration for Senedd and local government elections.

Compulsory voting

A more radical proposal would be to make voting compulsory, as in countries such as Australia and Belgium. In Australia, where turnout consistently exceeds 90%, citizens who fail to vote face a small fine.

Critics, however, argue that the right not to vote is also a fundamental democratic freedom, and that compelling disengaged citizens to participate does not address the underlying causes of political apathy. In particular, imposing sanctions risks infringing on individual liberty and may also disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups.

Online voting

Online voting is currently used in several countries, most notably Estonia, which has offered remote electronic voting for local, national and European elections since 2005. This option is available to the entire electorate, and in 2023, 51% of voters in the Estonian national elections cast their ballots electronically.

Proponents argue that online voting could make political participation more accessible, particularly for those with mobility issues. In Australia, online voting is reportedly permitted on a statewide basis for voters with disabilities.

However, potential drawbacks include the risk of technical failures or cyber-attacks, limited digital literacy among some voters, and areas with poor broadband coverage.

Voting age reform

Lowering the voting age to 16 has been proposed as another way to increase political engagement and, in the longer term, turnout. Turnout among 16- and 17-year-olds was around 75% when they were included in the franchise for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Moreover, 97% of those 16-17 year olds who reported having voted said that they would vote again in future elections and referendums

Those who begin voting at 16 may be more likely to continue participating, potentially increasing turnout over the long term.

Labour’s manifesto for the 2024 election included a commitment to lower the voting age to 16.

The manifesto stated: “We will increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy, by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections.”

Could making voting more convenient increase turnout?

Several proposals have been suggested to make voting more convenient, including moving polling day from Thursday to a weekend, allowing voting over multiple days, and locating polling stations in accessible public spaces such as supermarkets and transport hubs.

Currently, registered electors must either attend their allocated polling station on election day or arrange an absent vote, either by post or via a proxy, where someone votes on their behalf at the polling station.

By convention, UK parliamentary elections are held on a Thursday. A general election occurs 25 working days after parliament is dissolved. The last non-Thursday election was on Tuesday, 27 October 1931.

Before 1918, general elections were held over a fortnight or more, across multiple days. The first single-day election took place in 1918, as required by the Representation of the People Act 1918.

In its 2024 manifesto, Labour promised to encourage greater participation in democracy. As part of this, the government planned flexible voting pilots in some council areas for local elections in England in May 2026 and 2027.

The 2026 pilots will trial voting at any polling station within a local authority area, voting hubs (central polling stations in busy locations in addition to allocated polling stations), mobile polling stations, and early in-person voting at polling stations or hubs opened before the official polling day.

The government stated that these options were “intended to make voting more accessible in terms of time and location, helping electors participate in a way that fits more easily into their lives.”

The government added: “By offering greater choice and convenience, the pilots aim to support a more positive voting experience and encourage repeat engagement.”

The Representation of the People Act 2000 allowed the secretary of state to authorise pilot schemes for elections, including modifications to the usual timetable. The borough of Watford ran a series of pilot innovations in 2000, including weekend voting, a mobile polling facility, early voting, and freepost postal voting.

The evaluation by Steven Lake for the Association of Electoral Administrators concluded that convenience was the key factor for voters, with widespread support for making voting as easy as possible. He concluded that “weekend voting afforded an opportunity to vote in person that was not otherwise available”.

The overall turnout for the election was only 26.99%.

A 2002 consultation on combining local and European elections also sought views on weekend voting, noting the need to accommodate religious observance.

The government affirmed that if weekend voting for any election ever became part of the national arrangements it would be necessary to ensure that it took place on both days “in order to accommodate the needs for religious observance of members of the Jewish and Christian communities, or of any other group which might be affected who could not, or would not wish to, vote on a Saturday or a Sunday respectively.”

The 2007 policy paper The Governance of Britain committed the government to consulting on moving elections from Thursday to the weekend.

It stated: “The government will… consult local authorities and others on the merits of moving the voting day for general and/or local elections from Thursday to the weekend, and on the best way to do this. Moving to weekends for either general or local elections would require legislation.

“The consultation will take into account the needs of religious groups, to ensure that those with religious objections to voting on a Saturday or Sunday have an opportunity to vote in a way that is consistent with their beliefs.

“It will also consider whether weekend voting would be more costly than the current arrangements or if there might be a negative impact on turnout for local elections. This might be a particular issue if local and general elections were held close together but on separate days. These proposals would not affect elections to the devolved legislatures.”

In 2010, the Ministry of Justice concluded that, given the complex issues and lack of clear evidence that weekend voting would significantly increase turnout, the government would not implement it.

The 2010-2024 Conservative government was generally opposed to weekend voting.

Election turnout: international comparisons

• In Germany, turnout for the 2025 federal election was 82.5%.
• In Canada, turnout in the 2025 federal election was 69.5%.
• In Australia, where voting is compulsory, turnout for the 2025 federal election was 90.7%.
• In the United States, turnout for the 2024 presidential election was 64.1%.
• In France, turnout in the second round of the 2022 presidential election was 72%.

UK referendum turnout (1973-2016)

• 1973 — Northern Ireland: Border poll on remaining in UK | Turnout: 58.6% | Result: Yes (Boycotted)
• 1975 — UK-Wide: EC Membership | Turnout: 64.6% | Result: Yes
• 1979 — Scotland: Devolution| Turnout: 63.7% | Result: Yes* (Failed threshold of “40% rule”)
• 1979 — Wales: Devolution | Turnout: 58.8% | Result: No
• 1997 — Scotland: Devolution | Turnout: 60.2% | Result: Yes
• 1997 — Wales: Devolution | Turnout: 50.2% | Result: Yes
• 1998 — London: Greater London Authority | Turnout: 34.1% | Result: Yes
• 1998 — Northern Ireland: Good Friday Agreement | Turnout: 81.1% | Result: Yes
• 2004 — North East England: Regional Assembly | Turnout: 47.7% | Result: No
• 2011 — Wales: Devolved powers | Turnout: 35.6% | Result: Yes
• 2011 — UK-Wide: Alternative vote (AV) | Turnout: 42.2% | Result: No
• 2014 — Scotland: Independence | Turnout: 84.6% | Result: No
• 2016 — UK-Wide: EU Membership (Brexit) | Turnout: 72.2% | Result: Leave