bias in the electoral system since 1945

[nodealbrexiteer]

Having looked quite a bit into this it's been interesting to see how it's changed between the 2 main parties over the years-below are the figures of which party would have been the largest party of the 2 at an even division of the vote assuming the votes were toed by a uniform swing-the figures are from the Nuffield series where possible but the alternative ones in brackets are mainly from a book called From Votes to Seats.



1945:Lab 54(assuming you ignore the university seats)

1950: Con 35 (51)

1951:No figure given specifically in the Nuffield book (Con 59).

1955:No figure given specifically in the Nuffield book (Con 34I need to check figure but about this)

1959:Con 25 (Con 51)

1964:Con 1 (Con 24)

1966:Lab 22(Con 3)

1970:Lab but no figure specifically given in the Nuffield book(Lab 2)

February 1974:Lab but no figure specifically given in the Nuffield book(Lab-I need to check figure but about 18 if I remember correctly)

October 1974:Con 9 (Con 3)

1979:Lab 26

1983:Con but no specific figure given in Nuffield study (Con 5)

1987:Con 4(Con 6)

1992:Lab 38

1997:Lab 80(Lab 82)

2001:Lab 140

2005:Lab 111

2010:Lab 51

2015:Con 46

2017:Con 12

[The Bishop]

Certainly gives the lie to the claim still being made *now* that our constituency boundaries have an automatic pro-Labour bias.

2001 really was a crazily distorted outcome though, wasn't it?

[andrewp]

Oct 5, 2019 9:13:43 GMT The Bishop said:

Certainly gives the lie to the claim still being made *now* that our constituency boundaries have an automatic pro-Labour bias.

2001 really was a crazily distorted outcome though, wasn't it?

I’m surprised 2005 wasn’t more . Majority of 66 on 36% and only a 3% lead.

[The Bishop]

Tories actually performed above average in the marginals come that election, which shows how ridiculous 2001 was.

[John Chanin]

The point about 1997 and 2001 (and to a lesser extent 2005) was that there was a strong anyone but the Conservatives vote, that piled in behind the best placed non-Conservative. If this happens in a FPTP election you can get apparently very distorted results - part of the electoral system giving a huge bonus to the party with a plurality. This had dissipated by 2010, with a tired Labour government, a resurgent Liberal party, and the Conservatives detoxified by Cameron.

[nodealbrexiteer]

As we know the factors that can help a party include distributing the vote efficiently so not winning with 2 many oversized majorities and losing big so less votes are wasted in losing. Also concentrating your vote in seats where less votes are cast-either due to population movements,low turnouts or smaller electorates allowed in law like in Scotland/Wales.The effect of third party votes cut down the effective size of constituencies too.Another factor that can work against you if is a lot of 3rd party wins are at your expense(see SNP landslide 2015!).


In 2001 Labour again overperformed in the key marginals as in 1992 and 1997 plus the turnout difference between Lab and Con held seats widened again and an increase in Lib Dem votes/other hard left parties in Lab seats helped to cut the effective size of their seats further plus due to the lack of the Referendum votes in Con held seats/decline of other Eurosceptic candidates the 3rd party votes fell in Con seats hence the high level of bias in this election

[nodealbrexiteer]

to give some examples in more detail from 1987 onwards of the working of the system:
1987:The Con lead needed for a bare majority was 4.0% and Lab 4.2%
1992:Con lead for a majority 6.6%(6.0% on notional results),Lab just 0.6%(1.4% notionals) and LAb to draw level on seats at a Con lead of 3.0%(I'd have to check the figure for the notionals)
1997:Lab lead for bare majority a deficit of 1.4%,Con 10.0% and Con lead of 6.7% or 6.6% just to draw level in seats with Lab

MORE TO FOLLOW...!

[john07]

Oct 4, 2019 13:30:40 GMT nodealbrexiteer said:

Having looked quite a bit into this it's been interesting to see how it's changed between the 2 main parties over the years-below are the figures of which party would have been the largest party of the 2 at an even division of the vote assuming the votes were toed by a uniform swing-the figures are from the Nuffield series where possible but the alternative ones in brackets are mainly from a book called From Votes to Seats.



1945:Lab 54(assuming you ignore the university seats)

1950: Con 35 (51)

1951:No figure given specifically in the Nuffield book (Con 59).

1955:No figure given specifically in the Nuffield book (Con 34I need to check figure but about this)

1959:Con 25 (Con 51)

1964:Con 1 (Con 24)

1966:Lab 22(Con 3)

1970:Lab but no figure specifically given in the Nuffield book(Lab 2)

February 1974:Lab but no figure specifically given in the Nuffield book(Lab-I need to check figure but about 18 if I remember correctly)

October 1974:Con 9 (Con 3)

1979:Lab 26

1983:Con but no specific figure given in Nuffield study (Con 5)

1987:Con 4(Con 6)

1992:Lab 38

1997:Lab 80(Lab 82)

2001:Lab 140

2005:Lab 111

2010:Lab 51

2015:Con 46

2017:Con 12

The whole thing looks a crock of gibberish to me.

For example, in 1951, Labour had a 100,000 more votes that the Conservatives but the latter had an overall majority in Parliament. Is that an example of pro-Labour bias in the electoral system?

[nodealbrexiteer]

Oct 6, 2019 14:04:47 GMT john07 said:

Oct 4, 2019 13:30:40 GMT nodealbrexiteer said:

Having looked quite a bit into this it's been interesting to see how it's changed between the 2 main parties over the years-below are the figures of which party would have been the largest party of the 2 at an even division of the vote assuming the votes were toed by a uniform swing-the figures are from the Nuffield series where possible but the alternative ones in brackets are mainly from a book called From Votes to Seats.



1945:Lab 54(assuming you ignore the university seats)

1950: Con 35 (51)

1951:No figure given specifically in the Nuffield book (Con 59).

1955:No figure given specifically in the Nuffield book (Con 34I need to check figure but about this)

1959:Con 25 (Con 51)

1964:Con 1 (Con 24)

1966:Lab 22(Con 3)

1970:Lab but no figure specifically given in the Nuffield book(Lab 2)

February 1974:Lab but no figure specifically given in the Nuffield book(Lab-I need to check figure but about 18 if I remember correctly)

October 1974:Con 9 (Con 3)

1979:Lab 26

1983:Con but no specific figure given in Nuffield study (Con 5)

1987:Con 4(Con 6)

1992:Lab 38

1997:Lab 80(Lab 82)

2001:Lab 140

2005:Lab 111

2010:Lab 51

2015:Con 46

2017:Con 12

The whole thing looks a crock of gibberish to me.

For example, in 1951, Labour had a 100,000 more votes that the Conservatives but the latter had an overall majority in Parliament. Is that an example of pro-Labour bias in the electoral system?

Err that would be anti Labour bias-not sure which bit was gibberish? 

[nodealbrexiteer]

2001:Lab lead for bare majority actually a deficit of 3.7% or 3.9%(3.1% on notional 2001),Con lead needed for bare majority 11.5%(about 11.1% on notional).8.3% Con lead to draw level on seats.(plus Lab lead of 129 on equal votes on notionals)

2005:Lab lead for bare majority actually a deficit of 0.8%(possibly 1.0%),Con lead for bare majority 11.8% and Con lead of 6.4 % to draw level with Lab on seats.(notionals to follow when I can find them)

2010:Con lead for bare majority 11.2% and 4.1% just to be largest party.Lab lead for bare majority 2.7%.

2015:Con lead for bare majority 5.8%,Lab lead for bare majority 12.5% and 3.7% Lab lead needed to draw level on seats.

2017:Con lead for bare majority 3.1%,Lab lead for bare majority 7.3% and 0.7% Lab lead needed to draw level on seats




NOTE:For 1992 the notionals had a Lab lead of 33 seats (322 to 289) on equal votes.

[AdminSTB]

I recall being alarmed that the Tories needed an 11.5% uniform swing according to Peter Snow's swingometer, IIRC, to get an overall majority after the 1997 election, given that the UNS to Labour in 1997 had only been 10%.
But of course, the swings tend to be larger in marginal seats when there is a change of government. 1997 and 2010 were not exceptions to this general rule.

[nodealbrexiteer]

Oct 8, 2019 17:56:08 GMT AdminSTB said:

I recall being alarmed that the Tories needed an 11.5% uniform swing according to Peter Snow's swingometer, IIRC, to get an overall majority after the 1997 election, given that the UNS to Labour in 1997 had only been 10%.
But of course, the swings tend to be larger in marginal seats when there is a change of government. 1997 and 2010 were not exceptions to this general rule.

Yes it looked like a horrendously large mountain to climb. Could 1979 be the post war exception to the rule about larger swings in marginal seats in change of government elections?

[The Bishop]

What was 1964 like in that regard?

[hullenedge]

Snippets from Hugh Berrington's 1964 GE article:-













Pro-Tory bias in the electoral system had almost disappeared. The Liberal performance had hurt Labour. The 'myth' that a Liberal vote hurt the Tories was not true.

[nodealbrexiteer]

Oct 9, 2019 10:57:59 GMT The Bishop said:

What was 1964 like in that regard?

Labour did slightly better than uniform swing according to the appendix in the Nuffield study but would have still been largest party just and slightly short of a majority

[nodealbrexiteer]

Oct 9, 2019 11:35:38 GMT hullenedge said:

Snippets from Hugh Berrington's 1964 GE article:-













Pro-Tory bias in the electoral system had almost disappeared. The Liberal performance had hurt Labour. The 'myth' that a Liberal vote hurt the Tories was not true.

Can I ask where this Berrington article was from please? Thanks-you're brilliant in this sort of stuff!!

[The Bishop]

Prof Berrington was the head of politics at Newcastle University when I did that subject there, a genuinely nice guy. He died in 2010.

[hullenedge]

Hugh Berrington wrote some wonderful articles (some on Jstor and other academic sites). Here's the article based upon on his lecture to a group of Conservatives (not strictly about bias in the electoral system but pertinent to the 1966 result):-

[nodealbrexiteer]

Wow that's brilliant again,thank you-I love JSTOR for this sort of stuff!

[john07]

I mixed this writer up with Hugh Berringer, the Deputy Sheriff of Shrewsbury in the Cadfael novels.