¹ Distribution of First-Preference Votes and Seats between Parties in 1969 and 1973

² Several works focus on this particular factor. See, for example Rae, Douglas, The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970)Google Scholar; and Kuklinski, James, ‘Cumulative Plurality Voting: An Analysis of Illinois’ Unique Electoral System’, Western Political Quarterly, XXVI (1973),726–46.Google Scholar

³ There is no great body of material dealing with the Irish party system. Perhaps the most useful work is also the most recent. See Manning, Maurice, Irish Political Parties (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1972).Google Scholar

⁴ This may be clearly demonstrated by the results of the British general election of February 1974 in which the Liberals received nearly 20 per cent of the total vote but only 2–2 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Had the Liberal vote been spread less evenly over the country, as, for example the Ulster Unionist and Scottish Nationalist votes were, the Liberals might have fared better.

⁵ For a detailed description of the Irish electoral system, see Chubb, Basil, The Government and Politics of Ireland (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 349–52.Google Scholar See also Lakeman, Enid, ‘The Irish Voter - 1968 Pattern’, Parliamentary Affairs, XXII (1968–1969), 170–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ To determine the used vote, the following formula may be used: Where S is the numbers of seats to be filled, R is the total of valid votes cast in the constituency, and Q is the quota,

⁷ In the British election it may have been advantageous to Liberal voters to cast their votes for their second choice candidate if they understood that their first choice candidate could not win. A similar problem faced French voters in the run-off election for the National Assembly in 1973. Parties which had little chance of winning urged their supporters to vote for opposition parties with similar programmes in order to keep other parties from winning. We shall consider this in the conclusion.

⁸ See Crotty, William J., ‘Party Effort and its Impact on the Vote’, American Political Science Review, LXV (1971), 439–50, p. 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Even the study of mobilization is relatively limited, but there are some pertinent studies which include Katz, D. and Eldersveld, S. J., ‘The Impact of Local Party Activity upon the Electorate’, Public Opinion Quarterly, XXV (1961), 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cutright, P. and Rossi, P., ‘Grass Roots Politicians and the Vote’, American Sociological Review, XXIII (1958), 171–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBochel, J. M. and Denver, D. T., ‘Canvassing, Turnout and Party Support: An Experiment’, British Journal of Political Science, I (1971), 257–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Valen, H. and Katz, D., Political Parties in Norway (Oslo: Universitetforlaget, 1964).Google Scholar

⁹ See, for example, some of the standard works in the voting area: Bereison, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Mcphee, William N., Voting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954)Google Scholar, and Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960).Google Scholar

¹⁰ The number of orders in which candidates can be eliminated is a factorial of the number of candidates running. As the number of candidates increases the number of possible orders of eliminations increases as a multiple of the number of candidates (i.e., 5!=5 x 4! and 4!=4 x 3! etc.).

¹¹ See, for example, Bax, Mart, Harpstrings and Confessions: An Anthropological Study of Politics in Rural Ireland (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 1973)Google Scholar; also, Cohan, A. S., The Irish Political Elite (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1972).Google Scholar

¹² The fusion coalition is used in countries such as Norway and Israel.

¹³ This may be demonstrated in the following manner:

¹⁴ For an interesting discussion of the combination of ‘parties’ and possible outcomes of electoral situations in which ‘parties’ co-operate see Farquharson, R., Theory of Voting (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1969).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Mclnerney, Michael, report in the Irish Times, 7 February 1972.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Mclnerney, , Irish Times, 8 February 1973.Google Scholar

¹⁷ While there are forty-two constituencies, we have used forty in the analysis. The two that have been eliminated are Donegal-Leitrim in which the speaker of the Dail held one of the three seats to be filled and was returned automatically, and Donegal Northeast, where the picture was somewhat confused due to the candidacy of Neil Blaney, former Minister in the Fianna Fail Government who was running as an Independent Fianna Fail candidate. We have compared 1973 with 1969 only because, as a result of redistricting of the constituencies prior to 1969, the constituencies are directly comparable only for those two elections.

¹⁸ The figures for Labour refer only to those constituencies in which they ran candidates. In 1969 we have included forty constituencies while in 1973 the figures are for thirty-five constituencies. Where direct comparisons are made, the same thirty-five constituencies are used for both 1969 and 1973.

¹⁹ Using a paired-T test, the transfers received by Fianna Fail declined significantly (at the .025 level); the change in the Fine Gael transfers is not significant; transfers received by Labour increased significantly (at the .025 level).

²⁰ Fine Gael’s allocations to Fianna Fail did not change significantly but Labour’s allocation decreased significantly (at the ooi level). Fianna Fail transfers to Fine Gael did not change significantly but Labour's increased (at the .001 level). Fianna Fail’s allocation to Labour did not decrease significantly but Fine Gael’s transfers increased significantly (at the .10 level).

²¹ Both Fine Gael’s and Labour’s transfers increased significantly (at the .01 and .001 levels respectively), but Fianna Fail’s transfers did not change.

²² Fianna Fail’s unused transfers decreased significantly (at the .10 level). There was no significant change for Fine Gael but Labour’s unused transfers decreased significantly (at the .01 level).