Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:28:20.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring Electoral Change in Three-Party Systems: An Alternative to Swing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

D. F. L. Dorling ,
C. J. Pattie  and
R. J. Johnston
D. F. L. Dorling
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
C. J. Pattie
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
R. J. Johnston
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent paper in this journal, Butler and Van Peek (1990) advocated analyzing patterns of electoral change in the USA with the swing statistic—the average change in the share of the vote won by two parties contesting successive elections. The generality of their case was countered by Rose (1991), who showed that most liberal democracies do not have two-party systems; thus the swing statistic, which involves comparing the performance of two parties only, conceals more than it reveals of the pattern of electoral change in most situations. His preference was for the separate study of the “ups and downs” of each party.

In a riposte to Rose, Gibson (1992) argued for the superiority of swing over the single party measures. His case was built on a curious argument, however. On the basis of goodness-of-fit statistics, he showed that a combination of independent variables relating to the characteristics of constituencies in Greater London predicted variations in swing better than they predicted variations in the performance of individual parties. Such analyses in no way indicate the superiority of swing as a measure of electoral change, however; they merely demonstrate that swing is more closely correlated to some independent variables than is another measure of change. Gibson's argument is a case of a spurious correlation.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 737 - 741
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Butler, D. E. and van Beek, S. D. 1990. “Why Not Swing? Measuring Electoral Change.” PS: Political Science & Politics 23: 178–83.Google Scholar
Dorling, D. F. L. 1992. “Stretching Space and Splicing Time: From Cartographic Animation to Interactive Visualization.” Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 19: 215–27, 267–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. G. 1992. “Measuring Electoral Change: Look Before You Abandon Swing.” PS: Political Science & Politics 25: 195–98.Google Scholar
Gudgin, G. and Taylor, P. J. 1979. Seats, Votes and the Spatial Organization of Elections. London: Pion.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. J. 1983. “Spatial Continuity and Individual Variability.” Electoral Studies 2: 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R. J. and Pattie, C. J.. 1991. “Tactical Voting in Great Britain in 1983 and 1987: An Alternative Approach.” British Journal of Political Science 21: 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R. J. and Pattie, C. J.. 1992a. “Unemployment, the Poll Tax, and the British General Election of 1992.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 10: 467–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R. J. and Pattie, C. J.. 1992b. “Is the See-Saw Tipping Back? The End of Thatcherism and Changing Voting Patterns in Great Britain 1979–92.” Environment and Planning A 24: 1491–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R. J., Pattie, C. J. and Allsopp, J. G. 1988. A Nation Dividing? London: Longman.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. J., Pattie, C. J. and Russell, A. T.. 1993. “Dealignment, Spatial Polarisation and Economic Voting: An Exploration of Recent Trends in British Voting Behaviour.” European Journal of Political Research 23: 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, W. L. 1977. Electoral Dynamics in Britain since 1921. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, R. 1991. “The Ups and Downs of Elections, or Look Before You Swing.” PS: Political Science & Politics 24: 29–33.Google Scholar
Stray, S. and Upton, G. J. G.. 1989. “Triangles and Triads.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 40: 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upton, G. J. G. 1976. “The Diagrammatic Representation of Three-Party Contests.” Political Studies 24: 448–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upton, G. J. G. 1989. “The Components of Voting Change in England 1983–1987.” Electoral Studies 8: 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upton, G. J. G. 1991. “Displaying Election Results.” Political Geography Quarterly 10: 200–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar