Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T23:51:45.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ups and Downs of Elections, or Look Before You Swing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Richard Rose
Richard Rose*
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Why not use swing as a measure of electoral change in the United States? ask David Butler and Stephen D. Van Beek in PS (1990). This article shows why one should look before one swings, for the conditions of meaningful use are so limiting that swing is unsuited for the great majority of countries, including many elections in the United States and Britain. Instead of swing, it is better to employ a more precise and more robust measure of the ups and downs of parties.

Definition

Swing is the average of the change in the share of the vote won by two parties contesting an election. If party A gains 5 percent of the vote between election x and election y, and party B loses 5 percent, then there is a swing of 5 percentage points from B to A. By definition, swing is a measure of movement between two, and only two parties. In an attempt to control for the effect of other parties, the two-party measure of swing treats the votes for parties A and B as equal to 100 percent of the total vote, whatever the share of the vote taken by one or more “third” parties.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 29 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1991

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.)

Footnotes

*

Useful comments on an earlier draft were made by Ivor Crewe and W. L. Miller.

References

Butler, David. 1955. The British General Election of 1955. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Butler, David, and Stokes, Donald. 1969. Political Change in Britain. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Butler, David and Van Beek, Stephen D., 1990. “Why Not Swing? Measuring Electoral Changes,” PS, 23: 178–84.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McAllister, Ian and Rose, Richard. 1984. The Nationwide Competition for Votes. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Mackie, Thomas T., and Rose, Richard. 1991. The International Almanac of Electoral History. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 3rd edition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, W. L., 1981. The End of British Politics? Scots and English Political Behaviour. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard. 1989. Politics in England. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman Little Brown, 5th edition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Richard and McAllister, Ian. 1990. The Loyalties of Voters: a Lifetime Learning Model. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard and Mackie, Thomas T. 1983. “Incumbency in Government: Liability or Asset?” in Daalder, Hans and Mair, P., eds., Western European Party Systems. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications, 115–38.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1979. “Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations.” American Economic Review 69, 4: 493–513.Google Scholar