Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T07:40:21.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turnout and Marginality in Local Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

K. Newton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A certain amount of evidence has accumulated in the past few years to show that local election turnout is high in marginal wards. A number of different sources make the point, but the most complete evidence is presented in a recent issue of Political Studies by Fletcher who summarizes the prevailing view when he writes that ‘there was a very strong inverse correlation between the size of the majority in a contest and turnout. The smaller the margin between the victorious candidate and his closest opponent, the higher the proportion of electors voting was likely to have been.’ In an earlier report it was suggested that the closeness of party conflict is the overwhelming influence on turnout. Only three writers fail to discover a high poll in marginal wards.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , April 1972 , pp. 251 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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

1 PEP, ‘Active Democracy — a Local Election’, Planning XIII (1947), No. 261, p. 9Google Scholar; Sharpe, L. J., A Metropolis Votes (London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 1962), pp. 90–1Google Scholar; Hampton, W., ‘The Electoral Response to a Multi-Vote Ballot’, Political Studies, XVI (1968), 266–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sharpe, L. J., Voting in Cities (London: Macmillan, 1967), pp. 139–40, 206, 298–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Fletcher, P., ‘An Explanation of Variations in “Turnout” in Local Elections’, Political Studies, XVII (1969), 495–502, p. 498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Fletcher, P., ‘The Results Analysed’, in Sharpe, Voting in Cities, pp. 290–328.Google Scholar

4 Heclo, H., The Recruitment of Manchester City Councillors, 1964–1965 (unpublished M.A. Dissertation, University of Manchester, 1966), p. 224Google Scholar; Bealey, F., et al. , Constituency Politics (London: Faber and Faber, 1965), pp. 224–6Google Scholar; Smith, B. C., in Sharpe, Voting in Cities, pp. 209–31.Google Scholar

5 Michael Steed kindly supplied the swing figures. I am most grateful to Mr Andrew McKay for calculating the Birmingham figures in the tables that follow.

6 Cf. Fletcher, , in Sharpe, Voting in Cities, pp. 295–8.Google Scholar

7 Morris, D. S. and Newton, K., ‘Marginal Wards and Social Class’, British Journal of Political Science, I (1971), 503–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Only one other writer distinguishes between safe Conservative and safe Labour wards and this produces very similar figures — Hampton, ‘The Electoral Response’.

9 Davies, P. and Newton, K., An Aggregate Data Analysis of Party Voting in Local Elections (University of Birmingham, Faculty of Commerce and Social Science Discussion Paper F. 12, 1971).Google Scholar

10 Steed, Michael shows that marginal parliamentary constituencies generally increase their turnout — The British General Election 1966 (London: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 284–5.Google Scholar