IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v34y2002i7p1303-1317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Electoral Success, Electoral Bias, and Labour Hegemony: Electoral System Effects in English Metropolitan Boroughs

Author

Listed:
  • Ron Johnston

    (School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1SS, England)

  • Colin Rallings
  • Michael Thrasher

Abstract

Since their first elections in 1973, the thirty-six metropolitan borough councils in England's six metropolitan counties have been dominated by the Labour Party. In part, this domination reflects the normal exaggerative features of the first-past-the-post electoral system: the largest party in terms of vote share tends to get a diproportionate share of the seats. As well as an exaggeration effect, however, that electoral system is also prone to produce biased outcomes—in that with the same share of the votes cast one party tends to perform much better than the other. This has been the case in the English metropolitan boroughs throughout their existence, with consistent—and often very substantial—pro-Labour biases. As well as indicating the extent of those biases, this paper also decomposes them and shows to what extent Labour's significant electoral advantage there is a function of variations in ward size, turnout, the pattern of voting for the Liberal Democrats, and the efficiency of its own vote distribution relative to that for the Conservatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Ron Johnston & Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher, 2002. "Electoral Success, Electoral Bias, and Labour Hegemony: Electoral System Effects in English Metropolitan Boroughs," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 34(7), pages 1303-1317, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:34:y:2002:i:7:p:1303-1317
    DOI: 10.1068/a3535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a3535
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a3535?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Timothy Besley & Ian Preston, 2007. "Electoral Bias and Policy Choice: Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(4), pages 1473-1510.
    2. Iain McLean & Alistair McMillan & Dennis Leech, 2005. "Duverger's Law, Penrose's Power Index and the Unity of the UK," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53(3), pages 457-476, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:34:y:2002:i:7:p:1303-1317. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.