IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v27y1997i03p453-472_22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Redistricting and Electoral Bias in Great Britain

Author

Listed:
  • ROSSITER, D. J.
  • JOHNSTON, R. J.
  • PATTIE, C. J.

Abstract

One of the salient characteristics of the British first-past-the-post electoral system is the amount of bias which it produces. Parties with large percentages of the votes (i.e. 25 or greater) almost invariably get even larger percentage shares of the parliamentary seats, whereas those with smaller vote percentages tend to get very few seats. That bias largely reflects the superimposition of a geography of constituency boundaries on the geographies of party support, so that different sets of constituencies can produce different levels and even directions of bias, as is clearly illustrated in studies using US data. See, for example, R. L. Morrill, ‘Ideal and Reality in Reapportionment’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 63 (1973), 463–77. More generally on bias in electoral systems, see D. W. Rae, The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 2nd edn (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971); and R. Taagepera and M. S. Shugart, Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989).

Suggested Citation

  • Rossiter, D. J. & Johnston, R. J. & Pattie, C. J., 1997. "Redistricting and Electoral Bias in Great Britain," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 453-472, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:27:y:1997:i:03:p:453-472_22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123497220211/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Haman, 2021. "Recall Elections: A Tool of Accountability? Evidence from Peru," Revista Desarrollo y Sociedad, Universidad de los Andes,Facultad de Economía, CEDE, vol. 87(3), March.
    2. Colin Railings & Ron Johnston & Michael Thrasher, 2004. "Equalising Votes but Enabling Bias: The Electoral Impact of the 1977 and 1999 Ward Boundary Reviews in London," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(7), pages 1367-1393, June.

    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:cup:bjposi:v:27:y:1997:i:03:p:453-472_22. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    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.