The results: How Britain voted

Parliamentary Affairs

Volumn 63, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 588-606

  Denver, David ^a  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957166032     PISSN: 00312290     EISSN: 14602482     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pa/gsq017     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Local election data are taken from the series of Local Elections Handbooks produced by C. Rallings and M. Thrasher of the Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre, University of Plymouth.
2. 'Notional' 2005 results in constituencies with changed boundaries are taken from C. Rallings and M. Thrasher, Media Guide to the New Parliamentary Constituencies, Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre, University of Plymouth, 2007.
3. See, for example, D. Denver, G. Hands and I MacAllister, 'The Electoral Impact of Constituency Campaigning in Britain, 1992-2001', Political Studies, 52, 2004, 289-306.
4. Seats were classified as 'safe' or 'hopeless' where the relevant majority was more than 15%, 'potentially at risk' or 'possible gain' where it was between 5 and 15% and 'marginally held' or 'probable gain' where it was less than 5%.
5. All turnout figures are provisional and based on valid votes cast (excluding, therefore, voters who did vote in the election but whose ballots-for whatever reason-were rejected as invalid). For the most part, numbers of rejected votes are small but it is worth noting that in the Buckingham constituency of the Speaker, no fewer than 1067 ballots were rejected.
6. The four with more significant turnout declines form two odd small clusters-Blaenau Gwent (24.3) and Rhondda (21.5) on the one hand and Dorset West (21.8) and Dorset South (21.3) on the other.
7. See H. Clarke, D. Sanders, M. Stewart and P. Whiteley, Performance Politics and the British Voter, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
8. D. Denver, 'The Results: How Britain Voted' in A. Geddes and J. Tonge (eds), Britain Decides, Palgrave, 2005.