Electoral Dynamics in Britain since 1918 pp 27-66 | Cite as

# Basic Voting Patterns at a Post-War Election: 1966

Chapter

## Abstract

The British party system was at its simplest in 1951 and little had changed by 1966 when over 90% of voters chose Labour or Conservative. 76% of the register at this election voted out of a possible 93% for an election in March. So while something must be said about Liberal voting and turnout it is reasonable to simplify our analysis by concentrating on the Labour versus Conservative division of the vote.

## Keywords

Middle Class Trade Union Election Study Individual Level Effect Party Support
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.
*Census 1966: United Kingdom General and Parliamentary Constituency Tables*, HMSO, 1969.Google Scholar - 2.D. Butler and D. Stokes,
*Political Change in Britain: the Evolution of Electoral Choice*, Macmillan: London, 1974 (2nd Edit). All further references are to the 2nd edition unless specifically to the contrary.Google Scholar - 3.Butler and Stokes, p. 90.Google Scholar
- 4.Butler and Stokes, p. 460.Google Scholar
- 5.Butler and Stokes, p. 461.Google Scholar
- 6.Butler and Stokes, p. 459.Google Scholar
- 7.Butler and Stokes, p. 465.Google Scholar
- 8.Butler and Stokes, p. 461–462.Google Scholar
- 9.Butler and Stokes, p. 315.Google Scholar
- 10.There is a large and growing literature advocating the analysis of survey cross tabulations in terms of relative odds ratios instead of percentage differences. Chiefly for simplicity that approach is not used here despite its technical advantages. See, for example, L. A. Goodman, Causal Analysis of Data from Panel Studies and Other Kinds of Surveys,
*Amer. J. Sociol.*, 1973, v. 78, p. 1135–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.Butler and Stokes, p. 72, table 4.2.Google Scholar
- 12.Butler and Stokes, p. 72, table 4.3. See also the footnote on p. 75.Google Scholar
- 13.Compare Butler and Stokes p. 72 of 2nd Edition with p. 70 of 1st Edition.Google Scholar
- 14.R. Rose, Britain: Simple Abstractions and Complex Realities, in R. Rose, (ed),
*Comparative Electoral Behaviour*, Free Press: New York, 1974, p. 501.Google Scholar - 15.Butler and Stokes, p. 70.Google Scholar
- 16.Rose, p. 510.Google Scholar
- 17.Taylor, p. 129.Google Scholar
- 18.Rose, p. 505.Google Scholar
- 19.Butler and Stokes, p. 101.Google Scholar
- 20.Butler and Stokes, p. 203.Google Scholar
- 21.See L. A. Goodman, Some Alternatives to Ecological Correlation,
*Amer. J. Sociol.*, 1959, v. 64, pp. 610–625 for this basic but often misleading result. For a fuller discussion in the context of British votingCrossRefGoogle Scholar - see W. L. Miller, G. Raab and K. Britto, Voting Research and the Population Census 1918–71: Surrogate Data for Constituency Analyses,
*J. Roy. Stat. Soc*, Series A, 1974, v. 137, pp. 384–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 22.Miller, Raab and Britto, p. 392.Google Scholar
- 23.Butler and Stokes, pp. 134–135.Google Scholar
- 24.R. Putnam, Political Attitudes and the Local Community,
*Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.*, 1966, v. 50, pp. 640–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 25.B. Berelson, P. F. Lazarsfeld and W. N. McPhee,
*Voting*, Chicago Univ. Press: Chicago, 1954.Google Scholar - 26.A. Przeworski and G. A. D. Soares. Theories in Search of a Curve: A Contextual Interpretation of Left Vote,
*Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.*, v. 65, 1971, pp. 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 27.D. R. Segal and M. W. Meyer, The Social Context of Political Partisanship, pp. 217–232 but especially p. 223 in M. Dogan and S. Rokkan, eds.,
*Quantitative Ecological Analysis in the Social Sciences*, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1969.Google Scholar - 28.See, for example, J. K. Linsey, A Comparison of Additive and Multiplicative Models for Qualitative Data,
*Quality and Quantity*, v. 9, 1975, pp. 43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar - or L. A. Goodman, The Relationship between Modified and Usual Multiple Regression Approaches to the Analysis of Dichotomous Variables, in D. R. Heise, ed,
*Sociological Methodology*1976, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 1975.Google Scholar - 29.A. E. Hoerl and R. W. Kennard, Ridge Regression: Biased Estimation for Nonorthogonal Problems,
*Technometrics*, v. 12, 1970, pp. 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 30.For a more political definition of marginality and its relationship to turnout see D. T. Denver and H. T. G. Hands, Marginality and Turnout in British General Elections,
*Brit. J. Pol. Sci.*, v. 4, 1974, pp. 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

© William L. Miller 1977