Basic Voting Patterns at a Post-War Election: 1966

  • William L. Miller


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.


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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Census 1966: United Kingdom General and Parliamentary Constituency Tables, HMSO, 1969.Google Scholar
  2. 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. 3.
    Butler and Stokes, p. 90.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Butler and Stokes, p. 460.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Butler and Stokes, p. 461.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butler and Stokes, p. 459.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Butler and Stokes, p. 465.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Butler and Stokes, p. 461–462.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Butler and Stokes, p. 315.Google Scholar
  10. 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. 11.
    Butler and Stokes, p. 72, table 4.2.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Butler and Stokes, p. 72, table 4.3. See also the footnote on p. 75.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Compare Butler and Stokes p. 72 of 2nd Edition with p. 70 of 1st Edition.Google Scholar
  14. 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. 15.
    Butler and Stokes, p. 70.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rose, p. 510.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taylor, p. 129.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rose, p. 505.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Butler and Stokes, p. 101.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Butler and Stokes, p. 203.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 22.
    Miller, Raab and Britto, p. 392.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    Butler and Stokes, pp. 134–135.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    R. Putnam, Political Attitudes and the Local Community, Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., 1966, v. 50, pp. 640–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 25.
    B. Berelson, P. F. Lazarsfeld and W. N. McPhee, Voting, Chicago Univ. Press: Chicago, 1954.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 29.
    A. E. Hoerl and R. W. Kennard, Ridge Regression: Biased Estimation for Nonorthogonal Problems, Technometrics, v. 12, 1970, pp. 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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

Authors and Affiliations

  • William L. Miller

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations