At the risk of stating the obvious, it is no coincidence that those constituencies with the largest turnout tended to be the ones which were liable to produce the closest results. Put another way, key marginals were the seats which usually provoked most attention from the competing parties, and this then translated itself into higher than average voter turnout figures. Carmarthen in February 1974 emphatically confirms this.
By the same token, it is frequently the case that so-called 'safe seats' in which the result is anticipated as being a walkover for one of the candidates are the constituencies where voter turnout is likely to be less high. After all, some voters will take the view that why bother voting when Candidate A is going to be elected anyway.
On the subject of 'safe seats', what constitutes a safe seat? Let me throw the following suggestion out there. First of all, it is not enough to state that a seat is safe if the MP possesses more than half of the vote. At Glasgow Kelvingrove in 1970, Maurice Miller achieved almost fifty-four per cent of the votes cast, but his majority was a measly eight hundred. This may be an extreme example, but it does illustrate that just because Candidate A has more votes than all the other candidates added together, this does not automatically render he or she the custodian of a safe seat.
I would argue that a seat is safe (indeed ultra-safe) if the MP's majority is greater than the total votes polled by the other candidates. I've not yet tested this theory throughout this epic tome (sic), but I am guessing that one will struggle to find too many occasions when this safe seat scenario has not been valid. One occasion when such a safe seat is indeed unsafe is at a by-election. Glasgow East in 2008 illustrates this exception.
No comments:
Post a Comment