Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:45:53.700Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Not Swing? Measuring Electoral Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

David Butler  and
Stephen D. Van Beek
David Butler
Affiliation:
Nuffield College, Oxford University
Stephen D. Van Beek
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the last forty years the concept of swing has transformed the interpretation of elections, first in Britain and later in Australia, India and other countries. But Americans have been oddly reluctant to apply this most useful of simplifying formulas to election reporting or to the analysis of voting trends.

Swing is a device for reducing to a single statistic all the complex movements in party support between one election and another. It offers a quick and easily comprehended indication of trends and of the extent to which voting behavior differs from one area to another.

On election night in Britain, as soon as the broadcasters announce the first constituency counts, they also report the local swing, the net percentage movement between Conservative and Labour since the previous election, and on this basis they suggest what will be the final outcome ‘if the swing in the remaining seats resembles those already declared.’ Although this health warning is dutifully repeated, in fact the projection from the early results has always given a remarkably accurate pointer to the overall division of seats.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 178 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bauer, Monica and Hibbings, John R. 1988. “Why Incumbents Lose in House Elections: A Response to Jacobson's ‘The Marginals Never Vanished.’” American Journal of Political Science 31:262–271.Google Scholar
Butler, David and Kavanagh, Dennis. 1988. The British General Election of 1987. London: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, David and Stokes, Donald. 1974. Political Change in Britain. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John A. and Calvert, Randall L. 1984. “Presidential Coattails in Historical Perspective.” American Journal of Political Science 28:127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1987. “Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives: The Marginals Never Vanished.” American Journal of Political Science 31:126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1983. Politics of Congressional Elections. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Ashok and Prannoy, Roy. 1984. “Assessing Swings in Multi Party Systems: The Indian Experience.” Electoral Studies 3:173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Tom. 1978. Unsafe at Any Margin. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rapoport, Ronald B. 1984. “Swingtime: Assessing Causes for Shifts in Congressional Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 14:222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Jorgen. 1965. “On the Disutility of the Concept of Swing.” Parliamentary Affairs 18:442–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scammon, Richard M. 1986. American Votes. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Steed, Michael and Curtice, John. 1988. “Statistical Appendix to Butler and Kavanagh” (see above). The British General Election of 1987. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald. 1967. “Parties and the Nationality of Electoral Forces,” in The American Party System, Chambers, William N. and Burnham, Walter Dean, eds. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald. 1969. “Cross Level Inference as a Game Against Nature,” in Mathematical Applications of Political Science 4. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Peter J. and Johnston, Ronald J. 1979. Geography of Elections. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Tufte, Edward. 1976. “Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm Congressional Elections,” in Controversies in American Voting Behavior, Niemi, Richard G. and Weisberg, Herbert F., eds., pp. 248–273.Google Scholar