Voters in marginal constituencies: average or different? An analysis of the demographics, values and ideology of voters in UK marginal seats

边缘选区的选民：平均还是不同？

• 批准号: 2072058
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Manchester
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2018
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2018 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2072058
• 关键词: Voters; marginal; constituencies; average; different

BackgroundOne often critiqued facet of Britain's First Past the Post electoral system is it divides up the country into 'safe seats', said to be almost impossible to win, and 'marginal seats', said to be the true battlegrounds of British elections. The Electoral Reform Society has used this distinction to point to the relatively large changes in election results that can flow from shifts in small numbers of votes in marginal seats, a common feature in plurality systems (Garland & Terry, 2017), (Terry, 2013).The outsized attention paid to marginal seats been examined by academics analysing campaigns. There are important democratic and political ramifications to this concentration of attention and activity on marginal seats.Academics have discussed whether voter behaviour in marginals is different. Some studies have suggested that tactical voting is more common in marginal seats, given its higher efficacy (Lanoue & Bowler, 1992). Many studies demonstrate higher turnout in marginal seats (Denver & Hands, 1974), (Selb, 2008). Research has also shown that politicians tend to respond to this incentive with higher constituency service (Heitshusen, Young, & Wood, 2005).If, as electoral reformers argue, the focus on marginal seats created by the British electoral system means voters in safer seats are underrepresented, with party and government policy aimed at winning the marginals, who is it being underrepresented?Research QuestionsThe central hypothesis is that voters who live in more marginal seats have different demographics, attitudes, behaviour and ideology to those who live in safe seats.Do voters in marginal seats share the views of voters outside them? Are marginal constituency voters representative of national ones in terms of their values and positions? Electoral reformers critique that safe seats are unrepresentative, but do safe seats have unusual mixes of voter value groups and are some underrepresented as a result?ImpactThis question has major ramifications for the literature on party campaigning, policy formation and electoral systems, and for organisations outside academia.At least 2 reports will be produced for the Electoral Reform Society, with accompanying events and dissemination through their networks as appropriate. Work will also be targeted at academic journals.MethodologyThe BES datasets will form the core data for the study. Variables which measure constituency marginality provide the central measurement necessary for this analysis. With sample sizes of 30-35,000, BES datasets provide significant amounts of individual level data which can be used to study voters in marginal seats.The key goal is to examine the views of the electorate in marginal seats. The BES provides a variety of question banks which can be used to measure these. The package of values questions will be used to analyse how voters in marginals differ on these measures. Questions on issue importance and self-placement on scales will also be used for comparison with safer seats. These comparisons provide the heart of the analysis.The proposal is to take a case study approach, looking at the UK, allowing for greater depth. The work will cover between 2010 and 2017 election. This period has multiple advantages. Firstly, boundaries have not changed since 2007, removing an important source of variation in seat marginality, this making it easier to isolate and track political and social differences between marginal and non-marginal seats. Secondly, volatility in this era means that it is possible to observe major changes in the party system, starting with the 2 and a half party system that characterised British politics since the 70s in the 2010 election, through to a more multi-party distribution of votes at the 2015 election and finally the two-party dominance of 2017.

背景英国选举制度中经常受到批评的一个方面是，它将英国划分为"安全席位"和"边缘席位"，前者据说几乎不可能获胜，后者据说是英国选举的真正战场。选举改革协会利用这一区别指出，边缘席位中少量选票的变化可能会导致选举结果发生相对较大的变化，这是多元化制度的一个共同特征（加兰& Terry，2017），（Terry，2013）。这种对边缘席位的关注和活动的集中有重要的民主和政治影响。学者们讨论了边缘席位的选民行为是否不同。一些研究表明，战术性投票在边缘席位中更为常见，因为其效率较高（Lanoue & Bowler，1992）。许多研究表明，边缘席位的投票率较高（Denver & Hands，1974），（Selb，2008）。研究还表明，政治家倾向于以更高的选区服务来回应这种激励（Heitshusen，Young，& Wood，2005）如果像选举改革者所说的那样，英国选举制度对边缘席位的关注意味着安全席位上的选民代表性不足，政党和政府的政策旨在赢得边缘席位，那么谁代表性不足？核心假设是，生活在更多边缘席位的选民与生活在安全席位的选民在人口统计、态度、行为和意识形态方面存在差异。边缘席位的选民是否与他们之外的选民有相同的观点？边缘选区选民的价值观和立场是否代表全国选民？选举改革者批评安全席位不具有代表性，但安全席位是否有不寻常的选民价值群体的混合，并因此导致一些代表性不足？影响这个问题对政党竞选、政策形成和选举制度的文献以及学术界以外的组织都有重大影响。将为选举改革协会编写至少两份报告，并酌情通过其网络举办相应的活动和传播。工作也将针对学术期刊。方法BES数据集将形成研究的核心数据。衡量选区边缘性的变量为这一分析提供了必要的核心衡量标准。BES数据集的样本量为30 - 35，000，提供了大量的个人水平数据，可用于研究边缘席位的选民。主要目标是检查边缘席位选民的观点。BES提供了各种各样的问题库，可用于测量这些。一揽子价值观问题将用于分析边缘选民如何在这些措施上存在差异。还将使用关于问题重要性的问题和在量表上的自我定位来与更安全的座位进行比较。这些比较提供了分析的核心。建议采取案例研究的方法，着眼于英国，允许更深入。这项工作将涵盖2010年至2017年的选举。这一时期具有多重优势。首先，自2007年以来，边界没有改变，消除了席位边缘性变化的一个重要来源，这使得更容易隔离和跟踪边缘席位和非边缘席位之间的政治和社会差异。其次，这个时代的波动性意味着可以观察到政党制度的重大变化，从2010年选举中自70年代以来英国政治的特点开始，到2015年选举中更多的多党投票分配，最后是2017年的两党统治。