Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?What explains the huge difference between UKIP's high-watermark in EU vs UK elections?Why is the voter turnout at EU level so low compared to national elections?How likely is Greece to hold general elections by summer 2015?What explains the huge difference between UKIP's high-watermark in EU vs UK elections?What would a delayed Brexit mean for the 2019 European Parliament election?Why is participating in the European Parliamentary elections used as a threat?Are there any pro-EU parties left in the Icelandic parliament?Have there been any elections which were rendered completely irrelevant by later events?Which UK polls//surveys provide information at a constituency-by-constituency level, for the upcoming EU elections in May 2019?Why did David Cameron offer a referendum on the European Union?Who will represent the party in the EU parliament after it won some seats?What exactly did the Brexit Party gain in the 2019 EU parliament election?
What kind of chart is this?
How can I ping multiple IP addresses at the same time?
How can I detect if I'm in a subshell?
TiKZ won't graph 1/sqrt(x)
How to know whether to write accidentals as sharps or flats?
The instant an accelerating object has zero speed, is it speeding up, slowing down, or neither?
Is it a bad idea to have a pen name with only an initial for a surname?
How Linux command "mount -a" works
How to make a villain when your PCs are villains?
What do I put on my resume to make the company i'm applying to think i'm mature enough to handle a job?
Background for black and white chart
what is "dot" sign in the •NO?
Are their examples of rowers who also fought?
1960s sci-fi anthology with a Viking fighting a U.S. army MP on the cover
My student in one course asks for paid tutoring in another course. Appropriate?
What are the mechanical differences between Adapt and Monstrosity?
At what temperature should the earth be cooked to prevent human infection?
Numerical second order differentiation
Have Steve Rogers (Captain America) and a young Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto) interacted during WWII?
How to prevent cables getting intertwined
Catching a robber on one line
Should I email my professor to clear up a (possibly very irrelevant) awkward misunderstanding?
How to write a nice frame challenge?
How to avoid offending original culture when making conculture inspired from original
Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
What explains the huge difference between UKIP's high-watermark in EU vs UK elections?Why is the voter turnout at EU level so low compared to national elections?How likely is Greece to hold general elections by summer 2015?What explains the huge difference between UKIP's high-watermark in EU vs UK elections?What would a delayed Brexit mean for the 2019 European Parliament election?Why is participating in the European Parliamentary elections used as a threat?Are there any pro-EU parties left in the Icelandic parliament?Have there been any elections which were rendered completely irrelevant by later events?Which UK polls//surveys provide information at a constituency-by-constituency level, for the upcoming EU elections in May 2019?Why did David Cameron offer a referendum on the European Union?Who will represent the party in the EU parliament after it won some seats?What exactly did the Brexit Party gain in the 2019 EU parliament election?
Recently, in the United Kingdom European Union Parliamentary elections, the Brexit Party won the most seats, with 30.5% of the vote. There are claims from Nigel Farage and others that the Brexit Party would also win in a snap general election were one to be called while others commented that EU elections are often "protest votes".
Recent polling does suggest that the Brexit Party has a slight lead, seemingly surging after their EU elections win.
In the 2014 EU elections, UK Independence Party similarly won the most seats, with 26.6% of the vote. However, in the following year, it only won 1 seat in the House of Commons, with 12.6% of the vote.
As such,
- Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
- In other words, is UKIP's performances in the 2014 EU elections / 2015 general election cited above the norm or an outlier?
- Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
- Is there any evidence to suggest that the Brexit Party might face the same fate as what UKIP faced in 2015 should a snap general election be called this / next year or does the Brexit Party have a real chance at forming the government (evidence can be polling-based, etc.)?
united-kingdom election european-union voting european-parliament
add a comment |
Recently, in the United Kingdom European Union Parliamentary elections, the Brexit Party won the most seats, with 30.5% of the vote. There are claims from Nigel Farage and others that the Brexit Party would also win in a snap general election were one to be called while others commented that EU elections are often "protest votes".
Recent polling does suggest that the Brexit Party has a slight lead, seemingly surging after their EU elections win.
In the 2014 EU elections, UK Independence Party similarly won the most seats, with 26.6% of the vote. However, in the following year, it only won 1 seat in the House of Commons, with 12.6% of the vote.
As such,
- Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
- In other words, is UKIP's performances in the 2014 EU elections / 2015 general election cited above the norm or an outlier?
- Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
- Is there any evidence to suggest that the Brexit Party might face the same fate as what UKIP faced in 2015 should a snap general election be called this / next year or does the Brexit Party have a real chance at forming the government (evidence can be polling-based, etc.)?
united-kingdom election european-union voting european-parliament
This question is slightly different in overall scope, so I won't claim it's an exact duplicate, but answers to it are fairly likely to be close to those for politics.stackexchange.com/questions/32627/… particularly for your first and second questions.
– origimbo
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Recently, in the United Kingdom European Union Parliamentary elections, the Brexit Party won the most seats, with 30.5% of the vote. There are claims from Nigel Farage and others that the Brexit Party would also win in a snap general election were one to be called while others commented that EU elections are often "protest votes".
Recent polling does suggest that the Brexit Party has a slight lead, seemingly surging after their EU elections win.
In the 2014 EU elections, UK Independence Party similarly won the most seats, with 26.6% of the vote. However, in the following year, it only won 1 seat in the House of Commons, with 12.6% of the vote.
As such,
- Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
- In other words, is UKIP's performances in the 2014 EU elections / 2015 general election cited above the norm or an outlier?
- Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
- Is there any evidence to suggest that the Brexit Party might face the same fate as what UKIP faced in 2015 should a snap general election be called this / next year or does the Brexit Party have a real chance at forming the government (evidence can be polling-based, etc.)?
united-kingdom election european-union voting european-parliament
Recently, in the United Kingdom European Union Parliamentary elections, the Brexit Party won the most seats, with 30.5% of the vote. There are claims from Nigel Farage and others that the Brexit Party would also win in a snap general election were one to be called while others commented that EU elections are often "protest votes".
Recent polling does suggest that the Brexit Party has a slight lead, seemingly surging after their EU elections win.
In the 2014 EU elections, UK Independence Party similarly won the most seats, with 26.6% of the vote. However, in the following year, it only won 1 seat in the House of Commons, with 12.6% of the vote.
As such,
- Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
- In other words, is UKIP's performances in the 2014 EU elections / 2015 general election cited above the norm or an outlier?
- Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
- Is there any evidence to suggest that the Brexit Party might face the same fate as what UKIP faced in 2015 should a snap general election be called this / next year or does the Brexit Party have a real chance at forming the government (evidence can be polling-based, etc.)?
united-kingdom election european-union voting european-parliament
united-kingdom election european-union voting european-parliament
asked 11 hours ago
PandaPanda
30.4k7108169
30.4k7108169
This question is slightly different in overall scope, so I won't claim it's an exact duplicate, but answers to it are fairly likely to be close to those for politics.stackexchange.com/questions/32627/… particularly for your first and second questions.
– origimbo
10 hours ago
add a comment |
This question is slightly different in overall scope, so I won't claim it's an exact duplicate, but answers to it are fairly likely to be close to those for politics.stackexchange.com/questions/32627/… particularly for your first and second questions.
– origimbo
10 hours ago
This question is slightly different in overall scope, so I won't claim it's an exact duplicate, but answers to it are fairly likely to be close to those for politics.stackexchange.com/questions/32627/… particularly for your first and second questions.
– origimbo
10 hours ago
This question is slightly different in overall scope, so I won't claim it's an exact duplicate, but answers to it are fairly likely to be close to those for politics.stackexchange.com/questions/32627/… particularly for your first and second questions.
– origimbo
10 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
As far as UKIP is concerned, their performance in the European elections consistently outperformed their performance in General Elections from about 1999 till 2015. After which, their vote collapsed in both.
On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and Labour have tended to do a bit worse (with occasional exceptions) in the European elections than in General Elections.
It follows that, all other things being equal, the Brexit Party share would probably be noticeably smaller in a snap General Election. However, it's not clear that other things are equal. For example, both Conservative and Labour shares in the most recent Europeans were much lower than the previous General Election and the Lib Dem's share was much higher. This does not follow the general trend.
The prevailing view is that the electorate was heavily polarised to pro and anti Brexit with the Brexit Party and Lib Dems being seen as proxies for the 2 outlooks.
There are 3 other variables that affect things substantially.
Turn out is usually a lot lower in European elections and that was in evidence in the recent one. It's probably fair to say that the UK electorate considers them less important than General Elections.
Also, the First Past the Post system used in General Elections heavily penalises smaller parties as evidenced by 12% UKIP share only materialising into one MP. So even if the Brexit Party was to maintain a healthy UK wide vote, how that would translate into seats is unclear.
Finally, it's likely that Brexit would need to dominate the agenda for the Brexit Party to maintain its vote. If the election were to happen in the next couple of months then that would probably be a reasonable supposition. I wouldn't want to predict what the UK political landscape is going to look like beyond the summer though. There are far too many variables at play.
The UK uses a version of First Past the Post in EU elections as well. Rather than counting the votes in the entire UK (like the Germans do for their EU elections), this is done per region and seats are awarded per region.
– JJJ
9 hours ago
2
@JJJ It's not fair to call that a "version" of First Past the Post. It's less proportional (nationwide) than making the entire country a constituency, but it's much more proportional than a FPTP Westminter election, and votes are counted very differently. (Also N.B. the UK actually uses two different systems for EU elections: Great Britain uses D'Hondt closed list, while Northern Ireland uses Single Transferable Vote)
– owjburnham
8 hours ago
@owjburnham true, but it's not one-person-one-vote and suffers from similar problems. For example, Change UK got 571,846 votes with 0 seats and the Brexit party got 29 seats with 5,248,533 (i.e. +-181K votes per seat). You can see pretty clearly that some might find those numbers a bit unfair. Now, you're not going to get perfect results with a one-person-one-vote system either, but you're not going to see such large differences in 'votes per seat'.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
@JJJ One-person one-vote may not be the best language to use, given that it's still a system where everyone votes once. Indeed that's a criticism made against other proportional and preferential systems such as additional member schemes and the alternative vote.
– origimbo
8 hours ago
@origimbo yea, apparently I misunderstood that term (for quite a long time). I always thought it referred to a system where any two votes are interchangeable in terms of worth (e.g. in case of a popular vote for the US presidential election). So that's what I meant, but if I understand correctly now it merely means roughly proportional representation per district. It's a bit weird though that the two countries sometimes referred to as the role models of democracy (the US and the UK) both don't have that (what I originally meant) in their national elections.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
This can be hypothesised but it's hard to prove. In recent years, it seems at least as likely (to me) that the swings in results of different elections are representative of actual swings in opinion in the country. This is hard to counter because the elections are held at different moments in time. If it's on the same day then people are more likely to not change their opinion in between votes (compared to there being a year or so in-between).
In other words, is UKIP's performances in the 2014 EU elections / 2015 general election cited above the norm or an outlier?
It's unclear what you are referring to here. It seems that the Brexit party has been very successful in the 2019 EU election. That can be explained by failure of the other parties to go about implementing the Brexit that they (those parties, the Conservatives and Labour) have supported (e.g. by voting for triggering article 50).
Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
It is unclear that this is established. Like I said in point 1, it might just be swings in opinion over time rather than people voting differently based on which election there is.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the Brexit Party might face the same fate as what UKIP faced in 2015 should a snap general election be called this / next year or does the Brexit Party have a real chance at forming the government (evidence can be polling-based, etc.)?
It seems that UKIP voters (wanting a Brexit, per the name UKIP) went to the Conservative party because its leader David Cameron promised a referendum on Brexit. Given that leavers won that referendum and steps were taken (but not yet completed) to initiate leaving, there is little reason for Brexit (the leaving, not the party) supporters to go back to UKIP or the Brexit party.
The date that was promised, the 29th of March 2019 has not been met. That day has passed but the UK is stil in the EU. That is the basis on which mister Farage has launched the Brexit party with successful electoral results. Had the UK left on the 29th of March then many of the Brexit party supporters would be satisfied with the other parties' approach to Brexit and they would not switch to another party.
So, as of yet, there does not seem to be evidence that the same reasons why UKIP went down in the polls before apply to the Brexit party now. Once the UK has left and the other parties regain the confidence of the electorate, then that fate might come. Whether that's inevitable is not clear, they might also stick with the Brexit party (but that's pure speculation, I'm not suggesting either way and there might even be different parties coming out on top, e.g. a pro-remain party).
add a comment |
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections? [...]
Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
I suspect more specific analyses exist on British elections, but the general theory is that EU elections are "second order" (less at stake) than national elections in all EU countries. Consequently this theory predicts a few effects:
- The government's party usually loses ground
- Big parties generally lose ground to smaller parties
- Turnout is lower than in national general elections
The first two are [posited] because such second-order elections often become a protest vote (against the government and also against "the system").
There's some EU-wide empirical data validating this theory with respect to party size:
Fig. 3 plots
party gains/losses in European Parliament elections
(compared to the preceding national general election
performance) against party vote-shares in the preceding
national general election, for all parties in all elections
between 1979 and 2009.
The cubic effect of party size
on party performance in European Parliament elections
is clearly visible at the aggregate level: with very large
parties losing more votes than medium-sized parties,
and small parties gaining votes compared to both
medium-sized parties and large parties (cf. Marsh, 1998;
Hix and Marsh, 2007). Also, although this effect is
stronger for governing parties than opposition parties, it
is nonetheless apparent, though weaker, for opposition
parties too. In other words, large parties lose votes in
European Parliament elections, while small parties gain
votes, regardless of whether these parties are in
government or opposition.
The following is a somewhat dated analysis of UKIP's electorate, but probably still valid:
In this study we employ a unique large scale dataset of UKIP supporters
surveyed before the 2009 EP elections to provide new insights into their social
and attitudinal profile. [...]
We [...] find that UKIP voters are divided into two distinct groups: ‘strategic’
supporters who only vote UKIP at EP elections and ‘core’ supporters
who also vote UKIP at Westminster elections. Strategic supporters appear
principally to be Conservative voters registering their hostility to the EU while
core supporters are a poorer, more working class and more deeply discontented
group who more closely resemble supporters of the BNP and of European
radical right parties (Ford & Goodwin 2010; Mudde 2007).
add a comment |
Perhaps try restating the thesis. Rather than
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
Ask if it is more likely that the single issue parties with manifestos directly related to the question of a European government are more likely to do well in an election for a European government than parties with a robust and generally united domestic manifesto that are split on the European question.
Both Labour and the Conservatives are split on the Leave/Remain question. The Brexit party is not. Someone who supports Leave may prefer the clean Brexit position in a European election. Meanwhile, in a domestic election, the same person might prefer the domestic manifesto of either the Conservatives or Labour.
Another way of saying this is that for the European seats, their position on spending more on National Health doesn't matter. While for domestic seats, it does.
European elections are proportional while parliamentary elections are first-past-the-post in single member districts. Proportional elections favor smaller, more focused parties than do FPTP elections. I.e. from that alone one should expect the main parties to do worse in European elections than in domestic United Kingdom elections.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42170%2fwhy-are-british-voters-more-likely-to-back-the-main-parties-in-general-elections%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As far as UKIP is concerned, their performance in the European elections consistently outperformed their performance in General Elections from about 1999 till 2015. After which, their vote collapsed in both.
On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and Labour have tended to do a bit worse (with occasional exceptions) in the European elections than in General Elections.
It follows that, all other things being equal, the Brexit Party share would probably be noticeably smaller in a snap General Election. However, it's not clear that other things are equal. For example, both Conservative and Labour shares in the most recent Europeans were much lower than the previous General Election and the Lib Dem's share was much higher. This does not follow the general trend.
The prevailing view is that the electorate was heavily polarised to pro and anti Brexit with the Brexit Party and Lib Dems being seen as proxies for the 2 outlooks.
There are 3 other variables that affect things substantially.
Turn out is usually a lot lower in European elections and that was in evidence in the recent one. It's probably fair to say that the UK electorate considers them less important than General Elections.
Also, the First Past the Post system used in General Elections heavily penalises smaller parties as evidenced by 12% UKIP share only materialising into one MP. So even if the Brexit Party was to maintain a healthy UK wide vote, how that would translate into seats is unclear.
Finally, it's likely that Brexit would need to dominate the agenda for the Brexit Party to maintain its vote. If the election were to happen in the next couple of months then that would probably be a reasonable supposition. I wouldn't want to predict what the UK political landscape is going to look like beyond the summer though. There are far too many variables at play.
The UK uses a version of First Past the Post in EU elections as well. Rather than counting the votes in the entire UK (like the Germans do for their EU elections), this is done per region and seats are awarded per region.
– JJJ
9 hours ago
2
@JJJ It's not fair to call that a "version" of First Past the Post. It's less proportional (nationwide) than making the entire country a constituency, but it's much more proportional than a FPTP Westminter election, and votes are counted very differently. (Also N.B. the UK actually uses two different systems for EU elections: Great Britain uses D'Hondt closed list, while Northern Ireland uses Single Transferable Vote)
– owjburnham
8 hours ago
@owjburnham true, but it's not one-person-one-vote and suffers from similar problems. For example, Change UK got 571,846 votes with 0 seats and the Brexit party got 29 seats with 5,248,533 (i.e. +-181K votes per seat). You can see pretty clearly that some might find those numbers a bit unfair. Now, you're not going to get perfect results with a one-person-one-vote system either, but you're not going to see such large differences in 'votes per seat'.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
@JJJ One-person one-vote may not be the best language to use, given that it's still a system where everyone votes once. Indeed that's a criticism made against other proportional and preferential systems such as additional member schemes and the alternative vote.
– origimbo
8 hours ago
@origimbo yea, apparently I misunderstood that term (for quite a long time). I always thought it referred to a system where any two votes are interchangeable in terms of worth (e.g. in case of a popular vote for the US presidential election). So that's what I meant, but if I understand correctly now it merely means roughly proportional representation per district. It's a bit weird though that the two countries sometimes referred to as the role models of democracy (the US and the UK) both don't have that (what I originally meant) in their national elections.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
add a comment |
As far as UKIP is concerned, their performance in the European elections consistently outperformed their performance in General Elections from about 1999 till 2015. After which, their vote collapsed in both.
On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and Labour have tended to do a bit worse (with occasional exceptions) in the European elections than in General Elections.
It follows that, all other things being equal, the Brexit Party share would probably be noticeably smaller in a snap General Election. However, it's not clear that other things are equal. For example, both Conservative and Labour shares in the most recent Europeans were much lower than the previous General Election and the Lib Dem's share was much higher. This does not follow the general trend.
The prevailing view is that the electorate was heavily polarised to pro and anti Brexit with the Brexit Party and Lib Dems being seen as proxies for the 2 outlooks.
There are 3 other variables that affect things substantially.
Turn out is usually a lot lower in European elections and that was in evidence in the recent one. It's probably fair to say that the UK electorate considers them less important than General Elections.
Also, the First Past the Post system used in General Elections heavily penalises smaller parties as evidenced by 12% UKIP share only materialising into one MP. So even if the Brexit Party was to maintain a healthy UK wide vote, how that would translate into seats is unclear.
Finally, it's likely that Brexit would need to dominate the agenda for the Brexit Party to maintain its vote. If the election were to happen in the next couple of months then that would probably be a reasonable supposition. I wouldn't want to predict what the UK political landscape is going to look like beyond the summer though. There are far too many variables at play.
The UK uses a version of First Past the Post in EU elections as well. Rather than counting the votes in the entire UK (like the Germans do for their EU elections), this is done per region and seats are awarded per region.
– JJJ
9 hours ago
2
@JJJ It's not fair to call that a "version" of First Past the Post. It's less proportional (nationwide) than making the entire country a constituency, but it's much more proportional than a FPTP Westminter election, and votes are counted very differently. (Also N.B. the UK actually uses two different systems for EU elections: Great Britain uses D'Hondt closed list, while Northern Ireland uses Single Transferable Vote)
– owjburnham
8 hours ago
@owjburnham true, but it's not one-person-one-vote and suffers from similar problems. For example, Change UK got 571,846 votes with 0 seats and the Brexit party got 29 seats with 5,248,533 (i.e. +-181K votes per seat). You can see pretty clearly that some might find those numbers a bit unfair. Now, you're not going to get perfect results with a one-person-one-vote system either, but you're not going to see such large differences in 'votes per seat'.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
@JJJ One-person one-vote may not be the best language to use, given that it's still a system where everyone votes once. Indeed that's a criticism made against other proportional and preferential systems such as additional member schemes and the alternative vote.
– origimbo
8 hours ago
@origimbo yea, apparently I misunderstood that term (for quite a long time). I always thought it referred to a system where any two votes are interchangeable in terms of worth (e.g. in case of a popular vote for the US presidential election). So that's what I meant, but if I understand correctly now it merely means roughly proportional representation per district. It's a bit weird though that the two countries sometimes referred to as the role models of democracy (the US and the UK) both don't have that (what I originally meant) in their national elections.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
add a comment |
As far as UKIP is concerned, their performance in the European elections consistently outperformed their performance in General Elections from about 1999 till 2015. After which, their vote collapsed in both.
On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and Labour have tended to do a bit worse (with occasional exceptions) in the European elections than in General Elections.
It follows that, all other things being equal, the Brexit Party share would probably be noticeably smaller in a snap General Election. However, it's not clear that other things are equal. For example, both Conservative and Labour shares in the most recent Europeans were much lower than the previous General Election and the Lib Dem's share was much higher. This does not follow the general trend.
The prevailing view is that the electorate was heavily polarised to pro and anti Brexit with the Brexit Party and Lib Dems being seen as proxies for the 2 outlooks.
There are 3 other variables that affect things substantially.
Turn out is usually a lot lower in European elections and that was in evidence in the recent one. It's probably fair to say that the UK electorate considers them less important than General Elections.
Also, the First Past the Post system used in General Elections heavily penalises smaller parties as evidenced by 12% UKIP share only materialising into one MP. So even if the Brexit Party was to maintain a healthy UK wide vote, how that would translate into seats is unclear.
Finally, it's likely that Brexit would need to dominate the agenda for the Brexit Party to maintain its vote. If the election were to happen in the next couple of months then that would probably be a reasonable supposition. I wouldn't want to predict what the UK political landscape is going to look like beyond the summer though. There are far too many variables at play.
As far as UKIP is concerned, their performance in the European elections consistently outperformed their performance in General Elections from about 1999 till 2015. After which, their vote collapsed in both.
On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and Labour have tended to do a bit worse (with occasional exceptions) in the European elections than in General Elections.
It follows that, all other things being equal, the Brexit Party share would probably be noticeably smaller in a snap General Election. However, it's not clear that other things are equal. For example, both Conservative and Labour shares in the most recent Europeans were much lower than the previous General Election and the Lib Dem's share was much higher. This does not follow the general trend.
The prevailing view is that the electorate was heavily polarised to pro and anti Brexit with the Brexit Party and Lib Dems being seen as proxies for the 2 outlooks.
There are 3 other variables that affect things substantially.
Turn out is usually a lot lower in European elections and that was in evidence in the recent one. It's probably fair to say that the UK electorate considers them less important than General Elections.
Also, the First Past the Post system used in General Elections heavily penalises smaller parties as evidenced by 12% UKIP share only materialising into one MP. So even if the Brexit Party was to maintain a healthy UK wide vote, how that would translate into seats is unclear.
Finally, it's likely that Brexit would need to dominate the agenda for the Brexit Party to maintain its vote. If the election were to happen in the next couple of months then that would probably be a reasonable supposition. I wouldn't want to predict what the UK political landscape is going to look like beyond the summer though. There are far too many variables at play.
answered 9 hours ago
AlexAlex
4,8031226
4,8031226
The UK uses a version of First Past the Post in EU elections as well. Rather than counting the votes in the entire UK (like the Germans do for their EU elections), this is done per region and seats are awarded per region.
– JJJ
9 hours ago
2
@JJJ It's not fair to call that a "version" of First Past the Post. It's less proportional (nationwide) than making the entire country a constituency, but it's much more proportional than a FPTP Westminter election, and votes are counted very differently. (Also N.B. the UK actually uses two different systems for EU elections: Great Britain uses D'Hondt closed list, while Northern Ireland uses Single Transferable Vote)
– owjburnham
8 hours ago
@owjburnham true, but it's not one-person-one-vote and suffers from similar problems. For example, Change UK got 571,846 votes with 0 seats and the Brexit party got 29 seats with 5,248,533 (i.e. +-181K votes per seat). You can see pretty clearly that some might find those numbers a bit unfair. Now, you're not going to get perfect results with a one-person-one-vote system either, but you're not going to see such large differences in 'votes per seat'.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
@JJJ One-person one-vote may not be the best language to use, given that it's still a system where everyone votes once. Indeed that's a criticism made against other proportional and preferential systems such as additional member schemes and the alternative vote.
– origimbo
8 hours ago
@origimbo yea, apparently I misunderstood that term (for quite a long time). I always thought it referred to a system where any two votes are interchangeable in terms of worth (e.g. in case of a popular vote for the US presidential election). So that's what I meant, but if I understand correctly now it merely means roughly proportional representation per district. It's a bit weird though that the two countries sometimes referred to as the role models of democracy (the US and the UK) both don't have that (what I originally meant) in their national elections.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
add a comment |
The UK uses a version of First Past the Post in EU elections as well. Rather than counting the votes in the entire UK (like the Germans do for their EU elections), this is done per region and seats are awarded per region.
– JJJ
9 hours ago
2
@JJJ It's not fair to call that a "version" of First Past the Post. It's less proportional (nationwide) than making the entire country a constituency, but it's much more proportional than a FPTP Westminter election, and votes are counted very differently. (Also N.B. the UK actually uses two different systems for EU elections: Great Britain uses D'Hondt closed list, while Northern Ireland uses Single Transferable Vote)
– owjburnham
8 hours ago
@owjburnham true, but it's not one-person-one-vote and suffers from similar problems. For example, Change UK got 571,846 votes with 0 seats and the Brexit party got 29 seats with 5,248,533 (i.e. +-181K votes per seat). You can see pretty clearly that some might find those numbers a bit unfair. Now, you're not going to get perfect results with a one-person-one-vote system either, but you're not going to see such large differences in 'votes per seat'.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
@JJJ One-person one-vote may not be the best language to use, given that it's still a system where everyone votes once. Indeed that's a criticism made against other proportional and preferential systems such as additional member schemes and the alternative vote.
– origimbo
8 hours ago
@origimbo yea, apparently I misunderstood that term (for quite a long time). I always thought it referred to a system where any two votes are interchangeable in terms of worth (e.g. in case of a popular vote for the US presidential election). So that's what I meant, but if I understand correctly now it merely means roughly proportional representation per district. It's a bit weird though that the two countries sometimes referred to as the role models of democracy (the US and the UK) both don't have that (what I originally meant) in their national elections.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
The UK uses a version of First Past the Post in EU elections as well. Rather than counting the votes in the entire UK (like the Germans do for their EU elections), this is done per region and seats are awarded per region.
– JJJ
9 hours ago
The UK uses a version of First Past the Post in EU elections as well. Rather than counting the votes in the entire UK (like the Germans do for their EU elections), this is done per region and seats are awarded per region.
– JJJ
9 hours ago
2
2
@JJJ It's not fair to call that a "version" of First Past the Post. It's less proportional (nationwide) than making the entire country a constituency, but it's much more proportional than a FPTP Westminter election, and votes are counted very differently. (Also N.B. the UK actually uses two different systems for EU elections: Great Britain uses D'Hondt closed list, while Northern Ireland uses Single Transferable Vote)
– owjburnham
8 hours ago
@JJJ It's not fair to call that a "version" of First Past the Post. It's less proportional (nationwide) than making the entire country a constituency, but it's much more proportional than a FPTP Westminter election, and votes are counted very differently. (Also N.B. the UK actually uses two different systems for EU elections: Great Britain uses D'Hondt closed list, while Northern Ireland uses Single Transferable Vote)
– owjburnham
8 hours ago
@owjburnham true, but it's not one-person-one-vote and suffers from similar problems. For example, Change UK got 571,846 votes with 0 seats and the Brexit party got 29 seats with 5,248,533 (i.e. +-181K votes per seat). You can see pretty clearly that some might find those numbers a bit unfair. Now, you're not going to get perfect results with a one-person-one-vote system either, but you're not going to see such large differences in 'votes per seat'.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
@owjburnham true, but it's not one-person-one-vote and suffers from similar problems. For example, Change UK got 571,846 votes with 0 seats and the Brexit party got 29 seats with 5,248,533 (i.e. +-181K votes per seat). You can see pretty clearly that some might find those numbers a bit unfair. Now, you're not going to get perfect results with a one-person-one-vote system either, but you're not going to see such large differences in 'votes per seat'.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
@JJJ One-person one-vote may not be the best language to use, given that it's still a system where everyone votes once. Indeed that's a criticism made against other proportional and preferential systems such as additional member schemes and the alternative vote.
– origimbo
8 hours ago
@JJJ One-person one-vote may not be the best language to use, given that it's still a system where everyone votes once. Indeed that's a criticism made against other proportional and preferential systems such as additional member schemes and the alternative vote.
– origimbo
8 hours ago
@origimbo yea, apparently I misunderstood that term (for quite a long time). I always thought it referred to a system where any two votes are interchangeable in terms of worth (e.g. in case of a popular vote for the US presidential election). So that's what I meant, but if I understand correctly now it merely means roughly proportional representation per district. It's a bit weird though that the two countries sometimes referred to as the role models of democracy (the US and the UK) both don't have that (what I originally meant) in their national elections.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
@origimbo yea, apparently I misunderstood that term (for quite a long time). I always thought it referred to a system where any two votes are interchangeable in terms of worth (e.g. in case of a popular vote for the US presidential election). So that's what I meant, but if I understand correctly now it merely means roughly proportional representation per district. It's a bit weird though that the two countries sometimes referred to as the role models of democracy (the US and the UK) both don't have that (what I originally meant) in their national elections.
– JJJ
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
This can be hypothesised but it's hard to prove. In recent years, it seems at least as likely (to me) that the swings in results of different elections are representative of actual swings in opinion in the country. This is hard to counter because the elections are held at different moments in time. If it's on the same day then people are more likely to not change their opinion in between votes (compared to there being a year or so in-between).
In other words, is UKIP's performances in the 2014 EU elections / 2015 general election cited above the norm or an outlier?
It's unclear what you are referring to here. It seems that the Brexit party has been very successful in the 2019 EU election. That can be explained by failure of the other parties to go about implementing the Brexit that they (those parties, the Conservatives and Labour) have supported (e.g. by voting for triggering article 50).
Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
It is unclear that this is established. Like I said in point 1, it might just be swings in opinion over time rather than people voting differently based on which election there is.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the Brexit Party might face the same fate as what UKIP faced in 2015 should a snap general election be called this / next year or does the Brexit Party have a real chance at forming the government (evidence can be polling-based, etc.)?
It seems that UKIP voters (wanting a Brexit, per the name UKIP) went to the Conservative party because its leader David Cameron promised a referendum on Brexit. Given that leavers won that referendum and steps were taken (but not yet completed) to initiate leaving, there is little reason for Brexit (the leaving, not the party) supporters to go back to UKIP or the Brexit party.
The date that was promised, the 29th of March 2019 has not been met. That day has passed but the UK is stil in the EU. That is the basis on which mister Farage has launched the Brexit party with successful electoral results. Had the UK left on the 29th of March then many of the Brexit party supporters would be satisfied with the other parties' approach to Brexit and they would not switch to another party.
So, as of yet, there does not seem to be evidence that the same reasons why UKIP went down in the polls before apply to the Brexit party now. Once the UK has left and the other parties regain the confidence of the electorate, then that fate might come. Whether that's inevitable is not clear, they might also stick with the Brexit party (but that's pure speculation, I'm not suggesting either way and there might even be different parties coming out on top, e.g. a pro-remain party).
add a comment |
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
This can be hypothesised but it's hard to prove. In recent years, it seems at least as likely (to me) that the swings in results of different elections are representative of actual swings in opinion in the country. This is hard to counter because the elections are held at different moments in time. If it's on the same day then people are more likely to not change their opinion in between votes (compared to there being a year or so in-between).
In other words, is UKIP's performances in the 2014 EU elections / 2015 general election cited above the norm or an outlier?
It's unclear what you are referring to here. It seems that the Brexit party has been very successful in the 2019 EU election. That can be explained by failure of the other parties to go about implementing the Brexit that they (those parties, the Conservatives and Labour) have supported (e.g. by voting for triggering article 50).
Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
It is unclear that this is established. Like I said in point 1, it might just be swings in opinion over time rather than people voting differently based on which election there is.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the Brexit Party might face the same fate as what UKIP faced in 2015 should a snap general election be called this / next year or does the Brexit Party have a real chance at forming the government (evidence can be polling-based, etc.)?
It seems that UKIP voters (wanting a Brexit, per the name UKIP) went to the Conservative party because its leader David Cameron promised a referendum on Brexit. Given that leavers won that referendum and steps were taken (but not yet completed) to initiate leaving, there is little reason for Brexit (the leaving, not the party) supporters to go back to UKIP or the Brexit party.
The date that was promised, the 29th of March 2019 has not been met. That day has passed but the UK is stil in the EU. That is the basis on which mister Farage has launched the Brexit party with successful electoral results. Had the UK left on the 29th of March then many of the Brexit party supporters would be satisfied with the other parties' approach to Brexit and they would not switch to another party.
So, as of yet, there does not seem to be evidence that the same reasons why UKIP went down in the polls before apply to the Brexit party now. Once the UK has left and the other parties regain the confidence of the electorate, then that fate might come. Whether that's inevitable is not clear, they might also stick with the Brexit party (but that's pure speculation, I'm not suggesting either way and there might even be different parties coming out on top, e.g. a pro-remain party).
add a comment |
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
This can be hypothesised but it's hard to prove. In recent years, it seems at least as likely (to me) that the swings in results of different elections are representative of actual swings in opinion in the country. This is hard to counter because the elections are held at different moments in time. If it's on the same day then people are more likely to not change their opinion in between votes (compared to there being a year or so in-between).
In other words, is UKIP's performances in the 2014 EU elections / 2015 general election cited above the norm or an outlier?
It's unclear what you are referring to here. It seems that the Brexit party has been very successful in the 2019 EU election. That can be explained by failure of the other parties to go about implementing the Brexit that they (those parties, the Conservatives and Labour) have supported (e.g. by voting for triggering article 50).
Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
It is unclear that this is established. Like I said in point 1, it might just be swings in opinion over time rather than people voting differently based on which election there is.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the Brexit Party might face the same fate as what UKIP faced in 2015 should a snap general election be called this / next year or does the Brexit Party have a real chance at forming the government (evidence can be polling-based, etc.)?
It seems that UKIP voters (wanting a Brexit, per the name UKIP) went to the Conservative party because its leader David Cameron promised a referendum on Brexit. Given that leavers won that referendum and steps were taken (but not yet completed) to initiate leaving, there is little reason for Brexit (the leaving, not the party) supporters to go back to UKIP or the Brexit party.
The date that was promised, the 29th of March 2019 has not been met. That day has passed but the UK is stil in the EU. That is the basis on which mister Farage has launched the Brexit party with successful electoral results. Had the UK left on the 29th of March then many of the Brexit party supporters would be satisfied with the other parties' approach to Brexit and they would not switch to another party.
So, as of yet, there does not seem to be evidence that the same reasons why UKIP went down in the polls before apply to the Brexit party now. Once the UK has left and the other parties regain the confidence of the electorate, then that fate might come. Whether that's inevitable is not clear, they might also stick with the Brexit party (but that's pure speculation, I'm not suggesting either way and there might even be different parties coming out on top, e.g. a pro-remain party).
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
This can be hypothesised but it's hard to prove. In recent years, it seems at least as likely (to me) that the swings in results of different elections are representative of actual swings in opinion in the country. This is hard to counter because the elections are held at different moments in time. If it's on the same day then people are more likely to not change their opinion in between votes (compared to there being a year or so in-between).
In other words, is UKIP's performances in the 2014 EU elections / 2015 general election cited above the norm or an outlier?
It's unclear what you are referring to here. It seems that the Brexit party has been very successful in the 2019 EU election. That can be explained by failure of the other parties to go about implementing the Brexit that they (those parties, the Conservatives and Labour) have supported (e.g. by voting for triggering article 50).
Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
It is unclear that this is established. Like I said in point 1, it might just be swings in opinion over time rather than people voting differently based on which election there is.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the Brexit Party might face the same fate as what UKIP faced in 2015 should a snap general election be called this / next year or does the Brexit Party have a real chance at forming the government (evidence can be polling-based, etc.)?
It seems that UKIP voters (wanting a Brexit, per the name UKIP) went to the Conservative party because its leader David Cameron promised a referendum on Brexit. Given that leavers won that referendum and steps were taken (but not yet completed) to initiate leaving, there is little reason for Brexit (the leaving, not the party) supporters to go back to UKIP or the Brexit party.
The date that was promised, the 29th of March 2019 has not been met. That day has passed but the UK is stil in the EU. That is the basis on which mister Farage has launched the Brexit party with successful electoral results. Had the UK left on the 29th of March then many of the Brexit party supporters would be satisfied with the other parties' approach to Brexit and they would not switch to another party.
So, as of yet, there does not seem to be evidence that the same reasons why UKIP went down in the polls before apply to the Brexit party now. Once the UK has left and the other parties regain the confidence of the electorate, then that fate might come. Whether that's inevitable is not clear, they might also stick with the Brexit party (but that's pure speculation, I'm not suggesting either way and there might even be different parties coming out on top, e.g. a pro-remain party).
answered 9 hours ago
JJJJJJ
8,56333068
8,56333068
add a comment |
add a comment |
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections? [...]
Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
I suspect more specific analyses exist on British elections, but the general theory is that EU elections are "second order" (less at stake) than national elections in all EU countries. Consequently this theory predicts a few effects:
- The government's party usually loses ground
- Big parties generally lose ground to smaller parties
- Turnout is lower than in national general elections
The first two are [posited] because such second-order elections often become a protest vote (against the government and also against "the system").
There's some EU-wide empirical data validating this theory with respect to party size:
Fig. 3 plots
party gains/losses in European Parliament elections
(compared to the preceding national general election
performance) against party vote-shares in the preceding
national general election, for all parties in all elections
between 1979 and 2009.
The cubic effect of party size
on party performance in European Parliament elections
is clearly visible at the aggregate level: with very large
parties losing more votes than medium-sized parties,
and small parties gaining votes compared to both
medium-sized parties and large parties (cf. Marsh, 1998;
Hix and Marsh, 2007). Also, although this effect is
stronger for governing parties than opposition parties, it
is nonetheless apparent, though weaker, for opposition
parties too. In other words, large parties lose votes in
European Parliament elections, while small parties gain
votes, regardless of whether these parties are in
government or opposition.
The following is a somewhat dated analysis of UKIP's electorate, but probably still valid:
In this study we employ a unique large scale dataset of UKIP supporters
surveyed before the 2009 EP elections to provide new insights into their social
and attitudinal profile. [...]
We [...] find that UKIP voters are divided into two distinct groups: ‘strategic’
supporters who only vote UKIP at EP elections and ‘core’ supporters
who also vote UKIP at Westminster elections. Strategic supporters appear
principally to be Conservative voters registering their hostility to the EU while
core supporters are a poorer, more working class and more deeply discontented
group who more closely resemble supporters of the BNP and of European
radical right parties (Ford & Goodwin 2010; Mudde 2007).
add a comment |
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections? [...]
Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
I suspect more specific analyses exist on British elections, but the general theory is that EU elections are "second order" (less at stake) than national elections in all EU countries. Consequently this theory predicts a few effects:
- The government's party usually loses ground
- Big parties generally lose ground to smaller parties
- Turnout is lower than in national general elections
The first two are [posited] because such second-order elections often become a protest vote (against the government and also against "the system").
There's some EU-wide empirical data validating this theory with respect to party size:
Fig. 3 plots
party gains/losses in European Parliament elections
(compared to the preceding national general election
performance) against party vote-shares in the preceding
national general election, for all parties in all elections
between 1979 and 2009.
The cubic effect of party size
on party performance in European Parliament elections
is clearly visible at the aggregate level: with very large
parties losing more votes than medium-sized parties,
and small parties gaining votes compared to both
medium-sized parties and large parties (cf. Marsh, 1998;
Hix and Marsh, 2007). Also, although this effect is
stronger for governing parties than opposition parties, it
is nonetheless apparent, though weaker, for opposition
parties too. In other words, large parties lose votes in
European Parliament elections, while small parties gain
votes, regardless of whether these parties are in
government or opposition.
The following is a somewhat dated analysis of UKIP's electorate, but probably still valid:
In this study we employ a unique large scale dataset of UKIP supporters
surveyed before the 2009 EP elections to provide new insights into their social
and attitudinal profile. [...]
We [...] find that UKIP voters are divided into two distinct groups: ‘strategic’
supporters who only vote UKIP at EP elections and ‘core’ supporters
who also vote UKIP at Westminster elections. Strategic supporters appear
principally to be Conservative voters registering their hostility to the EU while
core supporters are a poorer, more working class and more deeply discontented
group who more closely resemble supporters of the BNP and of European
radical right parties (Ford & Goodwin 2010; Mudde 2007).
add a comment |
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections? [...]
Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
I suspect more specific analyses exist on British elections, but the general theory is that EU elections are "second order" (less at stake) than national elections in all EU countries. Consequently this theory predicts a few effects:
- The government's party usually loses ground
- Big parties generally lose ground to smaller parties
- Turnout is lower than in national general elections
The first two are [posited] because such second-order elections often become a protest vote (against the government and also against "the system").
There's some EU-wide empirical data validating this theory with respect to party size:
Fig. 3 plots
party gains/losses in European Parliament elections
(compared to the preceding national general election
performance) against party vote-shares in the preceding
national general election, for all parties in all elections
between 1979 and 2009.
The cubic effect of party size
on party performance in European Parliament elections
is clearly visible at the aggregate level: with very large
parties losing more votes than medium-sized parties,
and small parties gaining votes compared to both
medium-sized parties and large parties (cf. Marsh, 1998;
Hix and Marsh, 2007). Also, although this effect is
stronger for governing parties than opposition parties, it
is nonetheless apparent, though weaker, for opposition
parties too. In other words, large parties lose votes in
European Parliament elections, while small parties gain
votes, regardless of whether these parties are in
government or opposition.
The following is a somewhat dated analysis of UKIP's electorate, but probably still valid:
In this study we employ a unique large scale dataset of UKIP supporters
surveyed before the 2009 EP elections to provide new insights into their social
and attitudinal profile. [...]
We [...] find that UKIP voters are divided into two distinct groups: ‘strategic’
supporters who only vote UKIP at EP elections and ‘core’ supporters
who also vote UKIP at Westminster elections. Strategic supporters appear
principally to be Conservative voters registering their hostility to the EU while
core supporters are a poorer, more working class and more deeply discontented
group who more closely resemble supporters of the BNP and of European
radical right parties (Ford & Goodwin 2010; Mudde 2007).
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections? [...]
Why are British voters more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
I suspect more specific analyses exist on British elections, but the general theory is that EU elections are "second order" (less at stake) than national elections in all EU countries. Consequently this theory predicts a few effects:
- The government's party usually loses ground
- Big parties generally lose ground to smaller parties
- Turnout is lower than in national general elections
The first two are [posited] because such second-order elections often become a protest vote (against the government and also against "the system").
There's some EU-wide empirical data validating this theory with respect to party size:
Fig. 3 plots
party gains/losses in European Parliament elections
(compared to the preceding national general election
performance) against party vote-shares in the preceding
national general election, for all parties in all elections
between 1979 and 2009.
The cubic effect of party size
on party performance in European Parliament elections
is clearly visible at the aggregate level: with very large
parties losing more votes than medium-sized parties,
and small parties gaining votes compared to both
medium-sized parties and large parties (cf. Marsh, 1998;
Hix and Marsh, 2007). Also, although this effect is
stronger for governing parties than opposition parties, it
is nonetheless apparent, though weaker, for opposition
parties too. In other words, large parties lose votes in
European Parliament elections, while small parties gain
votes, regardless of whether these parties are in
government or opposition.
The following is a somewhat dated analysis of UKIP's electorate, but probably still valid:
In this study we employ a unique large scale dataset of UKIP supporters
surveyed before the 2009 EP elections to provide new insights into their social
and attitudinal profile. [...]
We [...] find that UKIP voters are divided into two distinct groups: ‘strategic’
supporters who only vote UKIP at EP elections and ‘core’ supporters
who also vote UKIP at Westminster elections. Strategic supporters appear
principally to be Conservative voters registering their hostility to the EU while
core supporters are a poorer, more working class and more deeply discontented
group who more closely resemble supporters of the BNP and of European
radical right parties (Ford & Goodwin 2010; Mudde 2007).
edited 6 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
FizzFizz
21.7k356128
21.7k356128
add a comment |
add a comment |
Perhaps try restating the thesis. Rather than
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
Ask if it is more likely that the single issue parties with manifestos directly related to the question of a European government are more likely to do well in an election for a European government than parties with a robust and generally united domestic manifesto that are split on the European question.
Both Labour and the Conservatives are split on the Leave/Remain question. The Brexit party is not. Someone who supports Leave may prefer the clean Brexit position in a European election. Meanwhile, in a domestic election, the same person might prefer the domestic manifesto of either the Conservatives or Labour.
Another way of saying this is that for the European seats, their position on spending more on National Health doesn't matter. While for domestic seats, it does.
European elections are proportional while parliamentary elections are first-past-the-post in single member districts. Proportional elections favor smaller, more focused parties than do FPTP elections. I.e. from that alone one should expect the main parties to do worse in European elections than in domestic United Kingdom elections.
add a comment |
Perhaps try restating the thesis. Rather than
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
Ask if it is more likely that the single issue parties with manifestos directly related to the question of a European government are more likely to do well in an election for a European government than parties with a robust and generally united domestic manifesto that are split on the European question.
Both Labour and the Conservatives are split on the Leave/Remain question. The Brexit party is not. Someone who supports Leave may prefer the clean Brexit position in a European election. Meanwhile, in a domestic election, the same person might prefer the domestic manifesto of either the Conservatives or Labour.
Another way of saying this is that for the European seats, their position on spending more on National Health doesn't matter. While for domestic seats, it does.
European elections are proportional while parliamentary elections are first-past-the-post in single member districts. Proportional elections favor smaller, more focused parties than do FPTP elections. I.e. from that alone one should expect the main parties to do worse in European elections than in domestic United Kingdom elections.
add a comment |
Perhaps try restating the thesis. Rather than
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
Ask if it is more likely that the single issue parties with manifestos directly related to the question of a European government are more likely to do well in an election for a European government than parties with a robust and generally united domestic manifesto that are split on the European question.
Both Labour and the Conservatives are split on the Leave/Remain question. The Brexit party is not. Someone who supports Leave may prefer the clean Brexit position in a European election. Meanwhile, in a domestic election, the same person might prefer the domestic manifesto of either the Conservatives or Labour.
Another way of saying this is that for the European seats, their position on spending more on National Health doesn't matter. While for domestic seats, it does.
European elections are proportional while parliamentary elections are first-past-the-post in single member districts. Proportional elections favor smaller, more focused parties than do FPTP elections. I.e. from that alone one should expect the main parties to do worse in European elections than in domestic United Kingdom elections.
Perhaps try restating the thesis. Rather than
Is it true that British voters are more likely to back the main parties in general elections than in European Parliament elections?
Ask if it is more likely that the single issue parties with manifestos directly related to the question of a European government are more likely to do well in an election for a European government than parties with a robust and generally united domestic manifesto that are split on the European question.
Both Labour and the Conservatives are split on the Leave/Remain question. The Brexit party is not. Someone who supports Leave may prefer the clean Brexit position in a European election. Meanwhile, in a domestic election, the same person might prefer the domestic manifesto of either the Conservatives or Labour.
Another way of saying this is that for the European seats, their position on spending more on National Health doesn't matter. While for domestic seats, it does.
European elections are proportional while parliamentary elections are first-past-the-post in single member districts. Proportional elections favor smaller, more focused parties than do FPTP elections. I.e. from that alone one should expect the main parties to do worse in European elections than in domestic United Kingdom elections.
answered 4 hours ago
BrythanBrythan
73.8k8157249
73.8k8157249
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42170%2fwhy-are-british-voters-more-likely-to-back-the-main-parties-in-general-elections%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
This question is slightly different in overall scope, so I won't claim it's an exact duplicate, but answers to it are fairly likely to be close to those for politics.stackexchange.com/questions/32627/… particularly for your first and second questions.
– origimbo
10 hours ago