Geolocation and voting: Candidate–voter distance effects on party choice in the 2010 UK general election in England

Arzheimer, Kai; Evans, Jocelyn

doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2012.04.006

Cited by 79 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore to pretend that parties never engineer the selection of centrally-preferred candidates over locally-preferred candidates would be naive; and so the question becomes one of the degree to which this may or may not occur. Arzheimer and Evans (2012) analyses of all candidates at the 2010 general election -not just those that were elected, as with this research -showed that the modal number of candidates, from the three main parties, living in the constituency where they stood was 2 (42 percent). For 34 percent of the English constituencies, only one of the main party contenders lived within their boundaries.…”

Section: Political Influences and Contextsupporting

confidence: 53%

An investigation of politician mobility in the United Kingdom

Gandy

2013

Br Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The south east of England, and in particular London have the greatest mobility. In general the patterns for MPs and MEPs are fairly similar, except in respect of age.Females were more likely to cross more than one regional boundary than males, particularly for Conservative MPs, and there was a higher differential in this regard for MEPs compared to MPs. It was concluded that whilst there is considerable politician mobility for both MPs and MEPs, the vast majority represent constituencies within their region of birth, or an adjacent region.

show abstract

Section: Political Influences and Contextsupporting

confidence: 53%

An investigation of politician mobility in the United Kingdom

Gandy

2013

Br Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Orford et al (2008Orford et al ( , 2009Orford et al ( , 2011) use a set of spatial analysis techniques including spatial autocorrelation measures and multilevel modelling to investigate various aspects of turnout in the London borough of Brent. Arzheimer and Evans (2012) investigated the effect of geographical distance between the electorate and the origin of the candidate on voting behaviour. Detailed spatial studies are however still relatively rare.…”

Section: Accepted To Electoral Studies (7 Oct 2015)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Space matters: Geographic variability of electoral turnout determinants in the 2012 London mayoral election

Mansley

Demšar

2015

Electoral Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Electoral participation is an important measure of the health of a liberal democracy. The determinants of voter turnout have been examined across a range of elections, but geographical approaches are relatively rare and are mostly performed at large scale aggregations and for national elections. This paper addresses this gap by exploring geographic variability in relationships between the turnout at a local election and socio-demographic variables at a detailed spatial level. Specifically, we focus on the London mayoral election, an important element of the 21st century local government reform in Britain, which, until now, has seldom been analysed from a geographical perspective. By linking the turnout from the 2012 mayoral election to socio-demographic data from the 2011 Census and doing this at the level of London's 625 wards, for the first time a more detailed picture of the spatially uneven nature of turnout is evidenced than in previous studies which have focused on larger aggregations, typically constituencies. Analysis is approached through spatial analysis using geographically weighted regression (GWR), which enables the investigation of local variations in voting patterns. The results demonstrate that electoral processes do vary over geographic space and that some of the variables that are traditionally assumed to affect the turnout in a specific way, do not do so uniformly over space or even change the direction to the opposite of the traditionally assumed affect in certain locations. Our findings present a starting point for a more detailed investigation as to why this heterogeneity exists and which social processes it relates to.

show abstract

“…First, recent research finds that British voters are more likely to support parliamentary candidates who live closer to them (Arzheimer and Evans 2012). If candidates with more local links are more likely to share the political views of their constituents, then voters' propensity to favor these local candidates would lead to the election of MPs whose preferences are better aligned with those of their constituents.…”

Section: Dyadic Representation In Comparative Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Dyadic Representation in a Westminster System

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Dyadic Representation in a Westminster SystemIs policy representation in contemporary Westminster systems solely a function of programmatic national parties, or does the election of legislators via single-member districts result in MPs whose policy positions are individually responsive to public opinion in their constituencies? We generate new measures of constituency opinion in Britain and show that, in three different policy domains and controlling for MP party, the observed legislative behavior of MPs is indeed responsive to constituency opinion. The level of responsiveness is moderate, but our results do suggest a constituency-MP policy bond that operates in addition to the well-known bond between voters and parties.

show abstract

Geolocation and voting: Candidate–voter distance effects on party choice in the 2010 UK general election in England

Cited by 79 publications

References 29 publications

An investigation of politician mobility in the United Kingdom

An investigation of politician mobility in the United Kingdom

Space matters: Geographic variability of electoral turnout determinants in the 2012 London mayoral election

Dyadic Representation in a Westminster System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About