Geographic spread. Getting 10% of the vote in every single seat in the United Kingdom equals zero seats. Getting 33% of the vote, evenly spread across the UK, means winning the tiny fraction of seats where the other two parties are evenly split at 32.9% and some independent candidate loses his deposit without taking your votes... A particular concern when the largest small party are the Greens, who eat disproportionately into the Lib Dem vote.
My point is that the major parties are geographically-concentrated: the Conservatives dominate in suburban constituencies with a golf course, and in most of England's rural seats; Labour dominate in inner-city constituencies and win elections by displacing the Conservatives from suburban seats in Northern England. When they fail to do this, we get a Conservative majority in Parliament.
The Lib-Dems have a presence everywhere but they only have the critical mass of 'core vote' in a small geographical concentration of constituencies in South-Western England - and in Scotland, where the Conservative party have been squeezed out entirely and the election's a three-way contest between Labour, the Lib-Dems, and the Scots Nationalists.
The tiny fraction of three-way marginal seats where the Lib Dems have a significant core vote are 'battleground' seats for the two major parties, too: winning elections is about taking marginals. Needless to say, massive resources are poured into these local contests and predicting results is more of an art than a science.
An affluent inner-city area like Islington would be a good example: Labour and the Conservatives can rely on an 'Ignorant Vote' among the housing projects and the old age pensioners respectively; the election is decided among a tiny fraction of floating voters among the 'chattering classes', most of whom will have been indoctrinated into an unchanging political stance at university and, as adults, live among like-minded friends and will only consume news media that confirm their existing prejudices. Making headway against such entrenched positions is a Sisyphean task, and it may well be that the long-term Lib-Dem strategy will be to expand from it's geographical base rather than waste resources campaigning as a 'third party' in the marginals.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
A dangerous oversimplification...
Date: 2007-12-31 01:30 pm (UTC)Geographic spread. Getting 10% of the vote in every single seat in the United Kingdom equals zero seats. Getting 33% of the vote, evenly spread across the UK, means winning the tiny fraction of seats where the other two parties are evenly split at 32.9% and some independent candidate loses his deposit without taking your votes... A particular concern when the largest small party are the Greens, who eat disproportionately into the Lib Dem vote.
My point is that the major parties are geographically-concentrated: the Conservatives dominate in suburban constituencies with a golf course, and in most of England's rural seats; Labour dominate in inner-city constituencies and win elections by displacing the Conservatives from suburban seats in Northern England. When they fail to do this, we get a Conservative majority in Parliament.
The Lib-Dems have a presence everywhere but they only have the critical mass of 'core vote' in a small geographical concentration of constituencies in South-Western England - and in Scotland, where the Conservative party have been squeezed out entirely and the election's a three-way contest between Labour, the Lib-Dems, and the Scots Nationalists.
The tiny fraction of three-way marginal seats where the Lib Dems have a significant core vote are 'battleground' seats for the two major parties, too: winning elections is about taking marginals. Needless to say, massive resources are poured into these local contests and predicting results is more of an art than a science.
An affluent inner-city area like Islington would be a good example: Labour and the Conservatives can rely on an 'Ignorant Vote' among the housing projects and the old age pensioners respectively; the election is decided among a tiny fraction of floating voters among the 'chattering classes', most of whom will have been indoctrinated into an unchanging political stance at university and, as adults, live among like-minded friends and will only consume news media that confirm their existing prejudices. Making headway against such entrenched positions is a Sisyphean task, and it may well be that the long-term Lib-Dem strategy will be to expand from it's geographical base rather than waste resources campaigning as a 'third party' in the marginals.