Skip to main content

New Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Classifying Elections in Britain
  • 142 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter highlights some of the weaknesses of shoehorning “new” elections into a model designed to demonstrate differences between national and European elections. It argues that using the terminology of first- and second-order elections is problematic given the new elections introduced to Britain over the last two decades. Rather than relying upon such terminology, it outlines how a more holistic classification of elections may be achieved and argues that in order to achieve this we should broaden our analysis of groups involved from simply voters to include political parties and the media. As well as offering a new method for understanding British elections, it argues that rather than distinguishing between first- and second-order a more accurate classification would differentiate elections based on geography—between national and subnational elections.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arnett, G. (2016, February 1). MPs Ignorant of Key EU Institutions—Poll. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2016/feb/01/mps-ignorant-eu-institutions-poll-ipsos-mori-european-union. Accessed 6 Sept 2019.

  • Asquith, A. (2008). A Bullock, a Monkey and Robocop: An Assessment of the Directly Elected Mayor in English Local Government. Policy and Politics, 36(1), 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audickas, L., Dempsey, N., & Keen, R. (2018, September 3). House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number SN05125 Membership of UK Political Parties. Retrieved from House of Commons Library: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/.

  • Berkowitz, D. A. (1997). Social Meanings of News. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blais, A., & Carty, R. K. (1990). Does Proportional Representation Foster Voter Turnout? European Journal of Political Research, 18, 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdanor, V. (2004). The Constitution and the Party System in the Twentieth Century. Parliamentary Affairs, 57(4), 717–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2018). Political Parties in the UK. London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., & Young, J. (1973). The Manufacture of News: Social Problems, Deviance and the Mass Media. London: Constable.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, F. L., Tyler, T. R., Goetz, E. G., Gordon, M. T., Protess, D., Leff, D. R., & Molotoch, H. L. (1983). Media and Agenda Setting: Effects on the Public, Interest Groups Leaders, Policy Makers and Policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 16–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J., Farrell, D. M., & McAllister, I. (2011). Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dearing, J. W., & Rodger, E. M. (1996). Agenda Setting. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dery, D. (2000). Agenda Setting and Problem Definition. Policy Studies, 21(1), 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, P., Grasso, M. T., Buraczynska, B., Karampampas, S., & Temple, L. (2016). Convergence on Crisis? Comparing Labour and Conservative Framing of the Economic Crisis in Britain, 2008–14. Politics & Policy, 44(3), 577–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, J., & Elcock, H. (2014). Elected Mayors: Leading Locally? Local Government Studies, 40(4), 581–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, R., & Goodwin, M. (2014). Revolt on the Right: Explaining the Support for the Radical Right in Britain. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harrop, M., & Miller, W. (1987). Elections and Voters: A Comparative Introduction. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, A., McLean, I., Taylor, B., & Curtice, J. (1999). Between First and Second Order: A Comparison of Voting Behaviour in European and Local Elections in Britain. European Journal of Political Research, 35(3), 389–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S. (2002). Constitutional Agenda-Setting Through Discretion in Rule Interpretation: Why the European Parliament Won at Amsterdam. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ipsos MORI. (2016, January). Economist/Ipsos MORI January 2016 Issues Index. Ipsos MORI. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/economist-ipsos-mori-january-2016-issues-index. Accessed 9 Dec 2018.

  • Karp, J. A., & Danducci, S. (2010). The Impact of Proportional Representation on Turnout: Evidence from New Zealand. Australian Journal of Political Science, 34(3), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, C. (2017, November 1). Caroline Lucas: A Fairer Electoral System Would Tackle Why People Don’t Vote. Electoral Reform Society. https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/-electoral-system-would-tackle-some-of-the-reasons-people-dont-vote/. Accessed 9 Dec 2018.

  • Mawby, R. I., & Smith, K. (2016). Civilian Oversight of the Police in England and Wales: The Election of Police and Crime Commissioners in 2012 and 2016. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 19(1), 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musson, S., John, P., & Tickell, A. (2009). Campaigning and the Media: The North-East Referendum of November 2004. In M. Sandford (Ed.), The Northern Veto (pp. 72–87). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2003, August). Will New Technology Boost Turnout? Evaluating Experiments in E-Voting V: All-Postal Voting Facilities in UK Local Elections (KSG Working Papers Series No. RWP03-034) [online]. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.437140.

  • Pratchett, L., & Wingfield, M. (2004). Electronic Voting in the United Kingdom: Lessons and Limitations from the UK Experience. In N. Kersting & H. Baldershiem (Eds.), Electronic Voting and Democracy (pp. 172–189). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. (1984). Do Parties Make a Difference? London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schakel, A. H., & Jeffrey, C. (2013). Are Regional Elections Really ‘Second-Order’ Elections? Regional Studies, 47(3), 323–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1942). Party Government. New York: Rinehart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, H. (2005). The European Parliament Elections of June 2004: Still Second-Order? West European Politics, 28(3), 650–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selb, P. (2009). A Deeper Look at the Proportionality—Turnout Nexus. Comparative Political Studies, 42(4), 527–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoemaker, P. J. (1997). A New Gatekeeping Model. In D. Berkowirz (Ed.), Social Meaning of News (pp. 57–62). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gorp, B. (2006). The Constructionist Approach to Framing: Bringing Culture Back In. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, David H. (2007). Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing and Priming. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 142–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, D. M. (1997). The ‘Gatekeeper’: A Case Study in the Selection of News. In D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Social Meanings of News (pp. 63–71). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kirkland, C. (2020). New Approach. In: Classifying Elections in Britain. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32556-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics