Electoral Geography
| Published date | 01 October 1980 |
| Author | R.P. Woolstencroft |
| Date | 01 October 1980 |
| DOI | 10.1177/019251218000100407 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
540
ELECTORAL
GEOGRAPHY
Retrospect
and
Prospect
R.
P.
WOOLSTENCROFT
In
recent
years
there
has
been
increased
interest,
especially
from
geographers,
in
the
field
of
electoral
geography.
In
this
article
three
major
approaches
to
the
study
of
voting—the
cartographic
method,
the
"friends
and
neighbors"
models,
and
the
"nationalization"
models—are
discussed
and
evaluated.
It
is
argued
that
the
cartographic
approach
is
very
limited
in
its
utility
because
of
the
static
and
imprecise
character
of
the
work
as
well
as
its
low
explanatory
potential.
The
"friends
and
neighbors"
models
are
most
applicable
in
very
restricted
circumstances.
Under
other
conditions
they
are
likely
to
be
of
marginal
value.
The
"nationalization"
approach
is
of
considerable
importance,
although
some
interpretative
problems
still
exist.
Despite
some
analytical
and
conceptual
differences,
these
approaches
to
electoral
geography
are
marked
by
an
underlying
similarity:
a
concern
for
the
character
and
delineation
of
subnational
political
effects
which
are
spatially
demarcated.
The
"nationalizational"
approach,
it is
argued,
is
likely
to
be
the
most
useful
for
the
description
and
explanation
of
such
phenomena.
If
it
is
the
case
that
political
systems
are
embedded
in
space,
as
Aristotle
suggested,
then
it
would
seem
incumbent
on
political
scientists-as
well
as
other
social
scientists-to
develop
ana-
lytical
models
and
techniques
which
explicitly
incorporate
spatial
variables,
processes,
and
relationships,
to
unlock
the
impact
of
spatial
factors.
However,
the
textbooks
of
political
science,
which,
if
Kuhn
(1970)
is
right,
tell
us
how
practitioners
perceive
their
discipline,
are
generally
innocent
of
analyses
of
the
geo-
graphical
underpinnings
of
politics.
In
a
work
intended
to
bring
together
geographers
and
political
scientists,
the
majority
of con-
tributors
had
geography
affiliations
(Cox
et
al.,
1974).
It
seems
fair
to
suggest
that
political
scientists,
at
least
until
recently,
generally
have
not
accorded
space
a
high
ranking
on
the
agenda
of
research
priorities.
Geographers,
in
comparison
with
political
scientists,
have
devoted
more
of
their
intellectual
resources
to
understanding
541
spatial
dimensions
of
political
systems
as
well
as
to
staking
out
the
frontiers
and
boundaries
of
the
field
of
political
geography.
This
commitment,
readily
tainted
by
easy
confusion
with
the
amorphous
but
politically
disreputable
concepts
of
geopolitics,
has
also
met
with
more
than
passing
skepticism,
as
evidenced
by
Hartshorne’s
(1954:
170)
scathing
comment
that
in
&dquo;perhaps
no
other
branch
of
geography
has
the
attempt
to
teach
others
gone
so
far
ahead
of
the
pursuit
of
learning
by
the
teachers.&dquo;
Berry’s
(1969:
450)
derisive
dismissal
of
political
geography
as
a
&dquo;mori-
bund
backwater&dquo;
reflected
the
belief
that
much
of
political
geography
lacked
systematic
order
and
theoretical
structure.
Whatever
the
accuracy
of
Muir’s
(1975:
203)
observation
that
electoral
geography,
as
a
subfield
of
political
geography,
has
enjoyed
increased
research
activity
since
World
War
II,
it
has
attracted
neither
much
interdisciplinary
work
between
political
scientists
and
geographers,
nor,
indeed,
much
priority
within
either
discipline.
Nonetheless,
some
common
themes
have
devel-
oped,
with those
working
in
geography
apparently
more
sensitive
to
questions
of
proper
disciplinary
specialization.
Muir
for
instance,
following
the
lead
of
Prescott
(1972),
wonders
if
much
that
is
included
in
electoral
geography
is
not
more
the
province
of
sociology
and
political
science.
Specifically,
he
argues
(1972:
210)
that
until
&dquo;voting
decisions
can
be
clearly
related
to
spatial
contexts,
their
geographical
relevance
is
un-
proved.&dquo;
On
the
other
hand,
Busteed
(1975:
3)
argues
that
geo-
graphy
is
capable
of
providing
&dquo;an
entirely
new
dimension
to
the
study
of
elections.&dquo;
R.
J.
Taylor
and
R.
J.
Johnston
( 1979)-al-
though
somewhat
less
sanguine-still
find
geographical
perspec-
tives
important
for
the
understanding
of
elections.
Political
scientists,
on
the
other
hand,
generally
have
studied
elections
without
much
reference
to
geographical
factors
or
the
works
of
electoral
geographers.
This
disciplinary
isolation,
at
least
from
the
perspective
of
political
scientists,
stemmed
partly
from
the
often
narrow
definition
of
electoral
geography
put
forth
by
those
working
in
geography
and
the
reflexive
aversion
to
connotations
of
geopolitics
and
geographical
determinism
asso-
To continue reading
Request your trial