How have historians calculated the total number of votes in general elections which had plural voting?

Question

note: a good answer would track down the source of these figures (possibly from the books below) and explain the methodology behind counting them

In the 1830 general election to the parliament at Westminster, Wikipedia records:

How did historians arrive at these figures? Do they mean that the the Tories got 62,554 votes, or that they got the support of 62,554 voters?

In general elections, some forms of plural voting were legal until 1948 in Great Britain, and until 1969 in Northern Ireland. Reasons might include owning multiple properties in one constituency, owning properties in several constitiencies, being eligible to vote in a borough constituency as well as the county constituency, or being part of a university constituency as well as the one where an elector lived.

Further complicating the above - electors who lived in multimember constituencies could usually cast as many votes as the constituency had seats, or sometimes one less than that number (so e.g. 2 votes in a 3 member constituency). Electors were not obliged to cast all votes for representatives of the same party - they could vote for one Whig, one Tory etc. Nor did they have to use all their votes - they could undervote.

These were all abolished at different times up to 1969. By the early 20th century, any difference was probably quite trivial as the most widespread forms of plural voting had been abolished.

Until 1872, ballots were not secret - a voter's name and their chosen candidate was recorded in a poll book.

In principle it would be possible to find the names in the poll book and match them up with names in other poll books to find out how many people supported candidates from a particular party. Was this done?

The wikipedia article does not say where these vote totals were found. The references given in the article are below:

British Electoral Facts 1832–1999, compiled and edited by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher (Ashgate Publishing Ltd 2000). Source: Dates of Elections – Footnote to Table 5.02

British Historical Facts 1760–1830, by Chris Cook and John Stevenson (The Macmillan Press 1980). Source: Types of constituencies – Great Britain

His Majesty's Opposition 1714–1830, by Archibald S. Foord (Oxford University Press 1964)

Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland 1801–1922, edited by B.M. Walker (Royal Irish Academy 1978). Source: Types of constituencies – Ireland

Answer 1

The way in which these figures were calculated can be deduced from the individual poll results.

These are listed on this site.

The majority of seats were uncontested, meaning there was no poll and therefore no votes were recorded. This effectively means that agreement was obtained locally as to who the MP or MPs should be and only he or they was nominated.

The are many reasons why this was done. In many cases voting had to take place in the county town which involved voters going to the expense of travelling there and, in many cases, staying there overnight. Voters would certainly expect to be reimbused expenses but often a lot more besides and so a poll was avoided where possible. This might involve other eligible candidates accepting a fee not to stand.In some cases an infomal vote might happen which would not be recorded.

After the Reform Act of 1832 this was much harder.

I have been through the results on the website and added up the total votes cast. In England in 1830 there were a total of 123,751 votes cast. These include plural votes. In Ireland 36,069 votes were cast. The total for England and Ireland comes to 159,820.

The total number of eligible voters in Scotland, prior to the Reform Act of 1832 was less than 5,000. I have not had time to check the Scottish results but it is fair to estimate roughly a couple of thousand may have voted. None of the Welsh seats was contested so no votes were caast in Wales.

The figures given in the article quoted by OP include percentages and it turns out 100% is around 162,800.

From this it is clear that the figures given are actually the total number of votes and so, where a person voted twice, his vote woud be counted twice, and no attempt has been made to work out how many unique individuals voted.

So the wikipedia article seems not correct when it refers to "popular vote" as it is actually showing the total number of votes cast for members of each party, NOT the total number of people voting for each party.

In any case the very restricted nature of the franchise, particularly in many boroughs, and the huge variety in the number of voters in each constituency, and the relatively few constituencies contested, would rended any attempt to guage the "popular vote" of questionable value.

So yes, it means that Tories got 62,554 votes; not that there were 62,554 people who voted Tory.

People entitled to two votes would not necessarily use them both. If they had a favourite in the race they might vote for him only. To vote for someone else as well risked letting the other man beat their man. PArty allegiance was often much less important than having an MP one knew and liked and was respected locally; or who had offered the best bribe.

I feel, although I think I have answered the question, I have used maths rather than history, but there we are.