| Part of thePolitics series |
| Elections |
|---|
.svg) |
Lists |
 Politics portal |
 | This articleis missing information about France, Germany and Italy. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on thetalk page.(July 2024) |
Asafe seat is anelectoral district which is regarded as fully secure, for either a certainpolitical party, or theincumbent representative personally or a combination of both. With such seats, there is very little chance of a seat changing hands because of the political leanings of theelectorate in theconstituency concerned or the popularity of the incumbent member. This contrasts with amarginal seat in which a defeat for the seat holder is considered possible. In systems where candidates must first win the party'sprimary election orpreselection, the phrase "tantamount to election" is often used to describe winning the dominant party's nomination for a safe seat.
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(May 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
There is a spectrum between safe and marginal seats. Supposedly safe seats can still change hands in alandslide election, such asEnfield Southgate being lost by theConservatives (and then-potential future party leaderMichael Portillo) toLabour at the1997 UK general election, whilst other seats may remain marginal despite large national swings, such asGedling, which Labour narrowly won in every election for twenty years until the2019 general election, despite having both major victories and defeats during this time. Gedling would still be seen as a marginal seat, even though it had been held by Labour for a long time. Safe seats are usually seats that have been held by one party for a long time, but the two concepts are not interchangeable.
In countries with parliamentary government, parties often try to ensure that their most talented or influential politicians are selected to contest these seats – in part to ensure that these politicians can stay in parliament, regardless of the specific election result, and that they can concentrate onministerial roles without needing to spend too much effort on managing electorate-specific issues.
Candidate selection for a party's safe seats is usually keenly contested, although many parties restrict or forbid challenges to the nomination of sitting members. The selection process can see the incumbent party, untroubled by the need to have a representative that must appeal to a broader electorate, take the opportunity to choose a candidate from the more ideological reaches of the membership. Opposing parties will often be compelled to nominate much less well-known individuals (such as backroom workers or youth activists in the party), who will sometimes do little more than serve aspaper candidates who do little or no campaigning, or will use the contest to gain experience so that they become more likely to be selected for a more winnable seat. In some cases (especially in the United States), these seats may go uncontested by other major parties.
Safe seats can become marginal seats (and vice versa) gradually as voter allegiances shift over time. This shift can happen more rapidly for a variety of reasons. The retirement or death of a popular sitting member may make a seat more competitive, as the accrued personal vote of a long-serving parliamentarian will sometimes have resisted countervailing demographic trends. Anindependent or third-party candidate with an ideology close to that of the incumbent party may also be able to make a more credible challenge than more established parties, but these factors can combine: a retiring third-party member may turn a safe seat for that party into a marginal seat. For instance, inBerwick-upon-Tweed, with the retirement of the popular incumbentAlan Beith, the seat was no longer safe for theLiberal Democrats.
Traditionally safe seats can also be more vulnerable inby-elections, especially for governing parties. Safe seats may also become marginal if the sitting member is involved in scandal: in 1997,Tatton was gained from the Conservatives by an anti-sleaze independent candidate, despite the majority previously being that of a very safe seat for the Conservatives. The incumbent,Neil Hamilton, had been mired in controversy, and was defeated by the veteranBBC journalistMartin Bell, who was aided by the decision of the main opposition parties (Labour and the Liberal Democrats) not to field candidates. Without such pacts, asplit vote is more likely under afirst past the post electoral system, as in the UK.
Opposition supporters in safe seats have restricted means to affect election outcomes, and thus the incumbent parties can, in theory, decide to ignore those supporters' concerns, as they have no direct effect on the election result. Even those voters who are moderate supporters of the incumbent party may be disenfranchised by having a representative whose views may be more extreme than their own. Political objectors in such areas may experience marginalisation from wider democratic processes andpolitical apathy. This is often regarded as undemocratic, and is a major argument in favour of various multi-memberproportional representation election methods. Safe seats may receive far less political funding than marginal seats, as the parties will attempt to "buy" marginal seats with funding (a process known in North America and Australia as "pork barrelling"), while ignoring safe seats which will reliably fall to the same party every time; this is especially true in cases where the safe seat is held by the minority party.
In countries that do not apply the first past the post system, many of which equally operate a geographic division-based system, selected or party sub-nominated candidates can be allocated a safer or more tenuous list position. If a party is strong enough nationwide to gather representations in all subdivisions, the top candidate(s) on each list tend to be very safely elected to parliament. This is seen in the extremelyproportional election systems of theNordic countries, for example. Safe seats and candidates can be avoided altogether by a purposefullymarginal-preference allocation of all divisions, ensuring all divisions are near-identically demographically diverse which may be achieved by pairing non-adjoining areas.
TheAustralian Electoral Commission defines seat margins as follows:[1][2]
| Winning2PP vote | Margin | Classification |
|---|---|---|
| 50 to 56% | 0 to 6% | Marginal |
| 56 to 60% | 6 to 10% | Fairly safe |
| 60 to 68% | 10 to 18% | Safe |
| Over 68% | Over 18% | Very safe |
In his election analysis,psephologistAntony Green puts the cutoff between "safe" and "very safe" at 12%.[3]
In Australia's federal system, most rural seats are safe seats for either theNational Party orLiberal Party. Conversely, inner-city and poorer suburban seats are typically safeAustralian Labor Party seats, and a few of the most affluent inner-middle urban seats are held by the Liberal Party. Marginals are generally concentrated in the middle-class outer-suburban areas of Australia's larger state capitals, which therefore decide most Australian federal elections.
At the2007 federal election, the governingAustralian Labor Party's safest seat was the seat ofDivision of Batman inMelbourne's inner-northern suburbs, with a two-party-preferred margin of 26.0%. The safest seat for the oppositionLiberal Party was the ruralVictorian electorate ofMurray, with a margin of 18.3%. The Liberal Party's junior coalition partner, theNational Party's safest seat was thedivision of Mallee, also located in rural Victoria, with a margin of 21.3%.[4] Following the 2022 election, theDivision of Newcastle, which Labor have held since the Federation of Australia in 1901, was the safest Labor seat in the country, and was held by the father-son combination of David Watkins andDavid Oliver Watkins from 1901 to 1958.
Examples include:
In Fiji, prior to theDecember 2006 military coup, elections were held under the1997 Constitution, which allotted 46 of theHouse of Representatives' 71 seats on an ethnic basis. 23 were reserved for the indigenous majority, 19 forIndo-Fijians, 1 forRotumans, and 3 for members of all other ethnic minorities. There was a strong tendency toward voting on ethnic lines. Thus, in the1999 general election, although the indigenous seats were split between several parties, all 19 Indo-Fijian seats were won by theFiji Labour Party – which won none of the indigenous seats. In the2001 general election, the conservative indigenous nationalistSoqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua party won 18 of the indigenous seats, with the other 5 going to the ultra-nationalistConservative Alliance – which later merged into the SDL. All 19 "Indian" seats were retained by the Labour Party. In the2006 general election, all Indo-Fijian seats remained safely Labour, while the SDL won all 23 indigenous seats. Among other minorities, only the communal seat ofWest Central was a safe seat for the ethnicUnited Peoples Party.[18][19][20][21]
Thenew Constitution adopted in 2013 abolished constituency representation altogether, in favour of party list seat allocation based on nationwide results. The2014 general election was held on that basis, thus putting an end to all safe seats. The Labour Party suffered a near wipe-out.
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(May 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
There is no formal definition in Hong Kong, yet there are somefunctional constituency seats which are regarded as fully secured by apolitical party or a political camp.[when?]
Fully secured by thepan-democracy camp:
Fully secured by thepro-Beijing camp:
In Indonesia, a safe seat is defined as a constituency where not many well known figures contesting in the area or able to gain a comfortable win.[22] One well known electoral district defined as such isEast Java VII (coveringPacitan,Ngawi,Magetan andTrenggalek), a well known holdout forDemokrat because ofEdhie Yudhoyono's candidacy as one of the members representing the district.[22]
The term is also used for people who feel it is easy to advance in electoral districts which are considered to bemarginal electoral districts.[23][24]
In Malaysia, the percentage of votes secured by a winning candidate defines the seat margin. In this case:
The northern, east coast, and rural constituencies have been safe seats for thePan Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) andPerikatan Nasional (PN). Especially inKelantan, PAS has been in government since1990 (7 consecutive terms).
Pakatan Harapan, the senior coalition in the current government has been a dominant coalition in highly industrialized states, namelyPenang,Selangor andKuala Lumpur. Even prior to the2008 elections which endedBarisan Nasional dominant over the country, PH and its predecessors performed well in these states despite never having a chance to rule over the states before. For Barisan Nasional, another major partner in the government, the southern states andSabah are the safe seats for the coalition. During its dominant period, it also controlledSarawak and west coast states.
Sabah and Sarawak are safe states for their local parties, withGabungan Rakyat Sabah andGabungan Parti Sarawak governing the states with supermajority. For Sabah, despite being described as a swing state in the past, it has been consistently ruled by parties that once a part in BN. Prior to the2018 elections, these states were described as 'fixed deposits' for BN as they won almost all seats there with a landslide.
In New Zealand, many rural electorates, and those based in wealthy suburban areas, notably the North Shore and eastern suburbs ofAuckland, are considered safe seats for theNational Party. An example of a safe National seat isEast Coast Bays, currently held byErica Stanford, who gained 71.52% of votes inthe 2023 election, with only 19% of votes going to herLabourrival.[25] By contrast, inner-city and poorer suburban electorates such as those inSouth Auckland are typically safe Labour seats. For example, in2023, the seat ofMangere was held by Labour list MPLemauga Lydia Sosene with just under 60% of the vote, while her National rival won just under 20% of the vote even despite the nationwide Labour losses of that year.[25]
Historically, some seats thought to be safe have witnessed surprise upsets. Perhaps the most dramatic recent case was the1996 election, in which theMaori seats, safe Labour seats for the previous 60 years, were all won byNew Zealand First. Meanwhile, inthe 2023 election, Labour lost many seats that they had held for decades prior such asMount Roskill,Rongotai andWellington Central.[26]
The adoption ofproportional representation by New Zealand, beginning in 1996, has decreased the importance of winning votes in geographical electorates. It remains to be seen what long-term effect proportional representation will have on the safety of individual electorate seats.
| Examples of safe seats in New Zealand | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Current seats | Former seats | |
| Labour | |||
| National | |||
Whileparty-switching in the Philippines is rampant, certain congressional districts have been held bypolitical families for generations. These are:
Under the usual definition,Capiz–1st has been held by theLiberal Party since 1946, except from 1953 to 1957; as the Liberals have not nominated someone in this district in the 2025 election, their domination of this district will end.Bohol's 3rd district has been held by theNacionalista Party from 1912 to 1972.
From the 1960s, parliamentary constituencies inGyeongsang region, especially NorthernGyeongbuk and WesternGyeongnam, are considered as safe seats forPeople Power Party.
City centres in Southeastern Gyeongnam, Southern Gyeogbuk and parliamentary constituencies in ruralGangwon,Chungbuk,Chungnam andGyeonggi and affluent villages in such asGangnam-gu,Seocho-gu,Songpa-gu andYongsan-gu ofSeoul,Haeundae-gu,Nam-gu,Dongnae-gu andSuyeong-gu ofBusan are also considered as safe seats forPeople Power Party.
Parliamentary constituencies in industrial areas and built-up residential areas inGyeonggi, Southeastern Gyeongnam,Cheongju –Daejeon –Sejong City and Jeolla regions such asJeonbuk andJeonnam are considered as safe seats for theDemocratic Party.
 | This article needs to beupdated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(August 2024) |
On 6 April 2010, theElectoral Reform Society (ERS) estimated that going into the2010 general election, of the 650constituencies, 382 (59%) were safe seats. Some of these seats have since been lost by the parties that held them at the time, notably most of the Liberal Democrat seats and some Labour seats, meaning they can no longer be considered "safe".[31]
| Party | Safe seats | % safe seats | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservatives | 172 | 45.03% | |
| Labour | 165 | 43.19% | |
| Lib Dems | 29 | 7.59% | |
| SNP | 3 | 0.79% | |
| Plaid Cymru | 2 | 0.52% | |
| Northern Ireland parties | 11 | 2.88% | |
| Total | 382 | 100% | |
Examples of safe seats for theLabour Party are in major urban areas and the industrial centres, such as theNorth West (Liverpool,Manchester); theNorth East (Newcastle,Sunderland); South and WestYorkshire, the Valleys ofSouth Wales; theWest Midlands county and parts ofInner London (e.g.Hackney andNewham).
Many areas of the Central Belt of Scotland, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, were seen as safe Labour seats until the 2015 election, when theScottish National Party took all but one Labour seat in Scotland (Edinburgh South).
Safe seats for theConservative Party tend to be in rural areas: theHome Counties (e.g.Surrey,Buckinghamshire), theshires (e.g.North Yorkshire andCheshire) and affluent areas ofLondon (e.g.Chelsea and Fulham).
The safest seat in the2017 general election wasLiverpool Walton, where Labour received 86% of the vote, giving them a 77% majority over the second-placed Conservatives (at 9%).[32]Christchurch is a safe Conservative seat; in 2017 the party gathered 69.6% of the vote there, giving it a near-50% majority over Labour.[33]
At the2015 general election, seven out of eight of the Liberal Democrats' remaining seats were marginal, with their soon-to-be leaderTim Farron's seat ofWestmorland and Lonsdale being the only one considered safe.Orkney and Shetland has been held by the Liberal Democrats and their predecessor party, theLiberal Party, continuously since the1950 general election, but was almost lost to theScottish National Party in the latter's national landslide. The seat ofSheffield Hallam was notable in the run up to the2015 general election, when opinion polls were forecasting a Labour gain despite the incumbent MP,Nick Clegg, being the party leader andDeputy Prime Minister. Clegg held the seat, albeit with a much reduced majority of just 2,353 (4.2%). In 2017, several Lib Dem MPs either regained their seat, such asVince Cable andEd Davey, or won new ones. Despite the net gain in seats, several were still lost, such as Clegg's, whilst Farron's majority was reduced to less than 1,000.
The ERS identifies what it calls "super safe seats", which have been held continuously by one party since the 19th century. In so doing, it equates seats with their rough equivalents under previous boundaries. For example, following the 2010 general election, it identifies the national representative of the area formingHaltemprice and Howden (drawn as a constituency in 1997) as having been a Conservative since the1837 general election. Similarly, it considers thatWokingham (and a few others) have been held by the Conservative Party since 1885,Devon East,Fylde andArundel and South Downs since 1868,Hampshire North East since 1857, andRutland and Melton,Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, andEast Worthing and Shoreham all since 1841. (For historical reasons, the Conservative Party being older than the other current main parties, it holds all the oldest safe seats.)[34]
Even the safest of seats can be – and sometimes are – upset. Whilst it is rare for the opposition to take such seats, outside candidates may be able to. Examples include the election ofPeter Law andGeorge Galloway in very safe Labour seats in 2005,Jim Murphy in theEastwood constituency in Scotland in 1997,Martin Bell in the safe Conservative seat ofTatton in 1997, and most recently,Helen Morgan in the Conservatives' historically safest seat,North Shropshire, in aby-election in 2021.
The loss of safe seats can become historic moments: the defeat ofMichael Portillo in his "safe" Conservative seat in 1997 created the "Portillo moment". That expression has since been used to describe huge voting swings that generally usher in a new government, as occurred in 1997. Similarly, in 2015, the Labour Party lost many formerly safe seats in Scotland, includingKirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, which had previously been held by former Prime MinisterGordon Brown, andPaisley and Renfrewshire South, the seat ofshadow Foreign SecretaryDouglas Alexander. In both cases,swings of over 25% to theSNP were recorded.[35][36] In the2019 general election, Labour lost many formerly safe seats that were part of its 'Red Wall' in northern England. These defeats represented about 20% of the party's overall 2017 vote in such seats.[37]
TheCook Partisan Voting Index ratescongressional districts on how strongly they lean toward either major party. As of the 2022 redistricting,California's 12th district is the most Democratic at D+40, whileAlabama's 4th district is the most Republican at R+33.[38]
Other examples of a safe seat for theDemocrats isCalifornia's 11th congressional district, which currently covers most of the city ofSan Francisco. This district and its predecessors have been in Democratic hands without interruption since 1949. Its current representative, formerHouse SpeakerNancy Pelosi, was most recently reelected with 77.6 percent of the vote.[39][failed verification]
SafeRepublican seats includeTennessee's 1st congressional district andTennessee's 2nd congressional district, which are located in the eastern part of the state. Both districts have been held by Republicans or their predecessors (except for two terms in the 1st) since 1859. These districts elected some of the few truly senior Southern Republican Congressmen before the 1950s.
