Welcome to my personal blog where I don't have to justify why I'm making a post.
I am going to calculate what the electoral results in the UK would have been like if the Liberals had run a full slate of candidates during the period they did not.
The math I'm using is thus:
First I am presuming each riding is the same size. I'm doing this for two reasons. First it's my personal blog so if I want to write "riding" instead of "constituency" I can, and secondly, while being incorrect, this assumption saves a hell of a lot of time with the calculation.
Second, I will divide the Liberal results by the number of ridings they ran in to find the per-riding vote, then I will presume that 2/3rds of that is their 'base' nation-wide vote, and add that figure to the remaining ridings they did not run in; before adding it back up to get a total. I will then adjust Labour and Conservative popular vote figures to account for these new Liberal votes.
* In this election the Liberals ran 619 candidates, compared to Labour's 623, and the Tories 622. As such no math was done and the real and actual results are presented.
Compare this to Thatcher's victory in 1979 on 42.9%
Foot's 1983 loss on 27.6%, vs the Alliance on 25.4%
Blair's 1997 victory at 43.2%, vs the Tory loss on 30.7%
As well as the most recent elections
This helps put recent highs/lows into proper perspective, as the modern L-Ds try to run full slates, while the old party did not, and as such, popular vote statistics can get skewed so that some parties appear to be doing worse than they actually are.