Safe seat

A safe seat is an electoral district which is regarded as fully secure, for either a certain political party, or the incumbent 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 the electorate in the constituency concerned or the popularity of the incumbent member. This contrasts with a marginal seat in which a defeat for the seat holder is considered possible. In systems where candidates must first win the party's primary election or preselection, the phrase "tantamount to election" is often used to describe winning the dominant party's nomination for a safe seat.

Definition

There is a spectrum between safe and marginal seats. Supposedly safe seats can still change hands in a landslide election, such as Enfield Southgate being lost by the Conservatives to Labour at the 1997 UK general election, whilst other seats may remain marginal despite large national swings, such as Gedling, which Labour narrowly won in every election for twenty years until the 2019 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 on ministerial 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, who will sometimes do little more than serve as paper 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, these seats may go uncontested by other major parties.
Safe seats can become marginal seats 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. An independent 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, in Berwick-upon-Tweed, with the retirement of the popular incumbent Alan Beith, the seat was no longer safe for the Liberal Democrats.
Traditionally safe seats can also be more vulnerable in by-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 veteran BBC journalist Martin Bell, who was aided by the decision of the main opposition parties not to field candidates. Without such pacts, a split vote is more likely under a first 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 and political apathy. This is often regarded as undemocratic, and is a major argument in favour of various multi-member proportional 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, 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 on each list tend to be very safely elected to parliament. This is seen in the extremely proportional election systems of the Nordic countries, for example. Safe seats and candidates can be avoided altogether by a purposefully marginal-preference allocation of all divisions, ensuring all divisions are near-identically demographically diverse which may be achieved by pairing non-adjoining areas.

Australia

The Australian Electoral Commission defines seat margins as follows:

Winning 2PP 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, psephologist Antony Green puts the cutoff between "safe" and "very safe" at 12%.
In Australia's federal system, most rural seats are safe seats for either the National Party or Liberal Party. Conversely, inner-city and poorer suburban seats are typically safe Australian 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 the 2007 federal election, the governing Australian Labor Party's safest seat was the seat of Division of Batman in Melbourne's inner-northern suburbs, with a two-party-preferred margin of 26.0%. The safest seat for the opposition Liberal Party was the rural Victorian electorate of Murray, with a margin of 18.3%. The Liberal Party's junior coalition partner, the National Party's safest seat was the division of Mallee, also located in rural Victoria, with a margin of 21.3%. Following the 2022 election, the Division 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 and David Oliver Watkins from 1901 to 1958.

Canada

Examples include:

Beauséjour, a riding in southeastern New Brunswick, which is considered a safe seat for the Liberal Party. In 1990, when Jean Chrétien needed an open seat to become Leader of the Opposition, he chose Beauséjour in a by-election and won.
Bow River, located in southern Alberta, is considered a safe seat for the Conservatives. In the 2015 federal election, the Conservative candidate won by 77% of the vote.
Central Nova, located in east-central Nova Scotia, which has previously been called a safe seat for the Conservative Party and its predecessor, the Progressive Conservative Party, having been held by either Elmer MacKay or his son Peter for all but five of forty years until 2015. The only time the riding was not in Conservative control was from 1993 to 1997, when the Progressive Conservatives were reduced to just two seats nationwide and a socially conservative candidate ran for the Liberals. In 1983, when Brian Mulroney became Progressive Conservative leader and needed a seat in the House of Commons, he chose to run in Central Nova. Liberal MP Sean Fraser won the seat in 2015, and was re-elected in 2019, 2021 and 2025.
Crowfoot, a Conservative stronghold located in southern Alberta, which has been called the safest seat in the entire country. In the 2008 election, Conservative candidate Kevin Sorenson won 82.04% of the vote, and in a ranking measuring the electoral competitiveness of ridings by National Post reporter Dan Arnold, the district came in last in all of Canada, having an average margin of victory of 74%.
Battle River—Crowfoot, the successor to Crowfoot, is a solid Conservative stronghold and is considered one of the most solid seats in Canada. In the 2015 federal election, the Conservative candidate won by 80.91% of the vote.
Mount Royal, a Liberal stronghold in Montreal, Quebec, held by a succession of Liberal MPs since 1940. Liberal Irwin Cotler won over 75% of the vote in the 2004 federal election.
Ottawa—Vanier, a Liberal stronghold in the eastern part of Ottawa. It has elected a Liberal Member of Parliament each federal election since its creation in 1935, often in landslide victories. In fact, the previous electoral district which comprises most of the constituency, Russell, had been solidly Liberal since 1887.
Portage—Lisgar, one of many rural, southern safe seats in the Prairies for the Conservative Party of Canada.
Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, yet another Liberal safe seat in Montreal. It has been held by the Liberals since its creation. In the 2004 federal election, incumbent Stéphane Dion won with over 65% of the vote, and over 21,000 votes more than his closest rival.
Wild Rose, a Conservative stronghold, also in southern Alberta. The incumbent, Blake Richards, won 72.9% of the vote in the 2008 election in what ranked as the largest majority win in its history. His predecessor, Myron Thompson, won 72% compared to 10% for his closest rival in the 2006 federal election.
York Centre, a safe seat for the Liberals in Toronto. Since the district's re-establishment in 1952, it has been out of Liberal hands only twice.
The City of Toronto, which holds 25 ridings is often considered a Liberal stronghold, having shut out the Conservative Party from the city in the six elections between 1993 and 2008, and having lost at most two ridings in the 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections to the New Democratic Party. The 2011 Canadian Federal Election ended the Liberal fortress of Toronto when both Conservatives and New Democrats elected many new MPs in Toronto. The former Liberal strength was restored in 2015 as they won all 25 Toronto ridings. The city is not as safe at the provincial level; for instance, the Liberal Party of Ontario won only 3 of Toronto's 41 ridings in the 2018 provincial election.
Fundy Royal, a riding in Southern New Brunswick, is usually a safe seat for Conservatives. It has only been held by two Liberal MPs since its founding in 1914, its first having held one term from 1993 to 1997 and the latest having been elected in 2015.
Southern Calgary, particularly Calgary Shepard, Calgary Heritage and Calgary Midnapore, is considered to be a solid Conservative stronghold. In the 3 April 2017 by-elections, the Conservative candidate for Midnapore won by 77% of the vote and the Conservative candidate for Heritage won by 71% of the vote. In the 2015 federal election, the Conservative candidate for Shepard won by 65% of the vote.
Sturgeon River—Parkland, located in Alberta near Edmonton, is considered a Conservative stronghold. In the 23 October 2017 by-election, the Conservative candidate won by 77% of the vote.
Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, located in Eastern Saskatchewan, is considered a Conservative stronghold, despite its low population. In the 11 December 2017 by-election, the Conservative candidate won by 69% of the vote.