The electorate is the politician's judge and jury. Perceptions of its nature and composition helped to determine when late Victorian and Edwardian elections were fought, and how the issues were portrayed. Its real nature and composition could influence the outcome of the electoral competition. If the (restricted) franchise affected one party more than another, if the jury was packed, then some verdicts would be more likely than others. For many historians, the system was seriously biased against the working class, and consequently against the Labour party. Nonetheless, the precise structure of the electoral system has not been thoroughly investigated. The national legal and administrative framework (Section I) was complex, but much less complex than the local application of these vague principles. The system broadly favoured older men, particularly in provincial towns (Section II), but also, to a lesser extent, in the cities (Section III). Younger men suffered more than anyone else (Section IV). There was a secondary bias against working-class men, especially those living in fluidly populated metropolitan areas, but this bias was not dramatic; nor did it prevent any party mobilising a substantial amount of support. There was a small, general, anti-working-class bias, and isolated instances where it became much more substantial. Plural voting was the major cause of inequality (Section V). The nature of the parliamentary boundaries had a more pronounced effect. There were a substantial number of seats whose social construction suggested that they could become political ‘ghettos’ (Section VI).