Why didn’t ‘Clegg-mania’ deliver votes?

He was the star of the election campaign, the man destined to break the Labor-Conservative duopoly in British politics. Young, articulate and handsome, Nick Clegg had finally turned the “third-party” Liberal Democrats into a formidable electoral force.

Only it didn’t happen.

In the end, “Clegg-mania” failed to translate into votes, leaving his party with a mere 57 seats in the 650-member Parliament. Despite the pre-election hype, the “Lib Dems” won fewer seats in the House of Commons than in the last general election, in 2005.

“Many, many people during the election campaign were excited about the prospect of doing something different,” Clegg said Friday morning. “But it seems that when they came to vote, many of them in the end decided to stick with what they knew best.”

David Cameron of the Conservative Party, which won the most seats in Parliament but not a majority, opened the door to a role for the Liberal Democrats in government. But the offer was a comedown from Clegg’s hopes that his party would be seriously considered by voters as an alternative to government by one of the two big parties.

Clegg, 43, brought the Liberal Democrats out of the shadows with his show-stealing performance in Britain’s first live-broadcast prime ministerial debates, which pitted him against Cameron and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labor Party. The Liberal Democrats shot up in the polls as a result, at times edging Labor out of second place.

But in a time of economic uncertainty, the party’s appeal as a viable alternative turned out not to be rooted deeply enough to convince wavering voters, particularly in swing districts, said Jon Tonge, professor of politics at the University of Liverpool and a seasoned analyst of election results.

“Quite simply, the Liberal Democrats got squeezed,” Tonge said. In such a close contest, the two major parties told voters that a ballot for the Liberal Democrats would be wasted, so “people returned to their tribes.”

The Liberal Democrats’ base “is flaky, liable to be stripped away in important contests where we don’t know the outcome,” Tonge said.

James Graham, a Liberal Democrat blogger, blamed the poor showing at the polls partly on “skin-deep” enthusiasm of young people, who form a significant portion of the party’s support base. Many of these potential voters appeared to have stayed home on polling day, Graham wrote.

But he took consolation from the fact that “there is at least a base out there waiting to be inspired and mobilized.”

Tonge said that if the Liberal Democrats can maintain their appeal, which is strong in university towns such as Cambridge and Manchester, then their time may come.

“Demographics of Lib Dem support show young graduates are particularly well-disposed to them, and that augurs well for their future,” he said.

And if the party can leverage its position in Parliament into support for reforms of Britain’s voting system, which the Liberal Democrats have long advocated, then they could still be the instigator of major changes to the political landscape.

“We are on the cusp of the Lib Dems making a permanent contribution,” Tonge said.

Stobart is a news assistant in The Times’ London Bureau.