Is it correct that constituencies with scarce voters are referred to as 'Pocket Boroughs'?

Okay, so the statement about constituencies with scarce voters being called "Pocket Boroughs" is false. To understand why, let's delve into a bit of British political history. Before reforms in the 19th century, the electoral system was, shall we say, *interesting*. There were these things called "rotten boroughs" and "pocket boroughs," and they weren't quite the same. A "rotten borough" was a constituency that had very few voters, sometimes almost none, often because the population had declined over time, like a deserted town. Now, a "pocket borough" was a constituency controlled by a single person or family, usually a wealthy landowner. They could essentially "nominate" the MP, as the voters were under their influence or control. Think of it as a political playground for the rich. So, while both types of boroughs were problematic due to their lack of genuine representation, the key difference is that "pocket boroughs" were defined by *control*, not just a small number of voters. You might think a small number of voters automatically means it's a pocket borough, but that's not necessarily true; it's the element of control that defines it.