Prediction Competition - October 2017

[yellowperil]

Still waiting for Meopham, but at least I have improved on last week's performance - don't think I'll be last this time, and in theory should be better after the home game in Kent, though how often does that not work out? Of course greenrobinhood had the 3 Nottingham results to help him this time, not to mention Lincoln Green

[middleenglander]

For week 3

Authority	Epping Forest	Gravesham	Hartlepool	Lincoln	Nottingham	Nottingham	Nottingham	Wigan
Ward	Lower Sheering	Meopham North	Seaton	Carholme	Basford	Bestwood	Bulwell Forest	Astley Mosley    Common
andrewp	25.8	28.0	13.1+10	21.3	17.4	16.0	36.0	29.9
David Boothroyd	21.8	32.0	12.6	11.9	19.1	35.6	22.8	10.6
greenrobinhood	29.8	34.0	7.2	9.4	17.9	30.6	14.8	14.6
hempie	25.8	22.5	16.6	6.1	11.9	15.8	30.0	33.9
Lancastrian	41.8	30.0	16.8+10	21.3	17.9	13.8	30.0	29.9
Robert Waller	17.8	12.5	11.1	3.3	12.4	16.8	26.0	36.6
WilliamHone	63.8+10	60.5+10	60.3+10	61.3	31.9	36.6	15.6	35.9
Yellow Peril	21.8	22.0	9.1+10	8.7	11.8	23.6	22.8	19.9
Total faults	248.1+10	241.6+10	146.6+40	143.3	140.4	188.7	198.2	211.0
kingsepron	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

and in summary for the week:

	Week 3        faults	Week 3        position	Weeks 1 to 3   faults	Weeks 1 to 3   position
andrewp	197.5	6th	1,797.5	9th
David Boothroyd	166.3	5th	547.3	3rd
greenrobinhood	158.3	3rd	580.3	4th
hempie	162.6	4th	495.1	1st
kingsepron	800		1,292.3	8th
Lancastrian	211.5	7th	655.9	6th
Robert Waller	136.5	1st	501.5	2nd
WilliamHone	395.9	8th	1,120.5	7th
Yellow Peril	149.6	2nd	644.3	5th

Objections please by noon Sunday.

There are 6 by-elections for 7 seats next week.  Please see first post of this thread as to how to treat the "double" by-election.
Predictions on this thread by 9.00 am Sunday.

[yellowperil]

Congratulations to Robert on the week - could be very close for the month after next week, probably between Robert and hempie, but David by no means out of contention

[hempie]

Well done again Robert. At the moment I am not certain I will be able to get an entry in next week due to hols from Tuesday night and a really hectic schedule from now until then. Could be some stick a pin in predictions before I go away!

[Robert Waller]

Thanks, but I think I'd still back you, Hempie, even under those circumstances!

[yellowperil]

Now onwords to Oct 26th and the deciding battle for the month, and yes do somehow try to to make it, Hempie. This will include the double-headed contest, and if anybody like me (or am I the only thicko?) was left in any doubt about the methodology, middleenglander has spelt out his calculations in great detail on the October 19th thread in his response to the Lib Dem candidate this time in Lincoln Carholme, which I found very useful.

Having said that, and clearly we need to follow our moderator's instruction, I would still argue the general point. I would have preferred an alternative methodology which took the total number of votes cast for each party and divided it by the total number of votes cast. If a given party puts up one serious candidate and a clearly unsuitable or unknown paper candidate ( not an unknown scenario) the average vote for that party is correspondingly reduced, but if the party fails to field a second candidate, should the party's vote be taken as for their single candidate, or should we be able to regard the non-candidate as having scored zero? Personally I would have preferred the latter. In the example of Carholme 2016 as discussed by middleenglander on the other thread, the Lib Dem candidate there got 176 votes in a triple election, and their vote "average" was therefore regarded as 176, whereas I would have preferred to see that as 176,0.0 divided by 3 = 58.7. I can indeed .see the arguments for each party taking its vote as the maximum, as where only the top vote is counted, but this "average vote" is not really an average at all

[Pete Whitehead]

No system of presenting results as percentages for multi-vacancy elections is perfect, but to pretend that only 58.7 people voted for the Lib Dem candidate when in fact 176 did is patently ridiculous

[carlton43]

Oct 21, 2017 11:00:26 GMT yellowperil said:

Now onwords to Oct 26th and the deciding battle for the month, and yes do somehow try to to make it, Hempie. This will include the double-headed contest, and if anybody like me (or am I the only thicko?) was left in any doubt about the methodology, middleenglander has spelt out his calculations in great detail on the October 19th thread in his response to the Lib Dem candidate this time in Lincoln Carholme, which I found very useful.

Having said that, and clearly we need to follow our moderator's instruction, I would still argue the general point. I would have preferred an alternative methodology which took the total number of votes cast for each party and divided it by the total number of votes cast. If a given party puts up one serious candidate and a clearly unsuitable or unknown paper candidate ( not an unknown scenario) the average vote for that party is correspondingly reduced, but if the party fails to field a second candidate, should the party's vote be taken as for their single candidate, or should we be able to regard the non-candidate as having scored zero? Personally I would have preferred the latter. In the example of Carholme 2016 as discussed by middleenglander on the other thread, the Lib Dem candidate there got 176 votes in a triple election, and their vote "average" was therefore regarded as 176, whereas I would have preferred to see that as 176,0.0 divided by 3 = 58.7. I can indeed .see the arguments for each party taking its vote as the maximum, as where only the top vote is counted, but this "average vote" is not really an average at all

I suspect you are over-thinking process rather than preferencing purpose and utility?

 

[yellowperil]

Oct 21, 2017 11:23:45 GMT carlton43 said:

Oct 21, 2017 11:00:26 GMT yellowperil said:

I suspect you are over-thinking process rather than preferencing purpose and utility?

 

i am rarely accused of overthinking.  On purpose and utility, I think the jury might be out.

[carlton43]

Oct 21, 2017 12:00:09 GMT yellowperil said:

Oct 21, 2017 11:23:45 GMT carlton43 said:

I suspect you are over-thinking process rather than preferencing purpose and utility?

 

i am rarely accused of overthinking.  On purpose and utility, I think the jury might be out.

Well, take your own example of a ward where one major party only puts up one candidate for three vacancies. What would you calculation tell us when in a list of results over a 10-year period, without poring over detailed lists of footnotes at the bottom of the page. At first sight that party would look to have had a disaster poll year for some odd reason?

The jury isn't 'out'! I fear you are just wrong.

[yellowperil]

I will still argue my corner!

1. If a major party only puts up one candidate for 3 vacancies where they would normally have three, that indeed is a disaster poll for them,just as much as if their vote had collapsed for 3 candidates.

2. I wasn't arguing that " average vote" should be the only figure to be considered, Indeed the "top poll" figure is maybe more significant, and that is what tells you,maybe, the party's potential in that area. An average vote which uses the maximum for a single candidate party seems to me to be neither one thing nor the other.

I would not be so bold as to say you are wrong, but I still hold that it is arguable.

[middleenglander]

A party may put up only one candidate in a multi-member ward and advise their supporters to only use only one vote in the hope that they have a better chance of sneaking a win than if they put up a full slate of candidates.

[yellowperil]

Yes I know that does happen sometimes and I think its an absolute disgrace- I do not believe any party should think it has the right to tell its supporters not to make full use of their democratic rights. Has anyone ever done any research into how widespread the practice is and what the effect of it is- do the party's supporters generally obey that instruction or tell their party to go to hell which is what I would do?

[middleenglander]

Oct 22, 2017 8:17:08 GMT yellowperil said:

Yes I know that does happen sometimes and I think its an absolute disgrace- I do not believe any party should think it has the right to tell its supporters not to make full use of their democratic rights. Has anyone ever done any research into how widespread the practice is and what the effect of it is- do the party's supporters generally obey that instruction or tell their party to go to hell which is what I would do?

I know of cases in the mid / late 60s where it was successful. I personally see nothing wrong in the practice. If so is the Greens showing 1st / 2nd / 3rd preference then wrong.

[yellowperil]

To me there is a considerable difference between a party advising its supporters as to their preferences, and a party advising its supporters to withhold votes, which they are entitled to use as they wish. I would have no objection to a party not putting up a full slate of candidates e.g. where there is an independent standing, and letting it be known that they are not opposing that independent- that is widespread practice and perfectly proper, maybe even commendable. It is purely and simply a party telling its supporters not to use the vote they have been given, for any purpose.

[hempie]

OK before I go away on hols here are my stick a pin in and hope guesses:
Charnwood, Loughborough Hastings: Lab 53, Con 30,UKIP 9, Green 8
Derbyshire Dales, Ashbourne South: Con 55, Lab 29, LD 16
Herefordshire, Kings Acre: IOCH 35, Con 28, LD 22, Lab 10, Ind 5
Kirklees, Batley East: Lab 71, Con 13,LD 9, Ind 5, Green 2
Mid Sussex, East Grinstead Imberhorne: Con 51, LD 22, Lab 19,Ind 8
Tameside, Droylsden East: Lab 63, Con 25,LD 8,Green 4

[lancastrian]

Charnwood: Lab 55 Con 30 Green 8 UKIP 7
Derbyshire Dales: Con 58 Lab 27 LD 15
Herefordshire: IOCH 31 Con 25 LD 22 Ind 15 Lab 7
Kirklees: Lab 72 Con 12 LD 8 Green 4 LIHWD 4
Mid Sussex: Con 37 LD 34 Ind 19 Lab 10
Tameside: Lab 67 Con 15 LD 10 Green 8

[Deleted]

Hope to continue my advance up the table...

Charnwood BC,Loughborough Hastings: Lab 46, Con 44, UKIP 5, Green 5
Derbyshire Dales DC, Ashbourne South: Lab 45, Con 44, LD 11
Herefordshire UA,Kings Acre: Lab 20, Con 15, LD 23, Ind 5, IOCH 37
Kirklees MBC, Batley East: Lab 65, Con 20, LD 7, Green 3, LIHWD 5
Mid Sussex DC, East Grinstead Imberhorne: Lab 11, Con 45, LD 42, Ind 2
Tameside MBC, Droylsden East: Lab 60, Con 30, LD 5, Green 5

[andrewp]

Charnwood, Loughborough Hastings Lab 54, Con 31, ukip 9, Green 6
Derbyshire Dales, Ashbourne South Con 56Lab 28, Lib Dem 16
Herefordshire, Kings Acre IOC 38, Lib Dem 24, Con 17, ind 15, Lab 6
Kirklees, Batley East Lab 69, Con 14, Ind 8, Lib Dem 6, Green 3
Mid Sussex, Imberbourne Con 46, Lib Dem 30, Lab 14, ind 10
Tameside, Droylesden East Lab 72, Con 16, Green 6, Lib Dem 6.

[greenhert]

Charnwood BC, Loughborough Hastings: Labour 54, Conservative 33, Green 8, UKIP 5.
Derbyshire Dales DC, Ashbourne South: Conservative 59, Labour 25, Liberal Democrats 16.
Herefordshire UA, Kings Acre: It's Our County 40, Liberal Democrats 20, Conservative 19, Independent 14, Labour 7.
Kirklees MBC, Batley East: Labour 68, Conservative 16, Independent 7, Liberal Democrats 6, Green 3.
Mid Sussex DC, East Grinstead Imberhorne: Conservative 50, Liberal Democrats 27, Labour 13, Independent 10.
Tameside MBC, Droylsden East: Labour 61, Conservative 30, Green 5, Liberal Democrats 4.