Prediction Competition - December 2018

[Right Leaning]

Highland: Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh: SNP 25, C 22, Ind (Greene) 18, Ind (Davis) 12, LD 11, Lab 6, Gn 4, UKIP 1, Libertarian 1 - Ind (Greene) to win on transfers
Leicester: Walgrave: Lab 73, C 19, LD 6, Gn 2
Oxford: Wolvercote: LD 58, C 28, Lab 11, G 3
Surrey: The Byfleets: Ind 40, C 37, LD 17, UKIP 6,

[hempie]

Highland, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Localsh: SNP 27, Con 21, Ind (Greene) 20, LD 12, Ind (Davis)8, Lab 6, Green 4, UKIP 1, Libertarian 1. Ind Greene to win on transfers
Leicester, Belgrave: Lab 69, Con 14, LD 12, Green 5
Oxford, Wolvercote: LD 61, Con 19, Lab 15, Green 5
Surrey, The Byfleets: Con 41, Ind 37, LD 19, UKIP 3

[olympian95]

Highland: SNP 25, Con 21, Ind (Green) 19, LD 12, Ind (Davis) 9, Lab 5, Greens 4, UKIP 3, Libertarian 2

Oxford: LD 67, Con 19, Lab 10, Green 4

Surrey: Ind 44, Con 41, UKIP 9, LD 6


Leicester; Lab 72, Con 17, LD 7, Green 4

[olympian95]

Dec 6, 2018 8:54:45 GMT olympian95 said:

Highland: SNP 25, Con 21, Ind (Green) 19, LD 12, Ind (Davis) 9, Lab 5, Greens 4, UKIP 3, Libertarian 2

Oxford: LD 67, Con 19, Lab 10, Green 4

Surrey: Ind 44, Con 41, UKIP 9, LD 6


Leicester; Lab 72, Con 17, LD 7, Green 4

And in the Highlands, Ind (Green) to win on transfers

[yellowperil]

peterl : (Dec 3rd) "not a great month for me, but I'll persevere"

Bloody politicians - can depend on them not to keep their promises

[carlton43]

Dec 6, 2018 5:28:20 GMT yellowperil said:

Dec 5, 2018 22:04:57 GMT carlton43 said:

WESTER ROSS

We have cast our postal votes for the Conservative and after mature reflection voted Solely Conservative as no transfers made any sense to us. I know others who have done the same. Why are some of you so sure the Ind (former LD) will pick up so many transfers? Her being Ind and of onetime LD persuasion? I confess I have little idea how this will go but I hope the supporters of the major players don't indicate any transfers.

If you are typical (but then I don't suppose you are) this could give the seat to the SNP, which is my forecast anyway.

Rubbish. 

It will just mean that the candidate receiving the most 'Real' votes has won, as should be the case; not some half-wit result of second and third best choices leading to the election of a banal median candidate that few actually wanted to have. This is a system to prefer mediocrity to positive choice. It is no surprise at all that it should be beloved of small parties and especially the LDs. It is a daft idea.

This may be an indicator of how the twin contests of Independence-Unionism and Remain-Leave are playing out here. If this has peaked out the Conservatives more than the SNP because of the wretched awful deal struck by May then it could be a bad night. With Ruth also fairly low profile it is hard to call.

Yes, to the extent of the giving no other preferences at all, I am probably not typical of the local mood. 

[carlton43]

I am interested in how Forum Members do approach the opportunity for making transfer votes. What system do you apply if not a straight numerical list of how you feel about each candidate in turn? What mental gymnastics do you go through in attempting to best-guess what will happen on each round? Are you voting in a positive form of declining order of preference or in a negative form of making the best effort to block the chances of a disliked party/candidate?

Would any Labour members vote Conservative or Conservative members vote Labour to break the SNP hegemony in Scotland. Would that choice be easier for you in each party if it was LD with a good chance? Or indeed Green? In the final analysis is party tribalism/loyalty and clear support of real belief more important than faffing about with the least-worst substitute to try a stuff the main 'enemy'?

[Tony Otim]

My impression would be that the Conservatives and SNP both transfer less to other parties and receive fewer transfers from them.

In this ward there are probably at least 50% of votes between the two Indys, the Lib dems, greens and Labour. Even with a proportion not be a transferring and some going to either of the main two, there's probably enough there to get one of them into the top 2, when the nat-tory divide will probably result in enough transfers to take the seat. At least that's my thinking - the result tomorrow will doubtless make a fool of me.

[yellowperil]

Dec 6, 2018 9:58:43 GMT carlton43 said:

Dec 6, 2018 5:28:20 GMT yellowperil said:

If you are typical (but then I don't suppose you are) this could give the seat to the SNP, which is my forecast anyway.

Rubbish. 

It will just mean that the candidate receiving the most 'Real' votes has won, as should be the case; not some half-wit result of second and third best choices leading to the election of a banal median candidate that few actually wanted to have. This is a system to prefer mediocrity to positive choice. It is no surprise at all that it should be beloved of small parties and especially the LDs. It is a daft idea.

This may be an indicator of how the twin contests of Independence-Unionism and Remain-Leave are playing out here. If this has peaked out the Conservatives more than the SNP because of the wretched awful deal struck by May then it could be a bad night. With Ruth also fairly low profile it is hard to call.

Yes, to the extent of the giving no other preferences at all, I am probably not typical of the local mood. 

I 'm not particularly disposed to defend the Scottish system when it comes to  by-elections and effectively it's AV  and pretty awful. Think I might prefer FPTP  for the handful of by-elections this applies to. Yes I think we pretty well all would expect the SNP to win  "your" by-election if it were held on FPTP - certainly the competition predictors if they know anything (open to doubt ) went 13/14 for SNP lead on 1st prefs, but 11/14 for Richard Greene as eventual winner, against 2 for SDP and 1 for Ms Davis. Nobody ,btw, predicting a  Conservative win at any stage, so you can feel  pretty chuffed if we are all proved wrong and the Tories emerge triumphant. ( Except of course for the fact that that might be seen as win for the PM!)

[middleenglander]

14 entries this week with jamesrodriguez entering for the first time and Casual Observer reappearing whilst ricmk joins europeanlefty in going AWOL. priceofdawn gets 2 additional faults for adding to 102% in the Highlands.

Highlands, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer & Lochalsh: 13 SNP ahead on first preferences with jamesrodriguez having Independent Green ahead
- 11 have Independent Green elected, with priceofdawn and Yellow Peril SNP elected whilst Robert Waller has Independent Davies
Leicester, Belgrave: 100% Labour hold, majority over Conservative from 45% (priceofdawn) to 63% (jamesrodriguez)
Oxford, Wolvercote: 100% Liberal Democrat hold, majority over Conservative from 30% (Right Leaning) to 48% (Olympian95)
Surrey, The Byfleets: 10 Independent gain from Conservative, Casual Observer, David Boothroyd, hempie and Yellow Peril Conservative hold

[carlton43]

Dec 6, 2018 10:41:02 GMT yellowperil said:

Dec 6, 2018 9:58:43 GMT carlton43 said:

Rubbish. 

It will just mean that the candidate receiving the most 'Real' votes has won, as should be the case; not some half-wit result of second and third best choices leading to the election of a banal median candidate that few actually wanted to have. This is a system to prefer mediocrity to positive choice. It is no surprise at all that it should be beloved of small parties and especially the LDs. It is a daft idea.

This may be an indicator of how the twin contests of Independence-Unionism and Remain-Leave are playing out here. If this has peaked out the Conservatives more than the SNP because of the wretched awful deal struck by May then it could be a bad night. With Ruth also fairly low profile it is hard to call.

Yes, to the extent of the giving no other preferences at all, I am probably not typical of the local mood. 

I 'm not particularly disposed to defend the Scottish system when it comes to  by-elections and effectively it's AV  and pretty awful. Think I might prefer FPTP  for the handful of by-elections this applies to. Yes I think we pretty well all would expect the SNP to win  "your" by-election if it were held on FPTP - certainly the competition predictors if they know anything (open to doubt ) went 13/14 for SNP lead on 1st prefs, but 11/14 for Richard Greene as eventual winner, against 2 for SDP and 1 for Ms Davis. Nobody ,btw, predicting a  Conservative win at any stage, so you can feel  pretty chuffed if we are all proved wrong and the Tories emerge triumphant. ( Except of course for the fact that that might be seen as win for the PM!)

I think having two reasonably high profile Independents will dish the chances of both of them especially when it comes to their own internal transfers or lack of them! I think a low profile LD in the contest against a higher profile ex-LD now Independent will damage the chances of both of them. I think Davis is a better shout than Greene unless more people feel like me about her than I imagine. I don't see the Conservative getting many transfers from Labour or LD where they will go to the Independents. So that probably removes us unless we stay in to gain transfers from the Independents?

[Deleted]

Dec 6, 2018 10:12:52 GMT carlton43 said:

I am interested in how Forum Members do approach the opportunity for making transfer votes. What system do you apply if not a straight numerical list of how you feel about each candidate in turn? What mental gymnastics do you go through in attempting to best-guess what will happen on each round? Are you voting in a positive form of declining order of preference or in a negative form of making the best effort to block the chances of a disliked party/candidate?

Would any Labour members vote Conservative or Conservative members vote Labour to break the SNP hegemony in Scotland. Would that choice be easier for you in each party if it was LD with a good chance? Or indeed Green? In the final analysis is party tribalism/loyalty and clear support of real belief more important than faffing about with the least-worst substitute to try a stuff the main 'enemy'?

The latter.  Shut the SNP and Greens out by any means necessary.  Last year I think I second preferenced the Lib Dems, and then various Independents after that.  Tactically voting Labour would be very difficult for me; but they are weak in our areas anyway.  Deidre Mackay gets elected in East Sutherland because of her own popularity, not her party's. 

Last year's result in North, West and Central Sutherland was unfortunate given that we actually topped first preferences, only to lose out because of the Mickey Mouse electoral system.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Dec 6, 2018 11:55:31 GMT Sandy said:

Last year's result in North, West and Central Sutherland was unfortunate given that we actually topped first preferences, only to lose out because of the Mickey Mouse electoral system.

Topped first preferences by the enormous margin of one single vote, and with fewer than one vote in every five.

Not entirely sure the Walt Disney Corporation needs to be involved to explain why that doesn't ensure that you win a seat.

[Deleted]

Dec 6, 2018 12:04:14 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Dec 6, 2018 11:55:31 GMT Sandy said:

Last year's result in North, West and Central Sutherland was unfortunate given that we actually topped first preferences, only to lose out because of the Mickey Mouse electoral system.

Topped first preferences by the enormous margin of one single vote, and with fewer than one vote in every five.

Not entirely sure the Walt Disney Corporation needs to be involved to explain why that doesn't ensure that you win a seat.

I refer you to carlton43 ’s post upthread. Rather than the candidate with the most “real” votes, a 4th placed Independent which even fewer people actually wanted wins the seat. The vote share of the first placed candidate should neither be here or there. The “Mickey Mouse” line is an adequate description of this half baked system, although I am aware you may not grasp the concept of a joke. 

[carlton43]

What I particularly dislike in AV-type systems is the lack of certainty as to the placings from '2' onwards. Even skilled psephologists are often stumped as to what happens 'next' in exhaustive elimination rounds. Should one preference candidate Ind A because he is one's second-best choice, or candidate Ind B whom one might tolerate, because she more likely to survive into rounds 2, 3 and 4? And what if one's guess is wrong and the early rounds eliminate candidates no one foresaw leaving at that stage?

Most electors must be giving an honest personal preference on a 1, 2, 3, 4... basis, irrespective of guessing as to outcomes round by round because it is just too complex to make such decisions. Also most have no idea as to the rules of taking preferences. Some will assume that if their choice 2 is eliminated in round 1 then that is it and no further choices of their's count. Others will assume that each ballot will be examined at each round and the vote only count if their choice 4 is available on round 4. Yet others assume that even if they have made choices that only occur sequentially at a point when that candidate has been eliminated until round 6 when their last choice of the to them hated SNP (placed last by number) actually counts to get the SNP candidate elected, whereas it had been the intention to show their contempt by placing it last.

In many cases I see it best to make a 1st preference only.

[iain]

Dec 6, 2018 12:53:30 GMT carlton43 said:

What I particularly dislike in AV-type systems is the lack of certainty as to the placings from '2' onwards. Even skilled psephologists are often stumped as to what happens 'next' in exhaustive elimination rounds. Should one preference candidate Ind A because he is one's second-best choice, or candidate Ind B whom one might tolerate, because she more likely to survive into rounds 2, 3 and 4? And what if one's guess is wrong and the early rounds eliminate candidates no one foresaw leaving at that stage?

Most electors must be giving an honest personal preference on a 1, 2, 3, 4... basis, irrespective of guessing as to outcomes round by round because it is just too complex to make such decisions. Also most have no idea as to the rules of taking preferences. Some will assume that if their choice 2 is eliminated in round 1 then that is it and no further choices of their's count. Others will assume that each ballot will be examined at each round and the vote only count if their choice 4 is available on round 4. Yet others assume that even if they have made choices that only occur sequentially at a point when that candidate has been eliminated until round 6 when their last choice of the to them hated SNP (placed last by number) actually counts to get the SNP candidate elected, whereas it had been the intention to show their contempt by placing it last.

In many cases I see it best to make a 1st preference only.

Why are you guessing when candidates are eliminated? That is completely irrelevant to how you should vote.

[Tony Otim]

Dec 6, 2018 12:53:30 GMT carlton43 said:

What I particularly dislike in AV-type systems is the lack of certainty as to the placings from '2' onwards. Even skilled psephologists are often stumped as to what happens 'next' in exhaustive elimination rounds. Should one preference candidate Ind A because he is one's second-best choice, or candidate Ind B whom one might tolerate, because she more likely to survive into rounds 2, 3 and 4? And what if one's guess is wrong and the early rounds eliminate candidates no one foresaw leaving at that stage?

Most electors must be giving an honest personal preference on a 1, 2, 3, 4... basis, irrespective of guessing as to outcomes round by round because it is just too complex to make such decisions. Also most have no idea as to the rules of taking preferences. Some will assume that if their choice 2 is eliminated in round 1 then that is it and no further choices of their's count. Others will assume that each ballot will be examined at each round and the vote only count if their choice 4 is available on round 4. Yet others assume that even if they have made choices that only occur sequentially at a point when that candidate has been eliminated until round 6 when their last choice of the to them hated SNP (placed last by number) actually counts to get the SNP candidate elected, whereas it had been the intention to show their contempt by placing it last.

In many cases I see it best to make a 1st preference only.

Firstly, you seem to be suggesting that voters voting "honestly" for their actual preferences, rather than having to game the system and try to work out the best tactical vote is a bad thing?

Secondly, if a voter ranks the SNP candidate last of all the candidates, then that vote can never be used to elect the SNP candidate in any meaningful sense. It would only be added to the SNP total in a redundant last round after all other candidates are eliminated and therefore the SNP candidate is already elected whether or not votes transfer to them or not.

Thirdly, some voters may assume some of those things (although some of them would be pretty darned strange things to assume). In my experience, most voters either have a roughly accurate idea of how it works or understand that they need to rank candidates in order of preference and really aren't all that interested in how the count works.

[carlton43]

Dec 6, 2018 13:08:49 GMT iain said:

Dec 6, 2018 12:53:30 GMT carlton43 said:

What I particularly dislike in AV-type systems is the lack of certainty as to the placings from '2' onwards. Even skilled psephologists are often stumped as to what happens 'next' in exhaustive elimination rounds. Should one preference candidate Ind A because he is one's second-best choice, or candidate Ind B whom one might tolerate, because she more likely to survive into rounds 2, 3 and 4? And what if one's guess is wrong and the early rounds eliminate candidates no one foresaw leaving at that stage?

Most electors must be giving an honest personal preference on a 1, 2, 3, 4... basis, irrespective of guessing as to outcomes round by round because it is just too complex to make such decisions. Also most have no idea as to the rules of taking preferences. Some will assume that if their choice 2 is eliminated in round 1 then that is it and no further choices of their's count. Others will assume that each ballot will be examined at each round and the vote only count if their choice 4 is available on round 4. Yet others assume that even if they have made choices that only occur sequentially at a point when that candidate has been eliminated until round 6 when their last choice of the to them hated SNP (placed last by number) actually counts to get the SNP candidate elected, whereas it had been the intention to show their contempt by placing it last.

In many cases I see it best to make a 1st preference only.

Why are you guessing when candidates are eliminated? That is completely irrelevant to how you should vote.

How are the electorate to know that? There is no explanation as to how the counting works that most understand.

[peterl]

Dec 6, 2018 9:13:51 GMT yellowperil said:

peterl : (Dec 3rd) "not a great month for me, but I'll persevere"

Bloody politicians - can depend on them not to keep their promises

Ha, I'm not a politician, I'm a community activist.

Eh, I was out late yesterday, slept in late and forgot. C'est la vie.

[yellowperil]

Dec 6, 2018 13:26:04 GMT Tony Otim said:

Dec 6, 2018 12:53:30 GMT carlton43 said:

What I particularly dislike in AV-type systems is the lack of certainty as to the placings from '2' onwards. Even skilled psephologists are often stumped as to what happens 'next' in exhaustive elimination rounds. Should one preference candidate Ind A because he is one's second-best choice, or candidate Ind B whom one might tolerate, because she more likely to survive into rounds 2, 3 and 4? And what if one's guess is wrong and the early rounds eliminate candidates no one foresaw leaving at that stage?

Most electors must be giving an honest personal preference on a 1, 2, 3, 4... basis, irrespective of guessing as to outcomes round by round because it is just too complex to make such decisions. Also most have no idea as to the rules of taking preferences. Some will assume that if their choice 2 is eliminated in round 1 then that is it and no further choices of their's count. Others will assume that each ballot will be examined at each round and the vote only count if their choice 4 is available on round 4. Yet others assume that even if they have made choices that only occur sequentially at a point when that candidate has been eliminated until round 6 when their last choice of the to them hated SNP (placed last by number) actually counts to get the SNP candidate elected, whereas it had been the intention to show their contempt by placing it last.

In many cases I see it best to make a 1st preference only.

Firstly, you seem to be suggesting that voters voting "honestly" for their actual preferences, rather than having to game the system and try to work out the best tactical vote is a bad thing?

Secondly, if a voter ranks the SNP candidate last of all the candidates, then that vote can never be used to elect the SNP candidate in any meaningful sense. It would only be added to the SNP total in a redundant last round after all other candidates are eliminated and therefore the SNP candidate is already elected whether or not votes transfer to them or not.

Thirdly, some voters may assume some of those things (although some of them would be pretty darned strange things to assume). In my experience, most voters either have a roughly accurate idea of how it works or understand that they need to rank candidates in order of preference and really aren't all that interested in how the count works.

That business of the superfluous final round and adding  the final  last votes to the already successful candidate is more than just a bit of unnecessary bureaucracy or an example of stupidly programmed machines not knowing when to stop. It really does enable opponents of the system  to say the lie implicit in Carlton's post -that you finish up voting for the party you like least.As you say, its not true in any meaningful way, but that's not a good line to pacify someone who is inherently suspicious that they're being conned. It should not be that difficult to make the computers stop at the point they have a winner.