Electoral Calculus

[Deleted]

Nov 12, 2019 21:02:35 GMT andrew111 said:

Nov 10, 2019 17:57:50 GMT Sandy said:

The usual caveat about how Electoral Calculus is full of sh*t, but I have also noticed they tend to have the SNP on the high side - so having us on five Scottish seats and several others very close may not be a bad sign.

You think SNP up 0.1% since 2017 is "on the high side"? I would have said it was on the low side..

I was referring to seat numbers.

[manchesterman]

last on of those wholly before the actual election.

November polls average:

CON 41%

LAB 29.9%

LD  15.1%

Electoral Calculus (with the usual caveats) gives us:

CON 339

LAB 221

LD 20

SNP 47

PC 4

Grn 1

NI 18

Con majority of 28

Delicately balanced now in that a tiny swing from this position either way results in either a comfortable 5-year majority or a hung parliament!

[bjornhattan]

Electoral Calculus have updated their maps and statistics for the new election.

I'm mentioning this because they're actually far better at this side of things than predicting elections. Their clustering of voters and analysis of demographics are usually pretty sound.

[jamie]

They clearly struggle with estimating how wards voted when theres been a big swing and seem to assume relative uniformity in movement which leads to obviously safe Labour wards being predicted to be marginal/vote Tory. Also obvious issue of under-contested/indy wards in places like County Durham.

[jamie]

Just had a look at Putney, LOL.

[pragmaticidealist]

I've noticed that the ward-by-ward figures don't actually seem to be an estimation of what happened at the election but based upon a 'prediction' of what will happen at the next election (which is odd, as I don't think there has yet been any published voting intention polls since last week).

[Pete Whitehead]

Dec 19, 2019 13:27:19 GMT pragmaticidealist said:

I've noticed that the ward-by-ward figures don't actually seem to be an estimation of what happened at the election but based upon a 'prediction' of what will happen at the next election (which is odd, as I don't think there has yet been any published voting intention polls since last week).

You have to click on show workings evidently to reveal the estimates of the actual result

[bjornhattan]

Dec 19, 2019 13:27:19 GMT pragmaticidealist said:

I've noticed that the ward-by-ward figures don't actually seem to be an estimation of what happened at the election but based upon a 'prediction' of what will happen at the next election (which is odd, as I don't think there has yet been any published voting intention polls since last week).

If you click on "Show working" you can see their estimates for 2019 (the map on each constituency is based on the 2019 estimates not their "predictions").

There's a second method too, look at new boundaries instead of old ones.

[clyde1998]

My constituency's estimates are based on the 2015 local election results, despite the most recent local election being in May, and the ward boundaries being redrawn since 2015. It leaves the figures looking wrong on the basis of the 2019 local results, a quick look shows the best Green areas in 2019 (even in wards outside the local Green-Lib Dem pact) not being the best Green areas in their estimates; the same being true for the best Lib Dem areas.

I'm guessing other areas are using outdated local election results as their basis which, even discounting the massive realignment since the 2016 referendum, makes them not particularly useful or accurate, IMO, right now.

[jamie]

clyde1998 Its even worse in other councils. Many county/unitary councils are based off 2013!

[bjornhattan]

Dec 19, 2019 16:06:42 GMT jamie said:

clyde1998 Its even worse in other councils. Many county/unitary councils are based off 2013!

It does seem to correct these clear errors by using demographics, though that only partially works.

Though I was impressed by some of their estimates - for example in Blaydon (a seat we both know well), they have Winlaton and High Spen as being about as marginal as the two north Whickham wards. That would make sense based on the kind of realignment we saw, and wouldn't be clear from local results alone.

[southpaw1]

This site is currently projecting a reduced CON majority of 12 based on recent polling

[nodealbrexiteer]

Sept 2, 2020 21:23:28 GMT southpaw1 said:

This site is currently projecting a reduced CON majority of 12 based on recent polling

Party like it's 2015