|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Feb 18, 2021 15:22:26 GMT
Why can't we have this much data for UK elections? Down to groups of two or three streets it's possible to get percentages of vote for each party for the most recent Catalan parliamentary election. Obviously there's an argument about privacy etc, and in an FPTP system is a gerrymanderer's dream, but from a psephological point of view it's absolutely fascinating. Edit: if you follow the link and scroll down you'll see an interactive map for each main party. You don't need to speak Catalan to understand the colours. Of course, there are countries which have both FPTP and a similar level of detail - Canada for one. Click on any of their ridings on this map and you can see results down to a very low level, down to a few streets in urban areas. The gerrymandering aspect doesn't seem to have been a huge issue over there, and I'd argue it'd actually prevent gerrymandering since it would make it much more transparent. At the moment, I'd expect the big parties to have a pretty good idea of how even quite small local areas vote, and so they can still bear this in mind when coming up with boundary plans (that do get sent to, and influence, the bodies designing them). But because the actual data isn't released, the public can't always tell when this is happening - if a gerrymander is particularly neat, it's possible no-one would notice. |
|
|
|
Post by David Boothroyd on Feb 18, 2021 15:25:38 GMT
I completely agree about sanctity of the ballot. I just find it incredible they can do this and we won't even do official results by electoral ward. We could always include the census protection of merging areas where the numbers are so small as to make data protection impossible. Particularly where just a few electors are in one constituency due to ward boundary changes. I can't see any government passing legislation that divulges results at a micro-level. It's been requested and always declined. I think there may be a case for it in terms of detection of fraud. Posting the local results outside the polling station was one of the conditions which the African Union imposed on Zimbabwe during the bad years of Mugabe fixing the results, and it stopped a lot of the maplractice. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 284
|
Post by ilerda on Feb 18, 2021 15:29:19 GMT
I completely agree about sanctity of the ballot. I just find it incredible they can do this and we won't even do official results by electoral ward. We could always include the census protection of merging areas where the numbers are so small as to make data protection impossible. Particularly where just a few electors are in one constituency due to ward boundary changes. I can't see any government passing legislation that divulges results at a micro-level. It's been requested and always declined. I wouldn’t call wards micro-level personally. The vast majority have at least two or three thousand voters in them, and lots have many thousands more than that. The ONS is after all allowed to publish far more personal data about population on a smaller level. As a genuine question, is it explicitly against the law to publish results below constituency level? Or just something that isn’t done? |
|
hullenedge
Conservative
Posts: 2,174 
Member is Online
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 18, 2021 15:31:49 GMT
I can't see any government passing legislation that divulges results at a micro-level. It's been requested and always declined. I think there may be a case for it in terms of detection of fraud. Posting the local results outside the polling station was one of the conditions which the African Union imposed on Zimbabwe during the bad years of Mugabe fixing the results, and it stopped a lot of the maplractice. Extremely unlikely to happen here. Our staff are squeaky clean. |
|
hullenedge
Conservative
Posts: 2,174
Member is Online
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 18, 2021 15:35:52 GMT
I can't see any government passing legislation that divulges results at a micro-level. It's been requested and always declined. I wouldn’t call wards micro-level personally. The vast majority have at least two or three thousand voters in them, and lots have many thousands more than that. The ONS is after all allowed to publish far more personal data about population on a smaller level. As a genuine question, is it explicitly against the law to publish results below constituency level? Or just something that isn’t done? Can't recall the declaration I had to sign for counts. Some years back so may have changed. Parties have published results of sorts but a detailed breakdown would be frowned upon. Anything that discloses an individual vote would be illegal - signature, counterfoil number etc. |
|
|
|
Post by David Boothroyd on Feb 18, 2021 15:57:24 GMT
I think there may be a case for it in terms of detection of fraud. Posting the local results outside the polling station was one of the conditions which the African Union imposed on Zimbabwe during the bad years of Mugabe fixing the results, and it stopped a lot of the maplractice. Extremely unlikely to happen here. Our staff are squeaky clean. I guess you are therefore completely opposed to the Conservative government's announced intention to require voters to produce identification, based as it is on a belief in widespread undetected electoral fraud. |
|
hullenedge
Conservative
Posts: 2,174
Member is Online
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 18, 2021 16:08:05 GMT
Extremely unlikely to happen here. Our staff are squeaky clean. I guess you are therefore completely opposed to the Conservative government's announced intention to require voters to produce identification, based as it is on a belief in widespread undetected electoral fraud. That's a different issue. Possible fraud by the voter rather than possible fraud by the polling staff/counters etc. Personation does happen but on what scale? I don't have a problem with producing ID when casting my vote although I now vote by post. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 284
|
Post by ilerda on Feb 18, 2021 16:22:30 GMT
I wouldn’t call wards micro-level personally. The vast majority have at least two or three thousand voters in them, and lots have many thousands more than that. The ONS is after all allowed to publish far more personal data about population on a smaller level. As a genuine question, is it explicitly against the law to publish results below constituency level? Or just something that isn’t done? Can't recall the declaration I had to sign for counts. Some years back so may have changed. Parties have published results of sorts but a detailed breakdown would be frowned upon. Anything that discloses an individual vote would be illegal - signature, counterfoil number etc. Yes it's definitely still illegal to share the results in any form, even just a sample, before the official declaration of the poll. But I don't know if it's illegal for party activists to share breakdowns after the declaration, or even if it would be illegal for the council to give an official breakdown. I seem to recall Birmingham and perhaps a few other places gave breakdown by ward and/or constituency for the EU referendum. Where I was in Sheffield it was counted by ward but wards were paired on a table so it was supposedly impossible to know the result for each individual ward. When the table then submitted its tally to the returning officer it was the result from two wards from opposite sides of the city. |
|
hullenedge
Conservative
Posts: 2,174
Member is Online
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 18, 2021 16:28:01 GMT
Can't recall the declaration I had to sign for counts. Some years back so may have changed. Parties have published results of sorts but a detailed breakdown would be frowned upon. Anything that discloses an individual vote would be illegal - signature, counterfoil number etc. Yes it's definitely still illegal to share the results in any form, even just a sample, before the official declaration of the poll. But I don't know if it's illegal for party activists to share breakdowns after the declaration, or even if it would be illegal for the council to give an official breakdown. I seem to recall Birmingham and perhaps a few other places gave breakdown by ward and/or constituency for the EU referendum. Where I was in Sheffield it was counted by ward but wards were paired on a table so it was supposedly impossible to know the result for each individual ward. When the table then submitted its tally to the returning officer it was the result from two wards from opposite sides of the city. Our local ward results were distorted by the postal votes (about 20% ish in total and 60-40 towards Leave) being spread across the borough. Hebden Bridge (Calder) was much stronger for Remain than the released figures suggested and the North Halifax estates much stronger for Leave. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Don't vote. It only encourages them.
Posts: 32,143
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 18, 2021 16:37:01 GMT
Yes it's definitely still illegal to share the results in any form, even just a sample, before the official declaration of the poll. But I don't know if it's illegal for party activists to share breakdowns after the declaration, or even if it would be illegal for the council to give an official breakdown. I seem to recall Birmingham and perhaps a few other places gave breakdown by ward and/or constituency for the EU referendum. Where I was in Sheffield it was counted by ward but wards were paired on a table so it was supposedly impossible to know the result for each individual ward. When the table then submitted its tally to the returning officer it was the result from two wards from opposite sides of the city. Our local ward results were distorted by the postal votes (about 20% ish in total and 60-40 towards Leave) being spread across the borough. Hebden Bridge (Calder) was much stronger for Remain than the released figures suggested and the North Halifax estates much stronger for Leave. Which is pretty much as you would expect. However I have read estimates for this area which were just plain wrong. Bootle is often reported as Leave, Southport Remain and Sefton Central 50-50. Overall Sefton was just Remain, but it was Southport which was much more strongly Leave. Both Bootle and Sefton Central were remain. I think given only the global figures were published people guessed what the breakdown was likely to be but it's just not accurate as those who attended the count could verify. |
|
hullenedge
Conservative
Posts: 2,174
Member is Online
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 18, 2021 17:14:19 GMT
Our local ward results were distorted by the postal votes (about 20% ish in total and 60-40 towards Leave) being spread across the borough. Hebden Bridge (Calder) was much stronger for Remain than the released figures suggested and the North Halifax estates much stronger for Leave. Which is pretty much as you would expect. However I have read estimates for this area which were just plain wrong. Bootle is often reported as Leave, Southport Remain and Sefton Central 50-50. Overall Sefton was just Remain, but it was Southport which was much more strongly Leave. Both Bootle and Sefton Central were remain. I think given only the global figures were published people guessed what the breakdown was likely to be but it's just not accurate as those who attended the count could verify. The Nigel Marriott figures agree with your observations but the Chris Hanretty figures (he's very generous with his research) are taken as gospel. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 8,327
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 18, 2021 20:30:40 GMT
Can't recall the declaration I had to sign for counts. Some years back so may have changed. Parties have published results of sorts but a detailed breakdown would be frowned upon. Anything that discloses an individual vote would be illegal - signature, counterfoil number etc. Yes it's definitely still illegal to share the results in any form, even just a sample, before the official declaration of the poll. But I don't know if it's illegal for party activists to share breakdowns after the declaration, or even if it would be illegal for the council to give an official breakdown. I seem to recall Birmingham and perhaps a few other places gave breakdown by ward and/or constituency for the EU referendum. Where I was in Sheffield it was counted by ward but wards were paired on a table so it was supposedly impossible to know the result for each individual ward. When the table then submitted its tally to the returning officer it was the result from two wards from opposite sides of the city. Every Yorkshire EU election count I've attended in Sheffield tallied and reported (on a big screen!) the votes by ward. Naturally, observers with their tally sheets were able to calculate estimates of the vote by polling box. I'm quite proud that I got a 10% sample at my first Scarborough EU count, with 25% in wards we were interested in, and a couple of 80%+. All this with me rushing around trying to train newbies at the same time. "You're not here to socialise, there's a job to be done!"  |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman-romantic-reactionary Catholic
Posts: 6,283
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Feb 19, 2021 7:26:36 GMT
Why can't we have this much data for UK elections? Down to groups of two or three streets it's possible to get percentages of vote for each party for the most recent Catalan parliamentary election. Obviously there's an argument about privacy etc, and in an FPTP system is a gerrymanderer's dream, but from a psephological point of view it's absolutely fascinating. Edit: if you follow the link and scroll down you'll see an interactive map for each main party. You don't need to speak Catalan to understand the colours. Thank You! PrecinctMaps - including such of Left-vs-Right, Separatists-vs.-Unionists aso. - are provided by "ElDiario": www.eldiario.es/catalunya/resultados-elecciones-catalanas-calle-calle-consulta-gano-manzana_1_7220231.htmlPublic BroadCaster TVE has only MunicipalityMaps, but in return You can add up several parties (e.g. Junts and PDeCAT or PSC&ERC&ECP aso.): www.rtve.es/noticias/elecciones-catalanas/mapa-resultados-2021/If anyone is too lazy/busy to save them himself, but interested, then i can provide dozens of them. |
|
jm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 153
|
Post by jm on Feb 19, 2021 10:21:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Feb 20, 2021 22:55:58 GMT
Blackpool 2019. Lab 23 (-6) C 15 (+2) Ind 4 (+4). Changes based on 2015: C gain from Lab Greenlands (2) Marton (1) Squires Gate (1) Ind gain from C Norbreck (2) Ind gain from Lab Brunswick (1) Marton (1)   Split wards in 2019 were: Brunswick: Lab/Ind Highfield: Lab/C Marton: C/Ind Waterloo: C/Lab
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 21, 2021 10:33:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Feb 22, 2021 22:14:57 GMT
Telford and Wrekin 2019. Lab 36 (+9) C 13 (-10) LD 4 (+1) Ind 1. Changes based on 2015: Lab gain from C Dawley and Aqueduct (1) Horsehay and Lightmoor (1) Ironbridge Gorge Ketley and Overdale (3) Madeley and Sutton Hill (1) The Nedge (1) Park LD gain from C Newport South and East (1)   Split wards in 2019 were: Horsehay and Lightmoor: Lab/C Newport North and West: Ind/C Newport South and East: LD/C
|
|
|
|
Post by conservativeestimate on Feb 24, 2021 16:37:31 GMT
US election map based on each state's voting history (Massachusetts is tied)  |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Feb 24, 2021 19:16:48 GMT
Bury 2019. Changes based on 2015: C gain from Lab Radcliffe North Ind gain from Lab Radcliffe East Lab gain from C Elton Ramsbottom LD gain from Lab St Mary's   Split wards are (not taking account of by-elections or defections): Radcliffe East is 2Lab/1Ind and Labour are defending in May. The independent was an official candidate of Radcliffe First, who missed the party registration deadline. Radcliffe North is 2C/1Lab and Labour are defending in May. Ramsbottom is 2Lab/1C and the Conservatives are defending in May. St Mary's is 2Lab/1LD and the Liberal Democrats Labour are defending in May. Sedgley is 2Lab/1C and the Conservatives are defending in May. Labour have lost a by-election in Radcliffe West to Radcliffe First, who will defend their by-election gain in 2022.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 8,636
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 24, 2021 21:05:57 GMT
Bury 2019. Changes based on 2015: C gain from Lab Radcliffe North Ind gain from Lab Radcliffe East Lab gain from C Elton Ramsbottom LD gain from Lab St Mary's Split wards are (not taking account of by-elections or defections): Radcliffe East is 2Lab/1Ind and Labour are defending in May. The independent was an official candidate of Radcliffe First, who missed the party registration deadline. Radcliffe North is 2C/1Lab and Labour are defending in May. Ramsbottom is 2Lab/1C and the Conservatives are defending in May. St Mary's is 2Lab/1LD and the Liberal Democrats are defending in May. Sedgley is 2Lab/1C and the Conservatives are defending in May. Labour have lost a by-election in Radcliffe West to Radcliffe First, who will defend their by-election gain in 2022. Labour defending St Mary's in may surely? |
|
