Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

MHoC General Election March '13 - Post-results analysis Watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Welcome Squad
    EDIT: The final seat allocations have changed slightly since posting this thread. TehFrance was banned before the original seat allocations were made so we have taken the decision to re-allocate the seat in the usual D'Hont fashion and as a result, the Liberals now have 5 seats, taking the one previously erroneously assigned to TehFrance.
    For an official statement on this, please click here.


    So it's finally over! We have the results and it is now time to get the discussions and the analysis going! Firstly I'd like to give a warning that I have rushed this out a little bit so if there are any errors I apologize.

    Remember that the 7 day coalition building period has begun!

    Overall results:
    I make the results to be the following:

    TSR Conservative Party - 10 seats (+3)
    TSR Green Party - 7 seats (+2)
    TSR Labour Party - 12 seats (-3)
    TSR Liberal Party - 5 seats (+2)
    TSR Libertarian Party- 4 seats (-2)
    TSR Socialist Party - 6 seats (+1)
    tehFrance (Independent) - BANNED (N/A)
    TSR UKIP - 6 seats (+-0)

    There now follows an image which illustrates these results plus a little bit more data including percentages and the swing from the previous election:


    I don't think it would be controversial of me to say that these are some pretty surprising results. It was quite funny watching your predictions and seeing how wrong so many of them were

    The things I expected in this election were:
    >Large UKIP gains
    >Tory losses
    >Small but significant Labour gains

    None of those happened. I was expecting a lot of the Conservative support to go over to UKIP, but in fact they made the largest gains and UKIP seats stayed completely static. Labour also lost seats for what must the first time in quite a while.

    I attribute this to a number of reasons. The first reason I think is the fact that the Tories were listed first. I wouldn't have thought it before running the election, but I think that kind of exposure helps. UKIP's lack of gains could be down to be listed last. People might just give up reading by that point. I think this is something we need to sort for the next election, there is no perfect solution but I think there is something we can do to lessen the impact of one single party getting 7 days worth of exposure. Keep your eyes peeled for an amendment!

    The loss in Labour support is probably down to an increase in vote share for the Greens and Socialists, I'm not sure if this is a real life influence, the second position manifesto for the Greens or just a decision made by voters regarding the manifestos.

    I think the Libertarian losses are down to the gains made by the Tories and the Liberals. All three are in favour of limited government, and the rightward shift of the Liberals (if you don't mind me saying that) probably made the Libertarians a lot harder to distinguish from the competition.



    How it works
    This is for enthusiasts only. The votes were allocated via the D'Hont method. The problem we have is that TehFrance can only usually get one vote (and this time zero since he was banned before allocation) and Spoilt Ballot can't get any seats, so when either of them get's more than this, it skews the results slightly.

    In this situation, both of these things happened. I would quite like to see something done about this, because what it often does it give an extra seat or so to the biggest parties. That's hardly democratic. I think this is something the House should discuss.

    Anyway, the algorithm works by tabulating the results in a matrix. The rows correspond to each party, the columns correspond to the quotient of the popular vote.
    If there are m parties then there are m rows.
    If there are n seats to be allocated there are n columns.

    In the corresponding mxn matrix, the jth column of the ith row represents the votes that party latex]i[/latex] obtained divided by the value of j.

    From this matrix, the 50 biggest values are highlighted/circled whatever. Each value highlighted corresponds to a seat.

    Here is my spreadsheet, un-adjusted for indies/abstentions:


    Here's the adjusted spreadsheet:


    So in fact the results would have been:
    TSR Conservative Party - 9 seats
    TSR Green Party - 6 seats
    TSR Labour Party - 11 seats
    TSR Liberal Party - 4 seats
    TSR Libertarian Party - 4 seats
    TSR Socialist Party - 6 seats
    tehFrance (Independent) - 3 seats
    TSR UKIP - 6 seats
    Spoilt Ballot - 1 seat

    But this means we have four seats which can't be occupied. The D'Hont method is designed for party lists systems and so there is no actual rule as to what should be done here; but the precedent has always been that we just take the next k biggest numbers if we have k un-fillable seats. These seats will often end up coming from the largest parties, though not always.
    This phenomenon was particularly pronounced last year when Addzter got enough votes for 7 seats.



    How did the mass PM change the result?
    I regret to inform you that I lost the screenshot I took shortly after the mass PM went out. I've been searching my hard drive for ages but just can't find it. I think I probably just pasted the screenshot into Fireworks and forgot to save it.

    What I can do for you is give my own personal account of the results before the mass PM...
    >UKIP were in quite a solid lead.
    >Labour were second
    >Tories were fairly far behind but still in third place.
    >Greens and Socialists I can't quite remember, but I think they were about equal fourth.
    >Libers and Liberals were slightly further behind but again fairly equal
    >TehFrance had very few votes. he was on 1 for a few days, it went up to about 3 or 4 eventually but I can't remember completely.

    I'm really sorry about the ambiguity of these memories, take them with a pinch of salt. I thought some people might find them interesting. Next time I'm getting a pensieve for y'all.

    I also have a few other screenshots which show the election panned out. One of them wasn't that long after the mass PM but the result had already changed considerably.

    3rd April, 8PM screenshot:



    5th April, 6:30PM screenshot:


    So I conclude, based on my goldfish brain that the increased turnout did affect things quite considerably and not in the way that members have usually proclaimed in the past.
    >UKIP got hurt by the mass PM.
    >Labour, tehFrance, Green and the Tories benefited from the increased turnout.
    >After a days worth of votes from the mass PM voters, things didn't really change all that much.
    >In almost all stages, it seemed that liberty fans were torn between Liberal and Libertarian almost equally. Their vote share stayed roughly in the same 50:50 ish proportion throughout.




    Anything else
    I can't remember if I am forgetting anything big? If I have, I'll update it tomorrow. Sorry again if there are errors (likely grammatical) or if the analysis isn't particularly nice to the eye, I wanted to kick things off quickly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Did you not receive any PM votes? Thanks for the great and detailed analysis by the way!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Many thanks for running the election smoothly and for this fantastic analysis Jarred!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, there is an argument to be made. That doesn't mean it's a good argument. If you cannot judge the quality of your arguments before you make them then i must add the prefix really to the annoying i used.
    You disregard my argument without being specific, presumably because there is nothing to be specific about. You continue to insult me, presumably as compensation for the argument that is missing here.

    Meh, i just find it funny how parties that associate themselves with real life parties can call it electoral baggage, when by the same argument, you have exploited RL associations in order to gain votes in previous elections. In fact, i would say it is not 'electoral baggage' but something you have actively sought out and exploited. Also, this is another thing that annoys me about you - that you seem to think you can read my mind: how do you know i am irritated at it. Quite frankly, the lib dems are as low in my books as they have ever been and i have an overwhelming indifference to their views. In fact, i suggested to the socialists and labour that we work with them on a rehabilitation bill after the tragic one they produced.
    It's not fair to say that we 'exploited' RL associations for votes in previous elections any more than your current Labour party does now, and I would have thought, unless you are motivated entirely by political opportunism, that you would be encouraging of rewarding parties which are active, as the LD's were for some time, in the House.

    It is perfectly rational to think that you would be irritated by a fellow progressive party gaining seats when your own party had made losses. That isn't so much thinking I can read your mind as being logical.

    Most of the House seemingly disagreed with your views on the re-habilitation bill, (another argument you criticise vaguely without being specific), which passed comfortably. Presumably, so did the socialists on your suggestion, since no such bills have been presented to the House since that time.

    Anyway, now that you only gained 1 seat on the previous election, do you concede that the liberal democrat name change failed miserably?
    How anyone can view a +1 seat increase as failing 'miserably' is beyond me. We have had a successful evening and although the negative RL connotations of liberalism continue to jade us we will build on our progress. Slow but steady wins the race.

    No, you didn't. You initially asserted what i said, then qualified it with this after corrected. You asserted what i said I suggest you remember what you poster before telling me what to do.
    The key word being 'association', which can mean anything between a formal identifying with an organisation to a loose, familial bond. The Speaker, while no longer an actual member of any party, is still arguably 'associated' with the party they used to belong to, since presumably their political identity hasn't changed dramatically and it is natural to retain favour for a wider body we used to belong to. You did misrepresent what I said when you said that I had said the Speaker was still a member of a party, which is not what you have included above:

    Also, didn't you think the speaker is a party member?
    Massive difference which you have skated right over.

    Also, add to the list that you seem to have your head up your bottom. I can say whatever i fancy and your arguments from what i have seen your arguments lack any depth and intellectual rigour. You also come off as arrogant, not really traits i like. Funny that you call me hypersensitive, because you seem to care so much about someone who you are to quick to put down!
    At least I put people down in a civil and intellectual manner, rather than tossing insults about freely as you have got used to here. It's so transparently obvious when someone starts being abusive in a debate that they've run out of meaningful things to say. Once again you insult the integrity of my arguments, crucially without presenting any specific criticisms against anything I've said in a whirl of suspiciously vague dismissal.

    Also, distorting what you have said? LOL. Lets see:

    Direct quote from the post linked to above. "The speaker is usually associated with a party" is completely untrue. Seems the only person twisting what you've said, is you
    This was responded to when you raised it above.

    PS. Even if i am having a bad day, i would still find you annoying, just be less vocal about it. Given a few people have already agreed with me, maybe you should chill the hell out.
    For someone happy to be abusive and adopt a vitriolic tone towards the most innocent of banter and topics you are remarkably quick to tell others to chill out. As I have already said, there are plenty of reasons why three people would consider someone annoying besides justifiable and fair ones. The three who have agreed with you all happened to be members of progressive parties, parties which are in more intense competition with each other for votes less easily distinguished between us than the other side of the floor. I also recall having fairly intensive debates with Endless Blue, TAJ and you fairly recently, giving it my best shot. Perhaps you are disgruntled with my performances. Whatever it is, you have repeatedly failed to justify your original insult, basing your justifications on either tenuous or outrightly incorrect accusations about my arguments. In the process, you have succeeded by snatching the trophy you awarded to me an hour back and taking the title very firmly for yourself.

    Edit: I'm very sorry for your loss, and you have my condolensces. But it really isn't fair or constructive to lash out at strangers on the internet, whatever your circumstances.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    You bore me, goodnight.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    You bore me, goodnight.
    Reasonable as ever. Goodnight.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Mathematicians never switch off do they.

    In all seriousness thanks for the detailed analysis and running the election, although I'm sure the Liberals will lynch you for saying they've moved to the right.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Reasonable as ever. Goodnight.
    Coming from someone that thinks renaming yourself is the same as being brand new. Not to mention someone that confounds his own arguments - either it is a success (which you point to by gaining one seat), or it penalised you (which you are implying, by being less recognisable/new - which IIRC is what you said 'despite being new'). Clever that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Coming from someone that thinks renaming yourself is the same as being brand new. Not to mention someone that confounds his own arguments - either it is a success (which you point to by gaining one seat), or it penalised you (which you are implying, by being less recognisable/new - which IIRC is what you said 'despite being new'). Clever that.
    Once again you are distorting what I've said. Why can you not seem to tackle my arguments head on, and always have to resort to constructing straw man versions and tackling those instead? What I said was that in the eyes of the voters the Liberal party was a new party as it had never appeared on the ballot before. That is perfectly reasonable and distinct from saying that the party was 'brand new' without any qualification, which completely warps its meaning.

    The second point is unbelievably tenuous. You're suggesting that I implied that by recognising the party as less recognisable/new, I have considered it a failure. That is completely untrue. At no point did I say the rebrand was a failure because it has made our party new; quite the reverse. The entire point of the rebrand was to distance ourselves from the recognisable, old stamp of the Lib Dems. Utter nonsense. I stand by saying the rebrand was a success.

    The rest remains untouched.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Excellent analysis from Jarred.

    From my point of view two things..

    1) Being near the top of selection does work but that perhaps only explains 1 seat, most people will look at 2 or 3 i reckon rather than the first that comes to mind. A 6% swing i would say is still outside of the margin of error and i would also add that when you exclude the last election this result is in line with the previous two.

    2) The mass PM part is extremely surprising, perhaps Labour and Ukip do something different internally? Perhaps their higher incidence of sig banners is responsible? Or perhaps they simply have a legitimate lead. Perhaps then rather than the mass PM explicitly harming the Tories it simply polarizes the result to the Tories and Labour, harming the other parties.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    First time I've ever voted or even set foot in the MHoC but glad my main man, tehFrance, won a seat
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Excellent analysis from Jarred.

    2) The mass PM part is extremely surprising, perhaps Labour and Ukip do something different internally? Perhaps their higher incidence of sig banners is responsible? Or perhaps they simply have a legitimate lead. Perhaps then rather than the mass PM explicitly harming the Tories it simply polarizes the result to the Tories and Labour, harming the other parties.
    My guess would be that the regulars of the UK Politics forum are vastly more likely to support UKIP than the typical member of TSR.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    First time I've ever voted or even set foot in the MHoC but glad my main man, tehFrance, won a seat
    Amusingly however he's got himself banned for the week.

    (Original post by Dapperatchik)
    My guess would be that the regulars of the UK Politics forum are vastly more likely to support UKIP than the typical member of TSR.
    That's true but they typically don't comment in the Mhoc so i'm surprised how many came unless it was really down to advertisement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Amusingly however he's got himself banned for the week.

    That's true but they typically don't comment in the Mhoc so i'm surprised how many came unless it was really down to advertisement.
    Well if I'm on my way to the UK Politics forum to post my latest Daily Mail quote and I notice that the 'most recent' thread in the MHoC subforum is an election then I might mosey on over to check it out.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder what the late Margaret Thatcher would have made of an election like this?
    Offline

    12
    Thanks to Jarred for this excellent analysis.

    In terms of the Liber performance, Jarred pretty much describes it - I feel we were quite hard done to, but such is life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sexy, nice one Jarred.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nice one Greens, excellent result.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This is why I didn't make a prediction. The result we have here is odd, it's the complete reverse of the trend recognised at the last election. The smaller parties on the right have lost ground to the Tories, the opposite of last time, and the smaller parties on the left have gained ground on Labour - again, the opposite of what happened last time. Very surprising result.

    Congratulations to the Greens and the Tories; and to Labour... it'll be much easier to handle twelve seats. Thanks to everyone who voted Socialist, we increased our share of the vote by around 38%!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting analysis. Thanks for that!

    I like the fact that UKIP were leading the polls before the mass PM was sent out, much like they were winning the Eastleigh By-Election before the postal votes were added to the total.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.