TSR Post General Election Results Discussion and Analysis - March 2014 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
This parliamentary term has now opened, please visit here instead.

The results
The polls have closed, the votes have been counted and the seat allocations are as follows:

TSR Labour Party - 13 seats (+4)
TSR Conservative Party - 9 seats (NC)
TSR Socialist Party: 7 seats (+3)
TSR UK Independence Party - 6 seats (NC)
TSR Green Party - 6 seats (-2)
TSR Liberal Party - 4 seats (-3)
TSR Libertarian Party - 3 seats (-2)
The Hon. Barnetlad MP - 1 seat (NC)
The Hon. Escutcheon MP - 1 seat (N/A)

So then, nothing unexpected really. Labour and the Socialists made many a journey aboard the gainz train, the Tories and UKIP stayed static, and the other parties got a little bit of heartbreak. The indies both managed very respectable scores but combined with the spoilt ballot, they skewed things a teeny bit.

I suspect the Liberals mainly lost out because they lost the coveted top billing for the manifesto.
The Greens clearly lost out due to being positioned right at the bottom, and by losing some support to Lab/Soc. A lot of the Socialists bounce can be attributed to the higher positioning of the manifesto which also hurt the Greens a bit.

How did the mass PM affect the vote?
We can't really accurately analyse this because the PM went out much sooner than usual so there's not a large enough timescale to look at. On first inspection, it seems to benefit Labour the most, but that might not be a completely realistic take on things. It seems that Labour really shot ahead in the final days of the election, long after the mass PM went out. The mass PM itself went out to the most active users of the last two months, so in theory, the people who voted a bit later are either passers by, or are the slightly less active part of this active group (if that makes sense).

Screenshots





And then the mass PM goes out...






Why I'm not in bed I do not know, but the results are largely taking shape:






(If you don't fancy sifting through screenshots of numbers, look at the graphic with the bar thingies below)

What did the make-up of the House look like at each stage of the election?
I've run the D'Hont Method on each of the screenshots above to produce a bunch of sort of histogram type things which give you a graphical representation of what the final MP seat distributions would have been if those were the final results. Obviously in the earlier days, things look very different, but things begin to stabilise in the middle end.



(I've not actually verified the accuracy of this, it was done very quickly, I don't doubt that there are a few mistakes in there, but the general trend is what matters.

Did the indies or spoilt ballot skew the vote or seat distributions?
There was certainly nothing akin to the "Addzter Effect" that we had a couple of years back which skewed the vote and skewed the seat distributions to a severe degree, but yes, there was a little bit of skew, more than I initially thought.

First as a recap: we have to allocate 50 seats via the d'Hont Method. But of these 50 seats, an independent is only allowed to take one, and the spoilt ballot isn't allowed any. So, if after allocating the 50 seats, we end up with a situation where independents or the spoilt ballot have too many seats, then the algorithm has to be run again until we have 50 which we can fill; this can skew the way the seats are handed out, and it happened in this situation to a larger degree that you would first think. It usually benefits the winning parties, and in this situation, handed two extra seats to the left.

If there are n seats to assign to m candidates, the D'Hont algorithm works by creating an m by n matrix (table) of values. Each party gets it's own row in this matrix. The value in the first column of the party's row corresponds to the number of votes that the party achieved. The value of the jth column of the ith row represents the number of votes that the ith party achieved divided by the value of j.
For instance, if the Tories were in the second row of the matrix. Then the first column of this row (row 2) would have the value of 131 because they got 131 votes. But the 31st column of this row would contain the value 131/31.
The D'Hont algorithm selects the seats by highlighting the 50 largest values in this matrix. Each highlighted value corresponds to a seat.

Here's what the algorithm produced for this election:
Spoiler:
Show


So actually the TRUE seat distribution should have been as follows:
True seat distribution

TSR Labour Party: 12 seats
TSR Conservative Party: 9 seats
TSR Socialist Party: 6 seats
TSR UK Independence Party: 6 seats
TSR Green Party: 6 seats
TSR Liberal Party: 4 seats
TSR Libertarian Party: 3 seats
The Hon. Barnetlad MP: 1 seat
The Hon. Escutcheon MP: 1 seat
Spoilt Ballot : 2 seats



Notice that the 50 highest values have been highlighted, these correspond to the fifty seats, but two of these seats have been given to Spoilt Ballot which cannot hold any seats, meaning we have only allocated 48 seats so the algorithm has to be run two more times to make up the required 50. So we re-run the algorithm twice to find two more seats...
Spoiler:
Show


This gives one seat to the Socialists, but it also gives a seat to an independent. This independent can't hold more than one seat, so we now only have 49 seats, and need to re-run the algorithm yet again to allocate the final seat....
Spoiler:
Show


But guess what, the next seat gets allocated to yet another independent, so we still ony have 49 seats. We've gotta give it one more run:
Spoiler:
Show


And Labour gets it.

So the algorithm had to be run for 54 seats all in all, which produced a fairly significant amount of skew in terms of the final seat results. It meant that two parties got an extra seat than they actually won, and in some senses you could argue that both of our indies lost out on a seat each, it all depends on how you look at it. We've been saying for about two years now that we need to do something about it, I've not got any decent ideas, so if anyone out there does; talk to me.

Can you give me a better explanation of the D'Hont Method?
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.
The value of some row i, column j can be represented by the notation \alpha_{ij}. To keep it simple I'll say the numbering starts at 1. So for example, \alpha_{11} represents the entry in row 1 column 1, \alpha_{12} represents the entry in row 1 column 2, and etc.

The value at some \alpha_{ij} will correspond to the value of candidate i's popular vote divided by the value of j. So, if candidate number i acheived x votes, then at \alpha_{i j}, the value in the matrix will be x/j. For example, if Independent 7 was in row 3, then the entry in \alpha_{3 4} would be Ind7's vote divided by 4.

The d'Hont method then works by highlighting the 50 largest values in this matrix, think of it as a spreadsheet; each highlighted cell corresponds to a seat.
3
Qwertish
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Congratulations to Labour.

Here's to a productive term .
0
Cryptographic
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Nice, interesting results, about to post thoughtful analysis, but can't remember what it is for the life of me.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Well done to all parties and especially TSR UKIP for maintaining the seat numbers.

(Original post by Jarred)
QFA
As generous as your +6 is for us, we're unchanged at 6 seats.
1
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by PhysicsKid)
Yeah. Liberals had a tough old time, and the Tories not too strong either, though UKIP on a par with the Greens this time. At least we won't have to endure your coalition another term
Tories actually gained 1%. Bar the 16th parliament we've had 9-10 seats since the 14th so we're pretty stable.
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by toronto353)
Well done to all parties and especially TSR UKIP for maintaining the seat numbers.



As generous as your +6 is for us, we're unchanged at 6 seats.
Fixed
0
MrDystopia
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
Congrats fellow Labourites
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
congrats to all who did well :yy:

fascinating to see who forms the government for this term
1
Cheese_Monster
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
Although I have congratulated Labour and the Socialists, I think it has been an election unreflective of the party's contributions last term for us to lose two as well as the Liberals to lose three (as much as that makes me happy). For UKIP to have any seats at all is preposterous, I second Birchington's calls from the election thread. Well done to the Indies, though I'm sure one of them is The Mad Dog.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
captain.sensible
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
gahh you're all a bunch'a socialists!
2
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
Congratulations to all.

It has been a privilege to serve in government, and I will do all I can to prevent our good work being reversed.

UKIP will have to work extra hard now they have increased their vote share.
Considering most of their MPs rarely posted last term and they contributed little in government, it's up to them to prove otherwise.

A Liberal-Libertarian merger must and will be discussed to allow us to maintain our dominance long term.

So here's to another parliament!
0
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by Rakas21)
Tories actually gained 1%. Bar the 16th parliament we've had 9-10 seats since the 14th so we're pretty stable.
Oh ok then. Interesting that, as per Cameron's coalition, the Liberals have suffered massively while the Tories remain largely unscathed.
0
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Birchington)
Congratulations to all.

It has been a privilege to serve in government, and I will do all I can to prevent our good work being reversed.

UKIP will have to work extra hard now they have increased their vote share.
Considering most of their MPs rarely posted last term and they contributed little in government, it's up to them to prove otherwise.

A Liberal-Libertarian merger must and will be discussed to allow us to maintain our dominance long term.

So here's to another parliament!
That would be undemocratic- your manifestos had clear differences which influenced voters.
0
Qwertish
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by PhysicsKid)
Oh ok then. Interesting that, as per Cameron's coalition, the Liberals have suffered massively while the Tories remain largely unscathed.
I think it's likely that real life events impacted them more than what they did in here. They began to be left behind after the mass PM.
0
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by captain.sensible)
gahh you're all a bunch'a socialists!
I blame russel brand.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Birchington)
Congratulations to all.

It has been a privilege to serve in government, and I will do all I can to prevent our good work being reversed.

UKIP will have to work extra hard now they have increased their vote share.
Considering most of their MPs rarely posted last term and they contributed little in government, it's up to them to prove otherwise.

A Liberal-Libertarian merger must and will be discussed to allow us to maintain our dominance long term.

So here's to another parliament!
An interesting prospect though surely one which would require a name change (the classically liberal party maybe).

(Original post by PhysicsKid)
Oh ok then. Interesting that, as per Cameron's coalition, the Liberals have suffered massively while the Tories remain largely unscathed.
Ha. Not a bad analogy in this case.
0
Republic1
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Cheese_Monster)
Although I have congratulated Labour and the Socialists, I think it has been an election unreflective of the party's contributions last term for us to lose two as well as the Liberals to lose three (as much as that makes me happy). For UKIP to have any seats at all is preposterous, I second Birchington's calls from the election thread. Well done to the Indies, though I'm sure one of them is The Mad Dog.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Very harsh for you to lose those seats I completely agree; but I guess those 770 voters didn't know what work you did last term - they vote more on principle.
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by PhysicsKid)
That would be undemocratic- your manifestos had clear differences which influenced voters.
What would be undemocratic?
0
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Jarred)
.
Is a Liberal-Libertarian merger allowed? I'd have thought it was undemocratic and morally bankrupt, but is there anything against it?
0
nixonsjellybeans
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
I blame russel brand.
He's making himself useful for once
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (131)
18.82%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (70)
10.06%
No I am happy with my course choice (397)
57.04%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (98)
14.08%

Watched Threads

View All