2024 Election thread
Comments
-
Sure, by a marginal amount.
The next lowest post war turnout looks like it was in 1970, which wasn't a labour victory.
0 -
Don't you have to ignore quite a few years for that to be the case?
The two high points on that graph are Labour victory years.
0 -
The fun bit is when you look at the voter switches between each election, the theory also holds up. Woop.
0 -
No. You are working forward from the data. That's your mistake. What you should do is form a conclusion and THEN chose the data you need to fit it.
0 -
Am sceptical that significant polling of voter switching exists before 2001. The idea that the electorate is a fixed population that moves its votes around has some pretty obvious flaws over even one electoral cycle.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Go on then. Your robust analysis has fallen on total turnout unless you ignore inconvenient exceptions. Let's see your next attempt at confirmation bias and how it isn't just a new way to refer to the voter swign you'd expect in order for there to be a change of government.
This is boring.
0 -
10/10, the analysis holds as long as you recognise things in the future that haven't happened yet can't be relevant to the past. That's not how time works.
I appreciate you're used to systems with only a handful of controllable inputs, but that's not how it works with electorates. There's a whole host of things that changes overall turnout, but you can look at who voted tory the election before and see if they turned out in the subsequent election. That's easy.
and @rjsterry ipsos do breakdowns of all the elections by as many metrics as you want and, if you combine that with existing polling analysis that occured during the elections as far back as the 60s you can do a pretty good approximation as they do.
Tory voters from the previous election stay home when labour win and don't when the Tories win. That's just how it goes. I mean, that is, in part, fairly self evident. The interesting bit is more that there are fewer swing voters than people care to admit.
0 -
There was me thinking the tories got booted out cos they were shit. Turns out it was just cos folks are too lazy to vote. Silly me.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
Oh yes, it's back to the "this is a different type of data so your type of numeracy doesn't work" gambit. Not sure how that extends to listening to a historian instead, but hey.
If we do accept your temporal hypothesis, you'd predict a labour government every year since 1997.
I'm still waiting for the swing voter analysis.
0 -
If you don’t want to believe me that’s fine. There are other things that impact overall turnout, but your analysis does not control for that.
a look at the changes on previous elections does in some part control for that, not least as it’s a zero sum game in elections.
If you are actually interested in proving me wrong go dig into that yourself.
I can save you the bother and say it shows the above. Sup to you
0 -
It's not a case of "believing you" it's that the data doesn't show what you say it does. Too much scatter, not many data points, same trend elsewhere for entirely different reasons.
0 -
Because I'm a genius, I decided the y-axes needed to be non-zero.
3 -
Ha. Very good.
If you cannot control for the time of year, how close the election is, the percentage who end up "never voting", which neither you nor FA are doing, then you are right, indeed the data is irrelevant.
You need to specifically look at the election-to-election swings and it is extremely apparent in that scenario.
0 -
What about changes at the previous 57 elections?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
I thought the Statistica data conclusively proved your point.
Is that no longer the case?
0 -
I did. I couldn't find any data on voter switching - i.e. which voters moved their support from which party to which party. Opinion polling of any kind dates from the 1940s.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's implied data.
0 -
The second paragraph doesn't make sense.
0 -
I'd be deeply skeptical of any analysis that attributes a political alignment to the electorate at large...
0 -
You are saying if you control for something unspecified in an unspecified way, you can make the data fit.
Wish I'd done *social* science.
0 -
Sure I mean, lots of things impact voter turnout, right? Huge amounts. If we’re examining base turnouts for votes compared to previous elections, you need to control for all other factoes?
its about relative turn outs between voter sets.
As rjs points out, a Tory or labour voter is not fixed. But what someone likely voted last election is a good proxy.
I’ve not seen anything to suggest that that’s not the case. All you guys are pointing out there’s a lot of noise in the data you’re providing.
0 -
So now your hypothesis is correct unless someone can conclusively prove otherwise?
0 -
Can we have another GIF please?
0 -
0 -
-
It's not the first time.
0 -
-
Or the 48% who felt they were incompetent but voted for them anyway.
1
