advertisement


Vast Brexit thread merge part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is strange - GetVoting recommends LibDem in South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen's constituency, where I used to live), and tactical.vote recommends labour. Here are the 2017 results

2017 ELECTION RESULTS
Conservative 33,631 51.80%
Labour 17,679 27.23%
Liberal Democrat 12,102 18.64%
Green 1,512 2.33%

Heidi Allen was a moderate conservative, so perhaps GetVoting think the LibDems are more capable of peeling away voters who voted for her.

More like they believe the 2017 result was a low point for Lib Dem’s who were still heavily tarnished.

Compare those figures with the 2010 result. Add the two Labour results and divide by two - do the same with Lib Dem. Realistically Labour will do better than in 2010 and Lib Dem vote will be higher than 2017. So it makes sense to try and average that out a bit.
 
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. My point was that what might seem like a simple thing is very contentious and hence the Twitter spats toady like the one I linked.
No worries Matthew, I just wanted to issue a general caveat emptor warning early on, before people get too invested in specific sites.

As an absolute minimum a tactical voting website should be completely transparent about its methodology, so it can be critically assessed.
 
The GetVoting one is here, including an explanation of their methodology. I had no idea tactical voting was so complicated and contentious.

https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1189518504606736384

This recommends voting LD in my constituency.

Really? LDs come from 5K votes to beat Labour at 19K and Cons at 35K, in 2017?*

This kind of site could really split the Lab/LD vote.

Having said that, 2010 was LD, 16K, Labour 7K and Tories 27K so who knows? Arrgh! UKIP beat the LKDs in 2015 here.

Stephen

* I suspect it matters not. This place has been Cons since the ark. We do have a lot of farmers though who might be waking up to what a hard Brexit really means.
 
No worries Matthew, I just wanted to issue a general caveat emptor warning early on, before people get too invested in specific sites.

Which is of course a problem given that these sites work best if everyone follows the same strategy.
 
This recommends voting LD in my constituency.

Really? LDs come from 5K votes to beat Labour at 19K and Cons at 35K, in 2017?*

This kind of site could really split the Lab/LD vote.

Having said that, 2010 was LD, 16K, Labour 7K and Tories 27K so who knows? Arrgh! UKIP beat the LKDs in 2015 here.

Stephen

* I suspect it matters not. This place has been Cons since the ark. We do have a lot of farmers though who might be waking up to what a hard Brexit really means.
A definite pattern emerging here.
 
Hmmm... you got me there! :)

Sorry I am scoring nil points on clarity today! I was amplifying your point really in that there is a contradiction because it's a complicated decision that works best if we all do it very carefully and yet somehow manage to come to the same conclusion.
 
Exit day officially changed http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/1423/made

And few will pay any attention. Johnson will barely blink.

I suppose you have to give them credit for moving everyone's attention to the election.

I'm hoping Led by Donkeys remind everyone tomorrow it's 'do or die' and 'dead in a ditch' day.

Handcock was on Radio 4 blaming everyone bar Johnson—even though he was the one who pulled his own deal that had a majority in the HOC!

Stephen
 
Sorry I am scoring nil points on clarity today! I was amplifying your point really in that there is a contradiction because it's a complicated decision that works best if we all do it very carefully and yet somehow manage to come to the same conclusion.
Yes, agreed. The mother of all co-ordination problems.
 
This recommends voting LD in my constituency.

Really? LDs come from 5K votes to beat Labour at 19K and Cons at 35K, in 2017?*

This kind of site could really split the Lab/LD vote.

Having said that, 2010 was LD, 16K, Labour 7K and Tories 27K so who knows? Arrgh! UKIP beat the LKDs in 2015 here.

Stephen

* I suspect it matters not. This place has been Cons since the ark. We do have a lot of farmers though who might be waking up to what a hard Brexit really means.

Labour looks the best option there looking at the two elections. But it’s close. In a good election (for them) they polled 3k more than Libs in one of their good years.
 
Tactical voting sites owned & controlled by right leaning think tanks. Just throw a potential conspiracy into the mix;)
Ha! I must admit this thought has occurred to me. It's one reason for insisting on absolute clarity about who's behind the site and the methodology used. If that's not forthcoming, walk away.

The two sites already mentioned contrast neatly in this respect:

Get Voting:
Our tactical voting recommendations are based on advanced seat by seat data analysis and a poll of more than 46,000 voters. That makes it more accurate than all other voting advice sites.

We have complemented this data with voting records, pledges and other local intel about each seat.
Not much hard info, and what there is sounds like the kind of woo you get in hi-fi advertising.

Tactical.Vote:
How are the results calculated?

The basic method is as follows:

  1. Look at the result of the 2017 general election in the constituency, and who currently holds the seat (which may be different if there has been a byelection).
  2. In Tory-held seats, recommend a vote for the second-place party – for example, Hastings and Rye or Brecon and Radnorshire.
  3. In seats where the Tories are in second place, recommend a vote for the party that currently holds the seat – for example, Central Ayrshire.
  4. In seats the Tories are unlikely to win (ie. where there is no right wing party in first or second place), we point out that there is probably no need for tactical voting here – for example, Brighton Pavilion.
  5. We may make some adjustments for special cases, such as seats where there are Independent candidates. This will always be stated clearly.
Have a look through the constituency A-Z to see the results in different kinds of constituencies.

Why are the results different to another tactical voting list I saw?
There are many different ways that you could potentially work out the 'best' tactical vote in each constituency, and many different factors to take into account. Each list and site circulating uses a slightly different method, but we believe ours meets these key criteria:

  • It can be simply understood, so the results are transparent.
  • It is based on maths and data, not intuition or anecdote.
  • It produces the results that most people would expect.
What's important here is that we didn't decide these results seat by seat – we first came up with what we believe to be the best method, and then applied it across the board. We believe that any changes to the method should be applied to all constituencies, not having one rule for some and a different rule for others.

In particular, we will not be swayed by people writing to us claiming this or that local candidate anecdotally has "more support in the area" – we believe our recommendations need to be based on hard data about actual votes, not speculation.
Plus lots more at: https://tactical.vote/faq

Much clearer and more detailed.

For this reason tactical.vote looks like an excellent place to start. After that it's a question of how lucky (or reckless) you feel.

Good luck to everyone, regardless!
 
Ha! I must admit this thought has occurred to me. It's one reason for insisting on absolute clarity about who's behind the site and the methodology used. If that's not forthcoming, walk away.

The two sites already mentioned contrast neatly in this respect:

Get Voting:

Not much hard info, and what there is sounds like the kind of woo you get in hi-fi advertising.

Tactical.Vote:

Plus lots more at: https://tactical.vote/faq

Much clearer and more detailed.

For this reason tactical.vote looks like an excellent place to start. After that it's a question of how lucky (or reckless) you feel.

Good luck to everyone, regardless!
It's not that complicated to work out who to vote for in own constituency in the main. Having said that I do wonder about Labour in our ward, I think they could get a kicking but I expected LDs to get in last time. Probably illustrates how unimportant the actual candidate can be?
 
Ha! I must admit this thought has occurred to me. It's one reason for insisting on absolute clarity about who's behind the site and the methodology used. If that's not forthcoming, walk away.

The two sites already mentioned contrast neatly in this respect:

Get Voting:

Not much hard info, and what there is sounds like the kind of woo you get in hi-fi advertising.

Tactical.Vote:

Plus lots more at: https://tactical.vote/faq

Much clearer and more detailed.

For this reason tactical.vote looks like an excellent place to start. After that it's a question of how lucky (or reckless) you feel.

Good luck to everyone, regardless!
As long as they’re making suggestions like this, below, my thinking is going to be conspiratorial in nature:

https://twitter.com/leftiestats/status/1189551193917399042?s=21

Incredible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top