Author
|
Topic: predicted vs. actual results
|
|
|
|
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052
|
posted 01 February 2006 02:55 PM
Greg, an excellent effort. Your projections were more accurate than any I've seen.Of course, you have the advantage of incorporating all polls into your model. If you were working for one pollster, like Ipsos, you'd likely be limited to using their polls, and thus would have a higher margin of error. But it would still be better than what they do. Hopefully you'll extend this effort to other elections.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
peterjcassidy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 372
|
posted 02 February 2006 10:40 PM
Much appreciated. Can you give us some sense of the minor shifts that made a big difference?For example, from some limited evidence, I believe there was a slight shift from the NDP to the Libs in Ontario,particularly in the Hamilton region, maybe a percentage point or two, in the last few days of the election. If that shift had not occured the NDP maybe would have picked up 2 or 3 more seats in Ontario from the Libs, giving us the balance of power. (This is also one reason HESC was closer than it should have been, 500 or so of our supporters probably went to the Libs to "stop Stephen Harper".) Then what about Quebec? Would a percentage or two staying with the Bloc or Liberals in the Quebec city region have made a big difference for the Cons? Was the variance in particular ridings where the atual result differed from the predicted generally within the margin or error- e.g. the predicion was party X wins by less than 5%, they lose by less than 5%? And what your model provides is not just the provincal breakdown, but the regional. So if the model was out one or two seats in a region, does that mean that the region went though a shift in the last few days or that the winning party was stronger locally than projected? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks again. And what is your next project?
From: Screaming in language no-one understands.. | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856
|
posted 03 February 2006 09:29 AM
quote: and how many of those 278 correct calls were safe seats for one party or another than any idiot could have predicted accurately?
I know--though checking what EP did get right versus a lot of pre-election polling, I'm still surprised things turned out as well as they did. Of course, for all I know, Milton Chan might have had inside numbers on the marginals up his sleeve...
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
election model 2004
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6305
|
posted 03 February 2006 04:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by peterjcassidy: Much appreciated. Can you give us some sense of the minor shifts that made a big difference?For example, from some limited evidence, I believe there was a slight shift from the NDP to the Libs in Ontario,particularly in the Hamilton region, maybe a percentage point or two, in the last few days of the election. If that shift had not occured the NDP maybe would have picked up 2 or 3 more seats in Ontario from the Libs, giving us the balance of power. (This is also one reason HESC was closer than it should have been, 500 or so of our supporters probably went to the Libs to "stop Stephen Harper".) Then what about Quebec? Would a percentage or two staying with the Bloc or Liberals in the Quebec city region have made a big difference for the Cons? Was the variance in particular ridings where the atual result differed from the predicted generally within the margin or error- e.g. the predicion was party X wins by less than 5%, they lose by less than 5%? And what your model provides is not just the provincal breakdown, but the regional. So if the model was out one or two seats in a region, does that mean that the region went though a shift in the last few days or that the winning party was stronger locally than projected? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks again. And what is your next project?
there weren't that many surprises, actually. certainly starting about 4-5 days prior to the election, we started to see a shift back to the liberals in ontario - but this was as much at the expense of the tories as the NDP. the NDP did just about as well as could be expected in ontario. the biggest shift away from the NDP came in northern ontario, where they didn't substantively improve on their 2004 results, but it was not surprising given what i saw in the polls (i forecast them to pick up 1, but they didn't pick up any). i was surprised the tories didn't do better in mississauga/brampton - i had a few seats as neck-and-neck, and expected the tories to pick up a couple seats here, but they were shut out completely (and convincingly). i missed 4 seats in mississauga, but all 4 were in the too close to call category for me (they turned out not to be close at all).
the shift from bloc to tory was a little more pronounced in the final days in and around quebec city. i had levis-bellechasse and beauport-limoilou as neck-and-neck, so no surprise that they went tory. i was surprised at roger clavet (louis-hebert) and richard marceau (charlesbourg-haunte-saint-charles) losing their seats, since they were high profile people for the bloc, particularly marceau. so those 2 seats were surprises. i missed 4 seats in quebec city, 2 were surprises, 2 were not. those 2 cities account for 1/3 of the incorrect calls. the others were ones that were neck and neck and could have gone either way. my next project will be to catch up on my real work! i'll track the 2007 ontario election, for sure.
From: CA and ON | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
nicky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10066
|
posted 05 February 2006 01:24 AM
There is another explanation for the "unexpected" Liberal strength in Mississauga / Peel - long term demographics. The authors of The Emerging Democratic Majority argue that older suburbs have been tending Democratic for various demographic reasons. This seems to be reflected in the inner ring of the GTA. The Con success in winning seats was limited to the very fringe of the GTA. The inner ring stood resolutelyb against them.I suspect if someone crunched the numbers for Peel, Vaughn, Richmond Hill, Markham, Pickering, Ajax,( as opposed to Burlington, Milton, Uxbridge, Clarington,) over the last three elections the relative swings would be much more favourable to the Liberals than the province as a whole.I suspect this would also apply to Richmond, Burnaby and Surrey. Peel was very marginal territory for years but that seems to be ending. It has become a Liberal stronghold with margins comparable to many Toronto ridings. McGuinty also piled up enormous margins there. The trend is explained by people and jobs moving from the inner city to the immediate suburbs as well as by high immigration and immigrants becoming voters. The suburbs are becoming more like the core in their demographics and their voting patterns as well.
From: toronto | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
inkameep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3357
|
posted 05 February 2006 02:35 AM
quote: Originally posted by nicky: I suspect if someone crunched the numbers for Peel, Vaughn, Richmond Hill, Markham, Pickering, Ajax,( as opposed to Burlington, Milton, Uxbridge, Clarington,) over the last three elections the relative swings would be much more favourable to the Liberals than the province as a whole.I suspect this would also apply to Richmond, Burnaby and Surrey.
In Richmond, Burnaby and Surrey the Liberal share of the vote fell by 3% between the 2004 and 2006 elections, closely reflecting the Liberal decline in the province as a whole. Richmond, Burnaby, Surrey (7 ridings) Percentage of valid votes by party 2004 2006 change Conservative 33.2% 36.0% +9% Liberal 33.0% 32.0% -3% NDP 23.3% 27.3% +17% Ind (Cadman) 5.0% nil n/a
From: Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 06 February 2006 08:52 AM
quote: Originally posted by Pogo: Is there any research of how consistent individuals are in their voting pattern.
Problem is such a study would be based on self-reporting. I suspect if you took a poll of Americans, for example, you'll find that Bush only got about 40% of the vote and there was 90% turnout.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|