tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post6620343879326686108..comments2023-10-16T15:59:02.445+01:00Comments on NEIL HARDING: Bit Of Fun: Lets Translate Goldsmid Result As Universal Swing Across B&HNeil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-35375459951525622772009-08-18T15:53:03.159+01:002009-08-18T15:53:03.159+01:00Tom M, that is brilliant. I have completely messed...Tom M, that is brilliant. I have completely messed up the maths haven't I?<br /><br />That has really cheered me up. I thought I must be doing something wrong. When I get the time I will re-calculate and work out the marginal wards (maybe I haven't got a life after all). Good to see my initial impresssion that the Greens will win in Brunswick was generally right. Just goes to show how careful you have to be when using maths. Cheers.Neil Hardinghttp://neilharding.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-53108046690403633222009-08-17T13:07:43.999+01:002009-08-17T13:07:43.999+01:00Neil, I think you’re initial predictions actually ...Neil, I think you’re initial predictions actually were more or less spot on, as you’ve made an important miscalculation judging by your projected Brunswick and Adelaide result: You’ve applied the changes in overall %age terms between two elections in one ward (Goldsmid), to the raw votes in another (which is not comparing like with like).<br /><br />e.g. One LD candidate’s vote going down by 6.8% of 942 to equal approx 873<br />e.g. One Green candidate’s vote going up by 17.5% of 482 to equal approx 567.<br /><br />The problem is that this was not how the votes for each party changed in Goldsmid. If this projection was made on the 2007 Goldsmid result (using top candidate from each party, excluding ‘others’) the result you would get is:<br /><br />Con: 1325 (down 0.5% of 1330)<br />Grn: 1187 (up 17.5 % of 1010)<br />Lab: 1147 (down 6.8% of 1231)<br />LD: 667 (down 7.3% of 609)<br /><br />So by that logic the Tories would’ve held on!<br /><br />…So, here’s how the vote for each party actually changed in Goldsmid:<br /><br />The Con vote in 2009 was down 17% on 2007 (from 1330 to 1104)<br />The Lab vote was down 34% (from 1231 to 816)<br />The Lib Dem vote was down 54% (from 609 to 280)<br />The Green vote was up 44% (from 1010 to 1456)<br /><br />So here’s what things would look like if applied to Brunswick and Adelaide:<br /><br />Grn: 694 (144% of 482)<br />Grn: 621 (144% of 431)<br />LD: 443 (46% of 942)<br />LD: 335 (46% of 729)<br /><br />I haven’t tried applying this to the rest of the city yet. However, I think you may still be right about FPTP helping the Tories in this scenario (and about how it sucks generally). Sorry if I seem pedantic (and if I do at least you have a life!).Tom Mnoreply@blogger.com