Jump to content

General Election 2021 Results Analysis


Roger Mexico
 Share

Recommended Posts

Declan was wondering about which candidates had got the highest support from the electorate - or at least that part of it that bothered to vote, so I thought I'd start a new thread for various ways of looking at the votes cast and what they tell us.  It's still all a bit provisional because we don't have the official Ayre & Michael result and no reliable turnout or electorate figures yet, but there's enough to make a start.

Here are the 'percentage of voting' figures (ie the vote divided by the number of valid votes cast) for all those elected  plus those unlucky losers who still got a higher percentage of their constituencies voters than those who got in elsewhere:

image.png.c17dc2c43cb5eecf75067f2ce89ee260.png

Ashford tops the table as others have already noticed, though it's not quite as impressive as Allinson's 83.9% in 2016 - and that was against more (and better) opposition.  The number of opponents obviously make a big difference - Harmer and Boot were #3 and #8 in 2016 because there were only three standing.

Poole-Wilson's result is impressive and Watterson improved on his already high 2016 score (though with one less opponent).  Callister and Edge both being in the top 10 show the weakness of their opposition and Cannan's result is good against so many opponents.

At the other end of the table Crookall's 31% is bettered by both the Rushen and two of the Garff losers and a handful of others.  It's reminiscent of the way his fellow ex-postie, Cregeen, got back in 2016 with a similar percentage.  Definitely only Best of the Rest in Peel.

Unluckiest loser is probably Quine who did better than ten of those elected and still lost his job, though Crowther actually got more votes than most of those elected.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Declan said:

Thanks. It would be interesting to see a candidates vote against the number of eligible voters. 

I don't have those yet.  We have figures for April for the number on the electoral roll for each constituency, but judging by the turnout figures we do have (only for eight constituencies), those have been increased quite a bit since.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway here's the bottom half of the list:

image.png.33277744ee4c0cc545f4980b904ecc20.png

It's not obvious because of the split but the way that #33-35 are all Glenfaba and Peel shows just how close the second place for that constituency was.  On the other hand it emphasises that Josem, rather than being a close third was only just ahead of Joughin.  And that nearly a quarter of the voters of Douglas North chose Oliphant-Smith certainly tells you .... something.

It's interesting that all the non-Minister MHKs who lost their seats (Peake, Perkins, Quine) are in the top half of the table while the Minsters are in the bottom.  This may be partly due to being in contests with more candidates (though not Cregeen) but maybe the fact they were Ministers encouraged those candidates to stand.  But even among Minsters, Boot's performance is extraordinary.  He must have realised he was doing badly enough to lose, but I doubt he realised just how quite humiliating it would get.  No wonder he fled from the count.

Singer's stock continues to fall and Willer's poor performance shows the Karran magic has gone.  Both Hackman and Walker stood for the same constituencies last time with similar results.  If people are going to do this why not campaign between times?

The Ramsey result emphasises how Allinson and Hooper got less than half the vote between them.  It's just that the opposition was spread quite equally between all the other candidates that makes their lead look impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

         image.png.ae2e3ab11e50377341c996bd18c26be5.png

Who Voted?

There is a bit of a pattern here, ranking the constituencies by voter turnout produces three groups.

The rural towns vote the most, the areas on the periphery of Douglas (Middle, Douglas S  and Onchan) are mid-table and central Douglas votes the least. I attach 2016 results which are similar. There are movements within groups but the broad picture is similar.

Ayre and Michael are the best voters! (In terms of exercising their right to vote, no comment on who they select intended).

The numbers registered to vote vary quite a lot. This caused me to look at the changes in voter numbers. From Jan 2017 to April 2021, this is the growth in the number of eligible voters.

image.png.6c22818c1b1a57c2d3d0ee278abf2897.png

This is quite a lot of growth and, as you can see, some areas have grown a lot faster than others.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ETA: ^

Nice work Roger.

Can you do a quick resort to table number of votes received?

Oh, and of course, to keep with the times, an indication for whether they are female or male. Erm, I suggest pink for women and blue for men.

Interesting that the gender thing has surpassed the shock of 4 ministers getting their arses kicked, and in some case severely. When Bernie May (Minister for Health) lost his election 1996 the press were all over it. But to lose 4 is an absolute damning indictment of how bad the last Government must have been. That really needs to be mulled over and the implications addressed.

Edited by Barlow
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger ranked candidates by proportion of votes obtained in constituency. I think this makes sense. A far blunter analysis would be to rank by Number of Votes, this ignores size of constituency and number of candidates and so is a very unrefined statistic. However, it does have some power as the number of people you have persuaded to vote for you is some measure of your electability. If you accept this number has some value, then the following table may be useful;

image.png.c82d601879b26cf3943d2cbecf28affd.png

I suspect it is very comforting to Juan W to know he got more votes than anyone else. It is also an incredible result that Kate Lord-B, a new candidate got the second greatest amount of votes.

If you thought volume of votes and being a recent member of Comin counted towards Chief Minister qualification, then Alf C would be feeling quite happy.

Note, 9 of the top ten were prior MHKs or MLCs which raises the question as to whether being a sitting member is an advantage.  I will look at this next.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Phillip Dearden said:

Roger ranked candidates by proportion of votes obtained in constituency. I think this makes sense. A far blunter analysis would be to rank by Number of Votes, this ignores size of constituency and number of candidates and so is a very unrefined statistic. However, it does have some power as the number of people you have persuaded to vote for you is some measure of your electability. If you accept this number has some value, then the following table may be useful;

image.png.c82d601879b26cf3943d2cbecf28affd.png

I suspect it is very comforting to Juan W to know he got more votes than anyone else. It is also an incredible result that Kate Lord-B, a new candidate got the second greatest amount of votes.

If you thought volume of votes and being a recent member of Comin counted towards Chief Minister qualification, then Alf C would be feeling quite happy.

Note, 9 of the top ten were prior MHKs or MLCs which raises the question as to whether being a sitting member is an advantage.  I will look at this next.

 

 

Sorry but that is nonsense.

If Ashford and Allinson had swapped constituencies how would that have panned out?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not look as if the voters were desperate for change.

image.png.41da60dfc8f9f81042f95286424d6c46.png

Most of the previous MHKs who stood, were voted back in. All (2) of the current MLCs who stood were elected.

3 constituencies voted all of their existing MHKs back in and one (Peel) voted for former MLCs/MHKs.

8 Novice (only in the sense that they were not previously MHK/MLCs, I ams ure they have great experience otherwise) were elected out of 33.

This suggests that once in, the candidate has an advantage at elections.

However, MHKs who had been MLCs did not fare as well. This might reflect higher profile and the spotlight that then gets applied to tricky matters.

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...