For softfruit

[ciphergoth]

Another diagram showing the fortunes of the Lib Dems - I had another go to see if I could show more of what's going on.

Again, the position in the diagram (and the percentages) indicate the share of major party vote that each party gets, and the pie charts indicate the proportion of seats that each gets.

Looking at those polls, the Lib Dems had better hope that Clegg is going to completely turn around the fortunes of the party, or they are facing total irrelevance, which is a long way from the bright hopes entertained after the 2005 elections.

Comments

[softfruit.livejournal.com]

SHINY!!!! Thankyou!!

Though of course straight-swing is misleading here: given we got 6 MPs on something like 2% of the vote in the 1950s, the wipeout section of the grid is unlikely to actually play out quite as readily as the simple swing maths suggests. And some would see the ICM poll position as better than the 2005 result given the negotiating power it suggests: enough MPs to be kingmaker rather than facing another 5-year Labour majority government.

Love that midpoint.

[boyofbadgers.livejournal.com]

I think you're right with regards to total wipeout, but it's worth bearing in mind that the Alliance in 1987 and the LDs in 1992 both only won ten seats with 23.8% and 19.2% of the vote respectively.

[softfruit.livejournal.com]

Not quite: in 1987 the tally was 22 (17 Lib, 5 SDP) and 1992 was 20.

[softfruit.livejournal.com]

YOur percentages are a bit skewed there too I think. Are you just going on the MPs in England (where 10 would almost certainly be correct given the tranche of Scottish Liberal seats)?

[boyofbadgers.livejournal.com]

Bugger, you're absolutely right! I thought the numbers were a bit suspect.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Well my model predicts that if people voted as they did in 2001 then the LDs would have 37 MPs, but in the event they had 52 seats, so I'm starting to think my model needs work.

This has been done before - where is it being written up?