![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-31 01:35 pm (UTC)I'm not sure if he's taking the 2005 results "as they were" or a projection of them onto the new constituencies that the next GE will be fought on, which IIRC shift about ten seats net from Lab to Con.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-31 01:51 pm (UTC)Well, the aim should surely to predict an overall outcome, which would mean assuming an overall incumbency effect - in any given seat the question would be whether there's more or less incumbency than average, or indeed a negative effect if the voters have taken against their member.
So what method is actually being used, then?
no subject
Date: 2007-12-31 02:48 pm (UTC)This isn't quite "straight swing" - uniform swing is mathematically messy with lots of irritating discontinuities. However, I don't suppose it gives radically different results.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-01 12:47 pm (UTC)