Politics

[Rayvin 5223]

Why is there not an actually functional and non-partisan tactical voting tool yet ffs.

[Gemmill 44905]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Why is there not an actually functional and non-partisan tactical voting tool yet ffs.

 

What do you mean? Is that not what this is? 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Gemmill

[Rayvin 5223]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

 

What do you mean? 

 

Every tactical voting tool that I've come across seems to be telling people to vote LD in seats where they stand no chance of winning based on the 2019 Euro elections. It's a worthless recommendation.

 

Also, no one seems to be pushing any of them into the public eye because the Peoples Vote campaign has decided to devour itself from the inside out.

[ewerk 30621]

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't right. There's the Best for Britain tool and the Remain United tool. You fucking tool.

[Gemmill 44905]

This tool recommends voting for Labour in over 400 seats. And in at least one incidence that I've checked, they've amended their recommendation from Lib Dem to Labour, reflecting the shift in polling. 

 

They aren't basing it on 2019 btw. From what I can gather, this MRP polls about 50k people, and then works out what type of voter this person is (across a bunch of different demographic categories). They then attempt to work out the make up of each constituency by these voter types and thus project the vote at a constituency level. 

 

By all accounts it's been very accurate in the past and much more reliable than the old approach. 

[Rayvin 5223]

2 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

This tool recommends voting for Labour in over 400 seats. And in at least one incidence that I've checked, they've amended their recommendation from Lib Dem to Labour, reflecting the shift in polling. 

 

They aren't basing it on 2019 btw. From what I can gather, this MRP polls about 50k people, and then works out what type of voter this person is (across a bunch of different demographic categories). They then attempt to work out the make up of each constituency by these voter types and thus project the vote at a constituency level. 

 

By all accounts it's been very accurate in the past and much more reliable than the old approach. 

 

Ah so, MRP is a tactical voting tool? I missed that, I thought it was just a set of polling data.

 

Well of this is the one to use then great, I'll spread it around.

[ewerk 30621]

MRP is the type of polling used to collect the data that then goes into their model to make their suggestion.

[Gemmill 44905]

Nah it is a different method of polling but it's much bigger sample sizes and what would appear to be a much more sophisticated approach. 

 

Obviously if they miscategorise voter types in a constituency then they could get it badly wrong. 

[Gemmill 44905]

Only needs 117k people across 57 constituencies to vote tactically in the right direction and Johnson is denied his majority.

 

Also worth mentioning that they've zeroed in on 57 constituencies as they say those are the ones needing fewer than 4,000 tactical votes each. There are others that could go the right way with a bit more than 4k tactical switches. 

[Rayvin 5223]

So we use "getvoting.org".

 

And yet when I Google it, I get an article from the guardian saying not to trust it...

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 5223]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

Only needs 117k people across 57 constituencies to vote tactically in the right direction and Johnson is denied his majority.

 

Also worth mentioning that they've zeroed in on 57 constituencies as they say those are the ones needing fewer than 4,000 tactical votes each. There are others that could go the right way with a bit more than 4k tactical switches. 

 

If true, surely this isn't beyond us. It won't deliver a Labour majority either, meaning Labour are free to promise the earth without having to deliver. 

[ewerk 30621]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

So we use "getvoting.org".

 

And yet when I Google it, I get an article from the guardian saying not to trust it...

 

Naomi Smith from B4B admitted the site was rushed out more quickly than they'd like due to the launch of something similar from the Brexit lot. It has been updated since then so should be more accurate.

Edited November 27, 2019 by ewerk

[NJS 4386]

I think there's a lot of reluctance to accept recommendations - as I said when I initially looked at it, reccomending lib dems when they got 4% in 2017 seems wrong. Others like Canterbury or Kensington where Labour just won and they reccomend not voting for them also seems pig-headed. 

 

Since I've lived in Chelmsford it's been a safe tory seat and the other two have been split with the lib dems varying degrees of clear in second. Last time out Labour came a clear second but all the tactical sites reccomend the LDs which is probably correct. Only problem is the tories always get more than 50%  so either way its probably a waste of time. 

[Gemmill 44905]

Sunderland Central is tied between Labour and Tory per the B4B data. Fucking mackems. 

[ewerk 30621]

Now watch the cunt trying to avoid doing it.

[Gemmill 44905]

 

 

Thread. Worth a read. 

[Gemmill 44905]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

Now watch the cunt trying to avoid doing it.

Another BBC "mistake" that looks like favouring the Tories. 

[Monkeys Fist 42459]

Script approval isn’t something to be rushed…

[Rayvin 5223]

16 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Another BBC "mistake" that looks like favouring the Tories. 

 

There's no media bias mate, it's been confirmed several times and I for one am totally convinced. This shitshow is just standard operating procedure for what I can only assume are a collective of utter muppets.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Rayvin

[ewerk 30621]

There’s no doubt they were all but signed on the dotted line and now they’re shitting themselves.

[Renton 21628]

He'll pull it. Less damaging than the alternative, even though it shows him to be a coward.

[Dr Gloom 21930]

The BBC are obliged to empty chair him if he dodges it. And splash it all over the news. What a shameless charlatan Johnson is. 

[Renton 21628]

38 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

The BBC are obliged to empty chair him if he dodges it. And splash it all over the news. What a shameless charlatan Johnson is. 

 

Are they? Will they? 

[Dr Gloom 21930]

42 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Are they? Will they? 

Well not technically. It’s not their fault Johnson reneged. But the Royal Charter demands that the BBC is impartial. I don’t see how they can let him get away with this and meet the demands of the Royal Charter without empty chairing him. Neil should follow Burley’s Lead and read to camera in forensic detail all the lies he would have scrutinised had Johnson appeared in body.

 

[Gemmill 44905]

 

 

This lass's face. Fucking contempt written all over it for the fat sack of horseshit sat in front of her.