A rather novel way to try and encourage people to vote…
I noticed a few tweets about this from the UK over the weekend, and a blog post today from UK Labour Councillor, and European candidate, Sanchia Alasia.
Basically, the three seats Labour challenge idea is that a large group of activists get together and pool their collective resources, with the aim of making as many voter contacts they can over one weekend, throughout three target Labour seats (for a good summary of UK Labour’s 106 target seats, read this).
This particular group of activists managed to contact over 1,500 voters in the target seats of Redbridge, Brighton and Hove and Crawley in one weekend. If they are to keep this up at a decent rate, perhaps once a month between now and the election in late 2015, they are sure to make a massive difference to the outcome of the next election.
Certainly a model worth looking at for elections on the other side of the globe.
Over summer I’ve been back in New Zealand, catching up with family, friends and some of my excellent former colleagues.
As well as talking about what we have to look forward to this coming year, and I have a few blog posts about this ready to go, we’ve been doing a bit of reminiscing. I’ve got a few things that have randomly come up in conversation to post, this is the first.
It is, I believe, Gordon Brown’s finest hour. It’s a speech he gave to Citizens UK three days before the 2010 election, following on from David Cameron and Nick Clegg at the same event. I’ve never been a huge Gordon Brown fan, but in this 10 minute speech, despite a stage invasion, he manages to passionately get across what it means to be Labour. Enjoy.
Just 18 months out from their next general election, the UK based blog published this excellent piece yesterday about how Labour needs to move forward, not look back, to be competitive in 2015.
With 18 months to go to the election it is obviously time to assign campaign roles and start finalising ideas for the manifesto. It is encouraging for Labour that so many talented figures seem ready to lend a hand. What is so far less clear is what the central thrust and tone of this campaign will be. It will be important not to refight old battles, or unthinkingly recycle old techniques. May 2015 will be different. It will involve a volatile electorate, reduced loyalty to the three old parties, the unknowable UKIP factor, and a media industry in some disarray. No-one has fought a UK election in circumstances quite like these before. Cutting through to sceptical, free-floating voters will require brilliant communication skills. “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?”, as St Paul said.
Some good advice for their antipodean comrades. I highly recommend reading the full post.
Alastair Campbell is the master. Watch him demolish the Daily Mail’s Jon Steafel about the Daily Mail story about Ralph Miliband, the Labour leader’s father.
The Atlantic picked up on an interesting piece of research from a demographer called Conor Sen from Atlanta:
The whole article is well worth a read. Something that sticks out however, is this claim:
But you may also be struck by the shape of that trend line (Sen is quick to note, by the way, that he’s not a statistician). It roughly suggests a political tipping point somewhere around a population density of about 800-1,000 people per square mile.
Justin Esarey, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Rice University, has picked up on it and noticed something quite interesting.
Huh. Well, that did not look like a very good fit to me. So, I reconstructed the data set using the Wikipedia-sourced PVI data and the Census-sourced population density data that Conor talked about. I then ran an analysis of this data replicating Conor’s log-fitted model, plus a loess nonparametric fit line and a simple linear model. Here’s what these three models look like when plotted against one another:
What Justin is showing, is that by simply employing a different type of trend line you can paint a very different picture.
The interesting part (for me!) is how this would actually apply to political campaigns. For example, Dave Troy came to this conclusion using the original log fit line:
at about 800 people per square mile, people switch from voting primarily Republican to voting primarily Democratic
If you were to base a campaign on that principal, then depending on your voting system, it could be a fair assumption for a Democratic campaign to ignore districts with a population density of less than 800 people per square mile, and likewise, that very dense districts are only marginally more Democrat-leaning than moderately dense districts.
The two other trend lines tell a story. With them you get a far simpler, and in my view, far more logical story. Whereby there is no “tipping point” where a low population density district area becomes “worthless” to Democrats, and where a district continues to be stronger Democratic the higher the density.
All goes to show how important it is to get statistics right.
Please note: I am in now way claiming to be a professional statistician at all, so please excuse any errors on my part too!