General Election 2021 Results Analysis

[Phillip Dearden]

In the ranking by % of votes obtained, all but two of the top 16 were prior MHKs or MLCs. This does suggest prior experience is a big help. I would expect this, the incumbents have access to information and have gained appropriate experience.

Sarah Maltby and Tim Glover did well to break into this group.

Peel was tight, both Ray Harmer and Trevor Cowin were not far behind Tim Crookall. Geoffrey Boot was.

 

[Ramseyboi]

28 minutes ago, Phillip Dearden said:

Thank you for your kind comment.

I don't know.

I do.

Allinson would have topped the poles by a Mile in Douglas North.  Ashford would have seen far less votes than he got in Douglas if he had been up against 7 other candidates.

These figures are all pointless without some sort of major adjustment for the size of the field in each area plus an adjustment for those who had two bites but only used one.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Ramseyboi

[StrangeBrew]

Are these the definitive final figures? I’ve seen several sources quite 1209 votes for Andrew Langan-Newton in Rushen, which would have put him in 3rd place above Kemp. 

[SleepyJoe]

3 minutes ago, StrangeBrew said:

Are these the definitive final figures? I’ve seen several sources quite 1209 votes for Andrew Langan-Newton in Rushen, which would have put him in 3rd place above Kemp. 

[StrangeBrew]

1 minute ago, SleepyJoe said:

Ah, thank you! 

[Declan]

Doing an analysis using Roger and Philip’s figures I make the Top 5

1. Cannon 41.44% of potential voters voted for him

2. Watterson 40.79%
3. Poole-Wilson 38.19%
4. Lord - Brennan 33.81%
5. Moorehouse 33.79%
 

then Ashy, Glover, Rob, Corlett, Hooper

[Roger Mexico]

34 minutes ago, Phillip Dearden said:

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.

I don't think anyone denies that there is an 'incumbency bonus'.  The interesting thing is how much it has been decreasing over the years (after all 2011 was only the first Keys election where every seat was contested).  Twentyfourkeys had an interesting article on this and of course that doesn't take into account those who don't stand because they know they will lose embarrassingly.  Of the four who stood down, I think only Shimmins (who had personal reasons) had a chance of getting back in, though of course against whom matter.

If you think about it a third of a Parliament being replaced by newbies is fairly extraordinary - particularly in a system where people are elected as independents.  And you may overestimate the power of being an MLC on its own - I doubt 5% of the population could list all eight elected members without help.  What happened instead I think is that Poole-Wilson and Lord-Brennan, already well-known in their communities, became sort of surrogate MHKs who people went to, perhaps because constituents found the official ones unsympathetic or not effective.  So they stood to do the job properly and the people rewarded them.  But the same would not necessarily apply to other MLCs.

As to the ex-MLCs, two is a pretty small sample.  Crookall scraped in because he was seen as the person to keep Harmer out; Singer was seen as a busted flush (he only got 25% as a sitting MHK in 2016).  He jumped on the Marina bandwagon last minutes more from habit than anything, but then discovered that bandwagons stop rolling if too many people climb aboard.

[wrighty]

8 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

 Of the four who stood down, I think only Shimmins (who had personal reasons) had a chance of getting back in, though of course against whom matter.

I doubt 5% of the population could list all eight elected members without help. 

Howard Quayle would have got back in. Maybe not in the constituency of ManxForums, but in Middle he’d have done the same as Ashford in Douglas North.

As for your second point I quoted, I think you could lose the % sign and it would still be true, at least amongst the population outside of Tynwald members themselves. 

[Ramseyboi]

3 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Howard Quayle would have got back in. Maybe not in the constituency of ManxForums, but in Middle he’d have done the same as Ashford in Douglas North.

As for your second point I quoted, I think you could lose the % sign and it would still be true, at least amongst the population outside of Tynwald members themselves. 

Have to disagree.

Howard became incredibly unpopular. He would have lost more votes than Allinson did and any decent candidate in middle would have seen him put out - which is why he didn’t stand.  He knows that and was vocal in telling other people.

[Roger Mexico]

21 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Howard Quayle would have got back in. Maybe not in the constituency of ManxForums, but in Middle he’d have done the same as Ashford in Douglas North.

As for your second point I quoted, I think you could lose the % sign and it would still be true, at least amongst the population outside of Tynwald members themselves. 

I don't think Quayle is that popular in Middle and he wasn't really at the last election.  Ashford had the advantage of poorer opposition that Quayle would have faced and I think he might have taken the plaudits for Covid, while Quayle would have had the negatives.  Whatever else you say Ashford handled things more fluently and authoritatively, even if it was fluent and authoritative nonsense sometimes.

I'd originally written 1%  and then thought there's probably a good 1000 who need to know professionally (there's probably that many in the Cabinet Office by now), so I was generous.  But yes, I had to look up Greenhill (I knew it was Green something).

[Ramseyboi]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I don't think Quayle is that popular in Middle and he wasn't really at the last election.  Ashford had the advantage of poorer opposition that Quayle would have faced and I think he might have taken the plaudits for Covid, while Quayle would have had the negatives.  Whatever else you say Ashford handled things more fluently and authoritatively, even if it was fluent and authoritative nonsense sometimes.

I'd originally written 1%  and then thought there's probably a good 1000 who need to know professionally (there's probably that many in the Cabinet Office by now), so I was generous.  But yes, I had to look up Greenhill (I knew it was Green something).

Exactly 

Howard only scraped in in 2016 and had no hope of getting re elected in middle this time against any form of opposition, and he knew it.

[wrighty]

10 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

Exactly 

Howard only scraped in in 2016 and had no hope of getting re elected in middle this time against any form of opposition, and he knew it.

You might be right, we’ll never know, but I certainly think there’s a possibility he’d have got in, especially if JPW didn’t stand against him. 

[Phillip Dearden]

What Declan has done is rank candidates by % of votes available ie Registered Voters. This does have merit but all of these analyses have some kind of bias and in this case the top rankings are occupied by candidates in the Constiuencies where voter turnout is greater ie the non-Douglas Towns.

 

The Ticks show Prior.Sitting MHKS. The preponderance of ticks at the top shows how existing MHKs tend to do better than new entrants.

Messrs Crowther and Quine get into the top 20 on this list but did not get elected - they were close.

If vote-ability was a relevant factor, Alf C and Juan W might think they had a shot at CM. [Just an observation, I think the role should go to whoever can get an effective team working together]

The lower ticks are the MHKS who did not get re-elected and I think this reflects the difficulty of taking on a difficult job (Comin/Minister) . That is what they are there for but sometimes it does not make you look good.

 

 

[Barlow]

3 hours ago, Phillip Dearden said:

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.

I think it has always been the case that sitting members have an advantage as they become well know (the Manx Radio presenters effect). Although that can be a double edged sword, certainly this time. 

With a strong leader and a strong Government the ministers will generally get carried along in the slip stream of collective responsibility, well, up to a point.

[Kopek]

5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I don't have those yet.

You'll never get them Roger, unless, you can study the imprint of the 'cross' on the ballot paper!

That would presume that people put an emphatic cross on their first choice and a somewhat less enthusiastic cross on their second choice? A bit of a hanging 'Chad' moment???

A large vote means nothing if we don't know how many were first and second preferences.

I would rather a candidate were elected on a few hundred 'favourite' votes than a candidate on a mixture of first and second preferences even if this is an impressive number!