Find us on Google+

Saturday, 9 April 2011

Why PF is Winning 2011

No, don't get too excited, not our analysis by that of the Patriotic Front. See their document Why We Are Winning. Some of the text is missing but it shows both PF and MMD projections which point to a PF victory. I will need to study and replicate the text here to comment further. But one of the things I noticed is that PF calculations have not factored in an upswing in their Western Province share. Most analysts expect that to go up substantially this time round. 

21 comments:

  1. Is it possible for an organisation that eschews internal democracy to be entrusted with the democratic instruments of government? I may have missed the event, but can someone enlighten me as to when PF held a meeting/convention to elect their leaders. In our despondency of coping with the current MMD misrule- are we not making the bigger mistake of bringing in an outfit that evidently does not see the benefit of democracy within their ranks?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kaiba, I couldn't agree more. You'd think a simple common sense exercise would be undertaken by members of our electorate. But alas, that's asking too much! In my view, people are so frustrated with the current MMD government that they are somehow blinded to the potentially deadly combination of no PF democracy + Mr Sata, a leader with no qualms about behaving in ways that totally disregard the opinions of others. It baffles me that The Post Newspaper can preach democracy but still unashamedly support the undemocratic PF.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Who will win 2011 Elections? By Potpher Mbulo

    DATE: 08-04-2011

    I would like to have a honest scientific analysis where facts override my personal opinion. So please take time to read what I’m about to write. Back in 2001, who would have imagined that Sata could be popular now? From statistics, in 2001, Sata was beaten by the likes of Anderson Mazoka (UPND), Christon Tembo (FDD), Kaunda Tilyenji (UNIP), Godfrey Miyanda (HP), Benjamin Mwila (ZRP). As a matter of fact, Sata was in the distance 7th position from Levy Mwanawasa. It’s unbelievable now that Sata is a big short at Zambian presidential hopefuls. Do you know why Sata was so unpopular back then? I won’t answer this question right now.

    Lets go to 2006 Presidential Election Results:

    Levy Mwanawasa (MMD); 1,177,846 votes; 42.98%
    Michael MC Sata (PF) 804,748 votes; 29.37%
    Hakainde Hichilema (UDA) 693,772 votes; 25.32%
    Godfrey K Miyanda (HP) 42,891 votes; 1.57%
    Winright K Ngondo (APC) 20,921 votes; 0.76%

    Now compare this with the 2008 Presidential Election Results here below:

    BANDA RUPIAH B (MMD) 718,359 votes; 40.09 %
    SATA MICHAEL C (PF) 683,150 votes; 38.13 %
    HICHILEMA HAKAINDE (UPND) 353,018 votes; 19.70 %
    MIYANDA GODFREY K (HERITAGE) 13,683 votes; 0.76 %

    Against total votes cast, Sata with his PF jumped from 3.35% of votes for him in 2001 to 29.37% of votes in 2006 and finally again gaining to 38.13% of votes in 2008

    Against total votes cast, MMD jumped from 19.45% of votes in 2001 to 42.98% of votes in 2006 and finally to slopping down a little to 40.09% of votes in 2008

    Against total votes cast, UPND jumped from 18.15% of votes in 2001 to 25.32% of votes in 2006 and finally to slopping down to 19.70% of votes in 2008. In Mazoka days, UPND was only second to MMD.

    ReplyDelete
  5. From the above statistics we can see that only PF has been consistently picking up momentum in gaining ground. There is no reason to assume that PF will change from this positive trend. On the other hand, MMD and UPND are losing ground. Is it possible that MMD and UPND can gain ground? I think that’s an illusion considering the fact that the new voter register has not shown that PF stronghold along the line of rail, Copperbelt, Luapula and Northern indicated less registered voters than usual.

    As at mid January 2011 the continuous voter registration captured 4,984,715 registered voters.

    Compare this with 3,944,135 registered voters in 2008. It is logical to say that in 2011, we expect to have more than 5.5 million registered voters.

    Let’s go to the mathematics.

    Assumptions:


    Registered voters = 5,500,000 (based on projected final registered voters. We may know the exact number before the end of this April 2011)

    Voter turnout = 45.43 % (based on 2008 Elections)

    Actual votes = 2,498,650 (extrapolated )


    Formular:

    P = rt(w + g)/w

    Where: P = postulation of 2011 election result
    r = number of registered voters in year 2011
    t = voter turnout based on latest election i.e. 2008 election
    w = latest poll score i.e. 2008 election in percentage
    g = gain in poll score of year 2006 to 2008 in percentage

    Table of Data and Computed Results:

    CANDIDATE 2006 2008 Gain PROJECTION %PROJECTION

    Sata 29.37% 38.13% 8.76% 1196504 47.76%
    RB 42.98% 40.09% -2.89% 949242 37.89%
    HH 25.32% 19.70% -5.62% 359283 14.34%
    TOTAL 97.92% 97.92% XXXXX 2505029 100.00%

    Assuming he still maintains his momentum and there are no surprises and all things being equal, this means that Sata in 2011 will win by at least 247,000 votes against RB based on 8.76% gain Sata had when we compare 2006 and 2008 statistics not withstanding that in 2008 he lost by 35,000 votes to RB. Don’t dismiss this conclusion. Using the same analysis, I had projected that MMD would win by a narrow margin in 2008. Now according to the above mathematics, Sata will win by scoring 47.76% of total votes cast. Had the MMD agreed to a 50 plus 1 clause, there was going to be a rerun. But greediness and arrogance of the MMD to hijack the failed constitution making process is going to haunt the MMD as they will see Sata win with a minority vote at 47.76%

    Among the Zambian politicians, there have only been two who have stood out by their personal ingenuity and charisma almost single handedly to command an impressive electorate following. Should I dare mention them? The Late Anderson Mazoka and Michael Chilufya Sata. There is something striking about this old man called the Cobra.

    Do you know why Sata was so unpopular back then in 2001? Believe it or not, the dented Chiluba name (corruption and Third Term Bid) has always had an effect on Zambian politics. In 1991 Chiluba was popular and so was Mwanawasa. By 2000 FTJ had lost popularity because of corruption allegations and Third Term Bid. He opted to field Mwanawasa but alas Mwanawasa was perceived to be an ally of a villain in 2001 elections. MMD’s performance in 2001 elections were thus not impressive. But Mwanawasa regained popularity through distancing himself from FTJ. Towards the end of his demise rule he realized that Sata was just vocal but not corrupt and for that reason he begun to get along with Sata. My humble opinion is that RB’s association with FTJ is going to ruin the MMD.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Potpher Mbulo,

    When you say:

    'I would like to have a honest scientific analysis where facts override my personal opinion.'

    Then you go ahead to make both direct and salient assumptions, you are not in the least being honest with yourself. Your emotions open up in your eye's view:

    'Do you know why Sata was so unpopular back then in 2001? Believe it or not, the dented Chiluba name (corruption and Third Term Bid) has always had an effect on Zambian politics. In 1991 Chiluba was popular and so was Mwanawasa. By 2000 FTJ had lost popularity because of corruption allegations and Third Term Bid. He opted to field Mwanawasa but alas Mwanawasa was perceived to be an ally of a villain in 2001 elections. MMD’s performance in 2001 elections were thus not impressive. But Mwanawasa regained popularity through distancing himself from FTJ. Towards the end of his demise rule he realized that Sata was just vocal but not corrupt and for that reason he begun to get along with Sata. My humble opinion is that RB’s association with FTJ is going to ruin the MMD.'

    which is pure speculation based on your wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Every good scientific presentation has its assuptions clearly stated. Its up to you the reader to review the assuptions if they are valid. If not, you hav to show how absence of those assuptions can change the conclusion of the presentation. So please can we start the critic from there.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hello,

    I am Emily Jones and I am a webmaster and member of some financial communities. I just visited your site ( http://www.zambian-economist.com/ ) and trust me you are doing a good job for your site. I read some of the articles of your site and I really found them worth reading. The quality of your site is excellent. It will help you to earn extra value from Google.
    After seeing this, I would like to do something for your site and that is for FREE!!. If you'll allow me, I love to write financial articles for your site . I want to contribute original article for your site and I assure you that it will be published only in your site.
    Please let me know your thoughts. Waiting for your positive reply. Reach me at: emily.jones025@gmail.com

    Thanks and Regards
    Emily Jones :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. As a follow up to my note entitled “Who will win 2011 Elections?” I have taken it upon myself to put into account observation of critics of my work and I have also incorporating my detailed second opinion.

    ANALYSIS:

    To start with, though the total registered number of voters (RV) and the average voter turnout (VTO) at national level does not affect verdict of election outcome but affects total votes cast, however, RV and VTO at provincial level affects electro outcome. Therefore it’s not just my opinion but it is a fact that statistical calculations based on summed up presidential election results at national level are not very close to reality. A better analysis is one that takes into account the country’s demography at provincial level. This is what I aim at doing in this presentation. In this regard, data of cardinal consideration are:

    ■Total Registered voters at provincial level
    ■Voter turnout at provincial level
    ■Distribution of votes based on past election trends at provincial level
    ■Popularity growth at provincial level
    ■The Patrick Levy Mwanawasa (PLM) factor
    ■The Charles Milupi (CM) factor
    ■The Mongu demonstration factor
    ■Possibility of rigging
    ■New young voters

    Lets ride through how we incorporate the above considerations into the analysis:

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. Total Registered voters (RV) at provincial level:

    As earlier assumed in the first presentation, that 2011 election will register more than 5.5 million voters, based on past election registration trends, I have relatively apportioned registered voters to provinces according to share ratios:

    Copperbelt: 914,812 registered voters
    Lusaka: 834,682 registered voters
    Northern: 723,391 registered voters
    Southern: 667,746 registered voters
    Eastern: 645,488 registered voters
    Central: 556,455 registered voters
    Lwapula: 500,809 registered voters
    Western: 389,518 registered voters
    North Western: 267,098 registered voters

    Just a brief comment: The reason why PF is so prominent at national electro outcome is because it’s popular in the three prominent provinces which have most registered voters (RV) i.e. Copperbelt, Lusaka and Northern provinces. Notice that RV is highest in these regions and actually, the list of provinces here above was made in accordance with descending RV with the most on top.

    2. Voter turnout (VTO) at provincial level:

    To ascertain voter turnout (VTO), I had to refer to past trends as well as a discussion with friends. For instance, it is expected that duel to the Mongu fracas, there will be apathy (VTO = 55%) towards voting in Western province. The apportioned VTO for each province is as follows:

    Copperbelt: VTO = 70.00%
    Lusaka: VTO = 70.00%
    Northern: VTO = 65.00%
    Southern: VTO = 75%
    Eastern: VTO = 93.66%
    Central: VTO = 75.10%
    Lwapula: VTO = 65.00%
    Western: VTO = 55.00%
    North Western: VTO = 65.00%

    3. Distribution of votes based on past election trends at provincial level:

    In general, the distribution of votes to candidates per province is calculated by considering registered voters (RV) of the province, voter turnout (VTO) and popularity growth. The fomular I used is here below:

    P = rtw(1 + g)/100
    Where: P = postulation of 2011 election result
    r = number of registered voters in year 2011
    t = percentage voter turnout
    w = latest poll score i.e. 2008 election in percentage
    g = popularity growth or gain in poll score of year 2006 to 2008 in percentage

    Notwithstanding the rule’s generalization, this rule has been disregarded rather overridden by the Patrick Levy Mwanawasa factor at Copperbelt and Central provinces. Again the rule has been overtaken by the Charles Milupi in Western province. In these three instances I have apportioned sharing ratios as percentages.

    4. Popularity growth at provincial level:

    The formula for determining popularity growth is as follows:

    g = (w1 – w2)/100
    where w1 = latest percentile poll score i.e. 2008 election
    w2 = percentile poll score in 2006 election

    As earlier mentioned, even this rule has been disregarded rather overridden by the Patrick Levy Mwanawasa factor at Copperbelt and Central provinces. Again the rule has been overtaken by the Charles Milupi in Western province. In these three instances we have apportioned sharing ratios as percentages.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 8. Possibility of rigging:

    Rigging can only be to an extent. If an incumbent loses too much, it’s difficult to rig. Moreover, if MMD did rig before, say in 2006 and 2008, that rigging component is already factored in the data as the analysis looked at the final ECZ results.

    However I know that Voter Turnout Ratio in Luapula in the years 2001, 2006 and 2008 were as follows respectively: 71%, 36% and 30%

    I can explain why there was a low voter turnout in 2008 as it was a by-election with a lot of relocation of voters since voter registration in early 2006 making it difficult for electorates to cast their vote after two years. I was wondering why there is a big disparity between 2001 and 2006 in terms of voter turnout. FTJ who hauls from Luapula was supporting LPM in 2001 and perhaps GRZ inflated the VTO ratio in Luapula as it was very difficult to monitor elections in the light of the fact that many roads were impassable in 2001 in Luapula. If, I’m not mistaken, ZAF Helicopters were used to ferry ballot boxes from remotes to totaling centers back then in Luapula. In this regard it was easy to rig. However, I’m not saying that MMD did rig.

    Well you may as: how can GRZ manipulate Voter Turnout Ratio (VTO)? I’m glad you asked. Simply by making sure ballot papers are delaying in reaching polling stations where the opposition are strong. That way GRZ can insure voting starts at say 11:00 hrs instead of 7:00hrs and stop the exercise at 18:00hrs. In the mean time, GRZ can commence voting at 6:00hrs and end at 19:00hrs in the incumbent’s stronghold. Deliberate creation of apathy to affect VTO is a great tool for rigging.

    I have deliberately put the VTO ratio in Eastern province at all time high of 93.66% to cater for rigging. Without this, say we reset the VTO ratio to 70% in Eastern province, we see PF win at national total of 39.69% followed by MMD at 36.60% and with UPND at 22.91% of total votes cast translating into 1,551,267 votes for PF followed by 1,430,452 votes for MMD while UPND has 895,502 votes. In such a scenario, PF leads MMD by over 120,000 votes.

    9. New Young Voters:

    There are over a million new young voters on the register this year 2011. Most of these want change of government and they are mainly pro PF. I don’t want to appear to be harsh to MMD. I have not assigned any factor to the computation. I assume this is taken care of in the various political parties’ popularity growth rate. If critics are not satisfied, they can argue with statistics on which the populality growth rate is determined.

    Now we are through with the cardinal considerations. Let’s go to the results that show the final outcome. The results of this comprehensive analysis that takes into account the issues discussed above yields the following final tabulated results:

    ReplyDelete
  13. SAMMARY OF RESULTS:

    Jan 2011 Registered Voters = 4,942,000
    2011 Projected Registered Voters = 5,500,000
    Total Votes Cast = 4,094,965
    Average Voter Turnout = 74.45%

    2001 2006 2008 2011 Votes Cast

    PF: 3.35% 29.37% 38.13% 38.60% 1,580,792
    MMD: 28.69% 42.98% 40.09% 38.60% 1,580,817
    UPND: 26.76% 25.32% 19.70% 21.99% 900,542
    Others: 39.59% 2.33% 0.76% 0.80% 32,815
    TOTAL 98.39% 100.00% 98.68% 100.00% 4,094,965

    DISCUSSION:

    We should not be deceived by the results in the table that shows that MMD and PF have a tie at 38.60% while UPND is trailing at 21.99%. What makes MMD to equal PF is the setting of voter turnout in Eastern Province at an all time high of 93.66%. Since MMD is popular in that region, Eastern Province contribution to total national count becomes very profound.

    CONCLUSION:

    Only if and if only the voter turnout trigger point of 93.66% in Eastern Province is achieved will MMD’s presidential candidate pass the post else PF’s presidential hopeful will carry the day. Like earlier mentioned, I have deliberately put the VTO ratio in Eastern province at all time high of 93.66%. This is the breakeven point for MMD to bypass PF all things being equal. Without this, say we reset the VTO ratio to 70% in Eastern province, we see PF win at national total with 39.69% followed by MMD at 36.60% and with UPND at 22.91% of total votes cast translating into 1,551,267 votes for PF followed by 1,430,452 votes for MMD while UPND has 895,502 votes. In such a scenario, PF leads MMD by over 120,000 votes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I left out the following potion:

    1. Total Registered voters (RV) at provincial level:

    As earlier assumed in the first presentation, that 2011 election will register more than 5.5 million voters, based on past election registration trends, I have relatively apportioned registered voters to provinces according to share ratios:

    Copperbelt: 914,812 registered voters
    Lusaka: 834,682 registered voters
    Northern: 723,391 registered voters
    Southern: 667,746 registered voters
    Eastern: 645,488 registered voters
    Central: 556,455 registered voters
    Lwapula: 500,809 registered voters
    Western: 389,518 registered voters
    North Western: 267,098 registered voters

    Just a brief comment: The reason why PF is so prominent at national electro outcome is because it’s popular in the three prominent provinces which have most registered voters (RV) i.e. Copperbelt, Lusaka and Northern provinces. Notice that RV is highest in these regions and actually, the list of provinces here above was made in accordance with descending RV with the most on top.

    2. Voter turnout (VTO) at provincial level:

    To ascertain voter turnout (VTO), I had to refer to past trends as well as a discussion with friends. For instance, it is expected that duel to the Mongu fracas, there will be apathy (VTO = 55%) towards voting in Western province. The apportioned VTO for each province is as follows:

    Copperbelt: VTO = 70.00%
    Lusaka: VTO = 70.00%
    Northern: VTO = 65.00%
    Southern: VTO = 75%
    Eastern: VTO = 93.66%
    Central: VTO = 75.10%
    Lwapula: VTO = 65.00%
    Western: VTO = 55.00%
    North Western: VTO = 65.00%

    3. Distribution of votes based on past election trends at provincial level:

    In general, the distribution of votes to candidates per province is calculated by considering registered voters (RV) of the province, voter turnout (VTO) and popularity growth. The fomular I used is here below:

    P = rtw(1 + g)/100
    Where: P = postulation of 2011 election result
    r = number of registered voters in year 2011
    t = percentage voter turnout
    w = latest poll score i.e. 2008 election in percentage
    g = popularity growth or gain in poll score of year 2006 to 2008 in percentage

    Notwithstanding the rule’s generalization, this rule has been disregarded rather overridden by the Patrick Levy Mwanawasa factor at Copperbelt and Central provinces. Again the rule has been overtaken by the Charles Milupi in Western province. In these three instances I have apportioned sharing ratios as percentages.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 1. Total Registered voters (RV) at provincial level:

    As earlier assumed in the first presentation, that 2011 election will register more than 5.5 million voters, based on past election registration trends, I have relatively apportioned registered voters to provinces according to share ratios:

    Copperbelt: 914,812 registered voters
    Lusaka: 834,682 registered voters
    Northern: 723,391 registered voters
    Southern: 667,746 registered voters
    Eastern: 645,488 registered voters
    Central: 556,455 registered voters
    Lwapula: 500,809 registered voters
    Western: 389,518 registered voters
    North Western: 267,098 registered voters

    Just a brief comment: The reason why PF is so prominent at national electro outcome is because it’s popular in the three prominent provinces which have most registered voters (RV) i.e. Copperbelt, Lusaka and Northern provinces. Notice that RV is highest in these regions and actually, the list of provinces here above was made in accordance with descending RV with the most on top.

    2. Voter turnout (VTO) at provincial level:

    To ascertain voter turnout (VTO), I had to refer to past trends as well as a discussion with friends. For instance, it is expected that duel to the Mongu fracas, there will be apathy (VTO = 55%) towards voting in Western province. The apportioned VTO for each province is as follows:

    Copperbelt: VTO = 70.00%
    Lusaka: VTO = 70.00%
    Northern: VTO = 65.00%
    Southern: VTO = 75%
    Eastern: VTO = 93.66%
    Central: VTO = 75.10%
    Lwapula: VTO = 65.00%
    Western: VTO = 55.00%
    North Western: VTO = 65.00%

    3. Distribution of votes based on past election trends at provincial level:

    In general, the distribution of votes to candidates per province is calculated by considering registered voters (RV) of the province, voter turnout (VTO) and popularity growth. The fomular I used is here below:

    P = rtw(1 + g)/100

    Where: P = postulation of 2011 election result
    r = number of registered voters in year 2011
    t = percentage voter turnout
    w = latest poll score i.e. 2008 election in percentage
    g = popularity growth or gain in poll score of year 2006 to 2008 in percentage

    Notwithstanding the rule’s generalization, this rule has been disregarded rather overridden by the Patrick Levy Mwanawasa factor at Copperbelt and Central provinces. Again the rule has been overtaken by the Charles Milupi in Western province. In these three instances I have apportioned sharing ratios as percentages.

    4. Popularity growth at provincial level:

    The formula for determining popularity growth is as follows:

    g = (w1 – w2)/100
    where w1 = latest percentile poll score i.e. 2008 election
    w2 = percentile poll score in 2006 election

    As earlier mentioned, even this rule has been disregarded rather overridden by the Patrick Levy Mwanawasa factor at Copperbelt and Central provinces. Again the rule has been overtaken by the Charles Milupi in Western province. In these three instances we have apportioned sharing ratios as percentages.

    5. The Patrick Levy Mwanawasa (PLM) factor:

    The Patrick Levy Mwanawasa (PLM) factor is presumably a belief that some members (Lamba/Lenje) within MMD such as Shakafuswe, George Mpombo, Mike Mulongoti, etc have fallen out of favor with the MMD. In view of this, a sizable number of votes will swing back from MMD to UPND in Central Province and Rular Ndola of Copperbelt Province. We have apportioned sharing ratios as percentages.

    Copperbelt province:

    With PLM factor Without PLM factor

    PF = 65.40% 65.08%
    MMD = 20% 29.24%
    UPND = 14% 5.10%
    Others = 0.60% 0.57%

    Central Province:

    With PLM factor Without PLM factor

    PF = 27.6% 27.57%
    MD = 33% 51.19%
    PND = 38.6% 20.42%
    Others = 0.80% 0.81%

    ReplyDelete
  16. 1. Total Registered voters (RV) at provincial level:

    As earlier assumed in the first presentation, that 2011 election will register more than 5.5 million voters, based on past election registration trends, I have relatively apportioned registered voters to provinces according to share ratios:

    Copperbelt: 914,812 registered voters
    Lusaka: 834,682 registered voters
    Northern: 723,391 registered voters
    Southern: 667,746 registered voters
    Eastern: 645,488 registered voters
    Central: 556,455 registered voters
    Lwapula: 500,809 registered voters
    Western: 389,518 registered voters
    North Western: 267,098 registered voters

    Just a brief comment: The reason why PF is so prominent at national electro outcome is because it’s popular in the three prominent provinces in terms of registered voters (RV) i.e. Copperbelt, Lusaka and Northern provinces have the most registered voters. Notice that RV is highest in these regions and actually, the list of provinces here above was made in accordance with descending RV with the most on top.

    2. Voter turnout (VTO) at provincial level:

    To ascertain voter turnout (VTO), I had to refer to past trends as well as a discussion with friends. For instance, it is expected that duel to the Mongu fracas, there will be apathy (VTO = 55%) towards voting in Western province. The apportioned VTO for each province is as follows:

    Copperbelt: VTO = 70.00%
    Lusaka: VTO = 70.00%
    Northern: VTO = 65.00%
    Southern: VTO = 75%
    Eastern: VTO = 93.66%
    Central: VTO = 75.10%
    Lwapula: VTO = 65.00%
    Western: VTO = 55.00%
    North Western: VTO = 65.00%

    3. Distribution of votes based on past election trends at provincial level:

    In general, the distribution of votes to candidates per province is calculated by considering registered voters (RV) of the province, voter turnout (VTO) and popularity growth. The formula I used is here below:

    P = rtw(1 + g)/100
    Where: P = postulation of 2011 election result
    r = number of registered voters in year 2011
    t = percentage voter turnout
    w = latest poll score i.e. 2008 election in percentage
    g = popularity growth or gain in poll score of year 2006 to 2008 in percentage

    Notwithstanding the rule’s generalization, this rule has been disregarded rather overridden by the Patrick Levy Mwanawasa factor at Copperbelt and Central provinces. Again the rule has been overtaken by the Charles Milupi factor in Western province. In these three instances I have apportioned sharing ratios as percentages.

    4. Popularity growth at provincial level:

    The formula for determining popularity growth is as follows:

    g = (w1 – w2)/100
    where w1 = latest percentile poll score i.e. 2008 election
    w2 = percentile poll score in 2006 election

    As earlier mentioned, even this rule has been disregarded rather overridden by the Patrick Levy Mwanawasa factor at Copperbelt and Central provinces. Again the rule has been overtaken by the Charles Milupi factor in Western province. In these three instances we have apportioned sharing ratios as percentages.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Potpher, Your calculations are flawed, not because your formula may be wrong (I'm guessing you are a scientist or mathematician so will not doubt you on formulas) but the data you have used to fill your formula is leading you astray. Firstly you assume a turnout the same as 2008. You forget that was a head-to-head battle for ther Presidency only, no councillors or MPs were uop for election. The result was that the MMD fought a woeful campaign; their activists and cadres simply did not turnout to assist RB, but the PF fought a good campaign, so did UPND. You need to look back to the 2006 election for a more representative turnout figure.

    BUT..you seem to use the 'gain' or 'loss' figures between the elections as your guide. Just because Sata gained +/-8% in 2008 does not mean he will gain the same again in 2011, so for you to say that he will get 47% of the vote is absurd.

    Remember the Steadman polls in 2006 and 2008? They also had Sata winning easily in 2008 but were proven wrong. They had him on 40% (so an over-estimation) and had RB on 29% (massive under-estimation). In 2006 they under-estimated LM's vote by some 10%. They had Levy at 33% when in reality he got 43%. In that same poll they under-estimated Sata at 24%, when he got 29%. They also called HH completely wrong at 15% when he got 25%.

    Conclusion is that Sata support is nearly always over-rated. The latest PF website figures also over-rate and their figures do not make sense for many other reasons. To prove their worth they should publish the data fully, with margin or error, sample size, dates conducted etc etc.

    I for one do not think Sata will get 47%. The Pact break-up has damaged bith him and HH. I think HH will gain more votes than you think...which will let RB win.

    ReplyDelete
  18. there is also the question however of many of Sata's votes were 'lost' during the collection and transmission of results in 2006. There were certainly many irregularities.

    ReplyDelete
  19. VTO at national level does not affect verdict of election outcome unless segregated VTO at provicial level.
    Again, popularity growth application is the only tangible logic for a scientific analysis. However I agree, my mathematical model only works in theory but theory is the basis for sense so we can forecast the future and strategise to mitigate the consequences. Hahaha

    ReplyDelete
  20. A VERY GOOD SITE AND DEEP THOUGHTS. A VERY WISE PERSON WILL TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY AND I HOPE PF IS TAKING NOTE OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE. THEY HAVE TO WORK HARD TO GET VOTES FROM MMD, WHO ARE NOW LOOKING LIKE UNIP, I PERSONALLY AS A TRUE MMD, IAM THINKING TO VOTE AGAINST MY OWN PARTY.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Now that the 20 September results are almost done and dusted, it is very interesting to go back and look at these projections, which were remarkably accurate by the normal standards of such things. Good job, I think.
    Nice site too, good job on the rolling results

    ReplyDelete

All contributors should follow the basic principles of a productive dialogue: communicate their perspective, ask, comment, respond,and share information and knowledge, but do all this with a positive approach.

This is a friendly website. However, if you feel compelled to comment 'anonymously', you are strongly encouraged to state your location / adopt a unique nick name so that other commentators/readers do not confuse your comments with other individuals also commenting anonymously.