Greens: ZERO seats in the 31st Dail

[Factorem]

I've been running the figures for various polls, and FF are almost always looking at having a substantial number of transfers in about half the constituencies. In fact, there will probably be a greater number in this election, as there will be a greater incidence of them splitting their vote innappropriately.

Take a 5-seater constituency where they might, normally have about have a good chance of a 3rd seat (let's say they generally get about the national average, or a point or two higher there). The normal tactic is to split the vote, as far as possible, 3 ways. However, on current polls, they would be in the mid-20s, and doing this would mean they'd kiss good-bye to their chances of a 2nd seat, and they'd have a up to 10% of the TVP in transfers.

Basically it comes down to the statistical distribution of their vote totals between the quota totals (17, 33, 50% in a 5 seater, 20, 40% in a 4 seater and 25%, 50% in a 3 seater). In some places they will be clsoe enough to one of these amounts, and will have few if any transfers. But in plenty there'll be a big vote going a-begging.

It is unlikely to help Gormley unless the FF vote goes further south (I see them on about 19% in DSE at the moment).

Dub Nth would see their 2nd candidate eliminated early on and electing their top candidate with a 5% TVP surplus, which would be likely to save Sargant's bacon (so to speak!).

Dub Sth, well it depends what happens with the Brennan/Kitt personal votes, but with a uniform swing the last seat would be between 2nd FF and Ryan. FWIW, on current trends I'd call it Ryan. But if FF fall further here because of the lost personal votes, the 2nd FF candidate would be likely to transfer to Ryan.

Carl-Kilk, I think White is toast as LP will take that seat, unless again a bigger drop in FF sees her ahead of their 2nd candidate, and then FF transfers could keep her ahead of the carlow LP candidate (assuming LP hold up in their increases).

Dub MW ... welll who knows given Ga-ga-rty, but it wold appear that FF, FG, LP would all get a seat (FF with a surplus of about 3%) and GP would be fighting it out with SF and IND. In those circs, the FF transfers could be part of what put him over the line.

Dun Laoghaire - yeah, I see FF on about a quota here with uniform swing, so no joy there for Cuffe.

Cork SC, similarly, 2nd FF would be competing with GP.

Good analysis.

Did you factor in the possibility of one-issue candidates, Sinn Feiners and all the independents who are propping up all over the place?

There's so much talk of forming new political parties, candidates who represent the working poor/commuters/etc. and candidates who are an alternative to Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee (to quote Gerry Adams).

[soubresauts]

There's a scientific consensus on climate change - you don't agree with it, but that's no more meaningful than Patricia McKenna's views on vaccination.

You seem to be insinuating that there is scientific consensus against McKenna's views (she's a vaccination sceptic, and didn't have her children vaccinated). Is that the case, ibis? If so, you're mistaken.

There are many highly-placed medical scientists who have doubts about vaccine safety or effectiveness. See here.

Until early 2007, the Green Party was a vaccination-sceptic party. That was stated clearly in its health policy, promoted assiduously by the long-time health spokesperson, John Gormley. For what was claimed to be a scientific reason (but wasn't really), the party then decided to be pro-vaccination.

[ibis]

You seem to be insinuating that there is scientific consensus against McKenna's views (she's a vaccination sceptic, and didn't have her children vaccinated). Is that the case, ibis? If so, you're mistaken.

There are many highly-placed medical scientists who have doubts about vaccine safety or effectiveness. See here.

Until early 2007, the Green Party was a vaccination-sceptic party. That was stated clearly in its health policy, promoted assiduously by the long-time health spokesperson, John Gormley. For what was claimed to be a scientific reason (but wasn't really), the party then decided to be pro-vaccination.

Yes, soubresauts, I'm saying exactly that. If you like I'll add that McKenna is an irresponsible fool, and that you are only saved from the 'irresponsible' bit by virtue of not being a public figure.

[goosebump]

I've been running the figures for various polls, and FF are almost always looking at having a substantial number of transfers in about half the constituencies. In fact, there will probably be a greater number in this election, as there will be a greater incidence of them splitting their vote innappropriately.

Take a 5-seater constituency where they might, normally have about have a good chance of a 3rd seat (let's say they generally get about the national average, or a point or two higher there). The normal tactic is to split the vote, as far as possible, 3 ways. However, on current polls, they would be in the mid-20s, and doing this would mean they'd kiss good-bye to their chances of a 2nd seat, and they'd have a up to 10% of the TVP in transfers.

Basically it comes down to the statistical distribution of their vote totals between the quota totals (17, 33, 50% in a 5 seater, 20, 40% in a 4 seater and 25%, 50% in a 3 seater). In some places they will be clsoe enough to one of these amounts, and will have few if any transfers. But in plenty there'll be a big vote going a-begging.

It is unlikely to help Gormley unless the FF vote goes further south (I see them on about 19% in DSE at the moment).

Dub Nth would see their 2nd candidate eliminated early on and electing their top candidate with a 5% TVP surplus, which would be likely to save Sargant's bacon (so to speak!).

Dub Sth, well it depends what happens with the Brennan/Kitt personal votes, but with a uniform swing the last seat would be between 2nd FF and Ryan. FWIW, on current trends I'd call it Ryan. But if FF fall further here because of the lost personal votes, the 2nd FF candidate would be likely to transfer to Ryan.

Carl-Kilk, I think White is toast as LP will take that seat, unless again a bigger drop in FF sees her ahead of their 2nd candidate, and then FF transfers could keep her ahead of the carlow LP candidate (assuming LP hold up in their increases).

Dub MW ... welll who knows given Ga-ga-rty, but it wold appear that FF, FG, LP would all get a seat (FF with a surplus of about 3%) and GP would be fighting it out with SF and IND. In those circs, the FF transfers could be part of what put him over the line.

Dun Laoghaire - yeah, I see FF on about a quota here with uniform swing, so no joy there for Cuffe.

Cork SC, similarly, 2nd FF would be competing with GP.

That's about right. Cuffe and White and the weak seats, and Boyle will find it hard to win his seat back from Lynch. De Burca may have a chance in Wicklow, however. SHe nearly clinched it last time and will have a much higher profile next time out. The competition in Wicklow isn't up to much either.

Cuffe will go, White will probably go, De Burca may gain, so its 4 at worst, 6 at best, which isn't bad given the public mood.

[toxic avenger]

You seem to be insinuating that there is scientific consensus against McKenna's views (she's a vaccination sceptic, and didn't have her children vaccinated). Is that the case, ibis? If so, you're mistaken.

There are many highly-placed medical scientists who have doubts about vaccine safety or effectiveness. See here.

Until early 2007, the Green Party was a vaccination-sceptic party. That was stated clearly in its health policy, promoted assiduously by the long-time health spokesperson, John Gormley. For what was claimed to be a scientific reason (but wasn't really), the party then decided to be pro-vaccination.

Wikipedia has this on Wakefield, the vaccination-sceptics' cult leader:

Claims of a connection between the vaccine and autism were initially raised in a 1998 paper in the respected British medical journal The Lancet.[1] After it was discovered that Andrew Wakefield, the paper's lead author, had received major funding from British trial lawyers seeking evidence,[2] ten of the paper's twelve coauthors retracted its interpretation of an association between MMR vaccine and autism.[3] It was also discovered that Wakefield had previously filed for a patent on a rival vaccine using technology that lacked scientific credibility, and that Wakefield knew but did not publish test results that contradicted his theory by showing that no measles virus was found in the children tested.[4] In 2009 The Sunday Times reported that Wakefield had manipulated patient data and misreported results in his 1998 paper, creating the appearance of a link with autism.[5] A special court convened in the United States to review claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled on 12 February 2009 that parents of autistic children are not entitled to compensation in their contention that certain vaccines caused autism in their children.[6][7]
Following the initial claims in 1998, multiple large epidemiologic studies were undertaken. Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,[8] the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences,[9] the UK National Health Service[10], and the Cochrane Library[11] all found no link between the vaccine and autism. The Cochrane Library's systematic review also concluded that the vaccine has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, and that the lack of confidence in the vaccine has damaged public health.[11]

[SIZE=2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy[/SIZE]

[soubresauts]

Yes, soubresauts, I'm saying exactly that. If you like I'll add that McKenna is an irresponsible fool, and that you are only saved from the 'irresponsible' bit by virtue of not being a public figure.

Tell us, ibis, do you want children forcibly vaccinated -- against the wishes of their parents?

[toxic avenger]

Tell us, ibis, do you want children forcibly vaccinated -- against the wishes of their parents?

I do.
...
...

[dotski_w_]

Good analysis.

Did you factor in the possibility of one-issue candidates, Sinn Feiners and all the independents who are propping up all over the place?

There's so much talk of forming new political parties, candidates who represent the working poor/commuters/etc. and candidates who are an alternative to Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee (to quote Gerry Adams).

Ta. Yes for SF. INDs however are the least reliable aspect of my formula, as there is no way of knowing how that will even influence the IND vote at a local level, i.e. there could be a swing generally to the left, which would result in IND left candidates doing well, but might see IND conservative candidates do badly (or vice versa). My formula simply takes the national 'swing' to INDs and applies locally however. I know this is a failing, but once you start 'adjusting' uniform swings to local situations, you inevitably start twaking it to suit your own hopes (which makes the whole exercise utterly pointless!). At least with this approach, local variations generally cancel out (on past experience, anyway). I do find however that there's often 1 party who do much better or worse (and of course, that's assuming the base figures are correct - there will generally be a last minute swing for/against at least 1 party)

My own view is that the IND vote is likely to peak at about 1 week into an election (if there is one called this year), but will be squeezed as ppl look to having some sort of govt that will do more or less what they want (as opposed to protesting). This will be of particular concern to the party I support (LP) as if they are above a critical mass at that point (say 22%) they will I believe be in a position to collect a big part of that move, however if they are on 15% or so, they will be among the smaller players who will lose votes to the larger parties.

In this years locals and euros, however, I'm predicting FF will do drastically worse that they are even expecting. In the locals I think they'll get about what they are getting in the polls at present, but they will be shocked at the seats loss this will produce (being innumerate). Dublin in particular will be a wasteland, and I can see them falling into 4th place behind LP, FG and SF in DCC. In the Euros, they are in my view dead in Dublin, are up against it in East, and while favourites to hold a seat each in South and NW could on a bad day fail to hold NW (i.e. probably 2 or 3 seats).

[dotski_w_]

I do.
...
...

Me too. I also believe that children should get blood transfusions against their parents wishes (if that's the medical advice).

We don't *own* these kids, we are supposed to do what best for them, and if we don't, the state *has a duty* to ensure they get the best medical care.

[DeGaulle 2.0]

That's about right. Cuffe and White and the weak seats, and Boyle will find it hard to win his seat back from Lynch. De Burca may have a chance in Wicklow, however. SHe nearly clinched it last time and will have a much higher profile next time out. The competition in Wicklow isn't up to much either.

Cuffe will go, White will probably go, De Burca may gain, so its 4 at worst, 6 at best, which isn't bad given the public mood.

What is far more important than transfers is first-preference votes. Of the 6 Green TDs, 3 (Sargent, Gormley and Ryan) are on about 2/3 of a quota and 3 (Gogarty, Cuffe and White) are on 50% of a quota or less. The first 3 are obviously far more likely to keep their seats.

The Greens will never be as transfer-friendly as they were at the last election - no matter what happens, they will be fishing for transfers in a reduced pool of votes. Also, FF may well be love-bombing Labour as their only hope of getting back into power, so transfers from FF may not be all that forthcoming.

If there was an election in the near future, the most likely result for the Greens (IMHO) would be 3 seats, but any of 1,2,3,4,5 is possible (I think Sargent will hold on anyway and I don't think White can keep her seat). It is hard to see DeBurca gaining a seat in Wicklow if there is an increased Labour vote.