Join the new world

**************************************** *********************
CORRECTION
**************************************** *********************
It was pointed out to me that some data was incorrect regarding last month's election results for the Libertarian Party. I have checked this and the site I used did indeed show incorrect figure for this in that LP got 3 seats in last election and not 6. I have therefore adjusted some of my analysis below accordingly. Apologies to Independent Party for this error. Shows that as journalist never to rely on other sources other than the raw data itself.
**************************************** *********************

Now the polls have closed and Admin are scrutinizing the results I decided to analyse the results and I have come up with some interesting stats and facts. This analysis is more in the spirit of a fun way to look at the stats rather than an objective look at raw data as most of these conclusions can be negated in several ways (some figures are skewed against bigger parties for example).

I hope that you, the reader, will view them as relatively light-hearted as I have. Also below this article are all the stats together for each category.

Here goes:

The overall turnout in eUNL was 26.9% which is a sharp drop from the 34.2% of last month (21.3% drop).

I&W won the elections again (35.9% of vote) but with a far smaller margin than last time. LSD came in 2nd % after an improved performance gave them 30.8% of the vote. GLD and IP followed with 15.4% and 12.8% respectively. The Workers Party came last in their first electoral showing with 5.1% of the vote.

But even though I&W won the election, compared to last election they were also the bigger losers, losing 5 seats (26.3% of their share). IP capitalised most on this loss by gaining 3 more seats than at last election, a staggering increase of 66.7% (from 3 to 5 seats)!

If we look at how good parties were in making their own members turn out to vote we can conclude that I&W have the most dedicated supporters, as 71% of their members voted. Perhaps surprisingly, WP was worst with only a turnout of 46.4%.

However if we then turn our attention to how efficient the political machines of the parties were, the picture is very different. Let’s first look at how many votes a candidate a candidate needed on average to get elected.

The IP were by far the most efficient, needing only 5 votes on average to get a candidate elected. I&W came last here needing 7.9 votes per seat, a staggering increase if you consider that they needed 63% more votes per seat compared to IP.

I then created a calculation to show voting efficiency per party or how good their political machine is. The calculation I used here is party turnout divided by votes per seat and then times ten to make it a nicer number.

The reason I used these figures is that party turn-out shows how good a party is in getting their members to vote and vote per seat shows how organised a party is in getting the votes to where they are needed. I have however also included

And indeed we can easily see that IP got the most out of this election with a voting efficiency of 135.1%. WP is worst with only 71.4% but this is because of their poor turn-out of their members.

I then decided to look at the Election Efficiency, which I define as how many candidates that ran for Congress were elected. I had to include however also unofficial candidates so it might be lower than you expect depending on how many unofficial candidates your party had.

Here GLD have a perfect score of 100% getting all their candidates into office. WP was again worst getting only 40% of their candidates elected.

In the end I thought I’d analyse the average experience per candidate per party to show which party is on paper the most experienced in Congress. This is of course very subjective assuming in-game EP equates to political experience but fun nonetheless.

And this throws up a surprise as well in that GLD are the most experienced with an average of 2040 EP per candidate. Least experienced is the WP with 940.

(right-click > view image to view full-size)


Raw data for who's interested (apologies for gdocs not displaying it not as flashy as Excel2007)
http://tinyurl.com/3yeoapr