9/16/2015

The Mathematician won – recomputation

My earlier two articles, ‘The Mathematician won’ and ‘What could the results be’, were based on the assumption that there were 300,000 new citizens. The official figure was 110,000 ie 2.46m less 2.35m eligible voters. Given the low birth rate, death and emigration, the net growth from the local population is near to zero, thus the 110,000 increase is likely to come from new citizens. My earlier assumption of 300,000 was thus wrong and the figure to use is 110,000 or about 1/3. The variable positions or findings thus would have to be adjusted accordingly. I also assumed that overseas Singaporeans were not allowed to vote thus raising the query whether the 2.46m eligible voters included or excluded them. I have found out that overseas Singaporeans did vote and thus were included in the 2.46m eligible voters. According to the media only 3,415 voted out of 4,868 eligible overseas Singaporeans. The number of overseas Singaporeans is 212,000.

Let me put the figures together again to clear up the confusion. When the assumptions were wrong, the result, though logical will be wrong. The conclusion would thus be different proportionally. Similarly, conclusions were based on the given data and how reliable the data would affect the end results.

Official facts

2.46m eligible voters and 93.56% cast their votes. Total voted was 2.304m.

PAP received 69.9% of the votes cast or 1.610m (Reported was 1.576m)

Opposition would receive 30.1% or 691,000 votes.

The 110,000 additional voters/new citizens were an equivalent of 4.5% of 2.46m

Applying this 4.5% change into the 60:40 equation, if 4.5% went to the 60 side, the impact would be 64.5/104.5 to 40/104.5 or 62% to 38%, ie a 2% shift on each side or a net 4% shift. If the 4.5% was added on the 40% side the new position would be 57.5% to 42.5%.

As my two articles were based on a single factor analysis, to get a 10% swing, the other factors must come into play. The 110,000 new citizen factor contributed to a 4% swing and the other factors, PGP, subsidies, stipends, Medishield Life etc would add the balance 6% to make the 10% swing in my previous articles.

A blogger raised the issue of an unaccounted 240,000 votes using the loss of 120,000 votes by the opposition and the gain of 360,000 votes by the PAP from 2011 to 2015.  This can be explained by the 2.304m votes cast. If the share of votes were to be 60:40, PAP should get 1.382m and oppo would get 922k votes. The actual votes of PAP were 1.576 and oppo 680k. The difference was what oppo should get ie 922k less 680k or 242K.  Oppo thus lost 100k plus the percentage increase in eligible votes. That would make up the missing 240k for the 360,000 gained by PAP. The numbers are not exact due to some mulitiplication margins.

In summary, only 4% shift was due to new citizens based on the statistics available and 6% due to other factors. The PAP’s winning percentage should go down by 4% while the oppo’s percentage should go up by 4% point when the new citizen factor was in play.  I hope this would help to make the picture clearer.

PS. We are taking the official data on population at face value in this discussion, as the truth. There is also a cumulative effect of new citizens that will continue to think like new citizens for some years to come. There will be exceptions when new citizens will think like the true blue Singaporeans and could emphatise with us and knowing that we share the same fate and destiny.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

At this point, it might be looking impossible for opposition parties. How to win when, at the start of every election, they are dealing with a -3% to -4% handicap? As the population size increases and PAP gives out proportionally less citizenships, maybe the handicap is -2%, but still a negative nonetheless.

One way, as mentioned before, and listed by RedBean here, is to not fix the mindset that new citizen votes are totally lost. It may be possible to target at least 20-30% of new citizens, especially those who have stayed for 10 years or longer. Get them to see the problems in the same light as the locals. Stop seeing them as an enemy who will never vote for you.

It may help if more candidates like Chen Show Mao step forward. If there is one thing about some new citizens, it may be that they relate better to their own kind. And if this own kind joins the opposition, they may be more convinced. We spoke about the malaysians especially and I see it as possible that one day a malaysian new citizen will join the opposition. Not Han Hui Hui of course, but her example is good enough to show that it is possible.

Vision 20/20 said...

PAP was already importing loads of new citizens since yesteryear.....don't be fooled.

I know of lots of Malaysian who don't o levels also became citizens and I puzzled for quite some time.
Now I know why......PAP need numbers on their side.

All these new citizens...on number sof 400,000
From beginning to now. ..don't buy opposition song.

Opposition team does not have statistics of 400,000!
New citizens is this much....wake up

Vision 20/20 said...

PAP was already importing loads of new citizens since yesteryear.....don't be fooled.

I know of lots of Malaysian who don't o levels also became citizens and I puzzled for quite some time.
Now I know why......PAP need numbers on their side.

All these new citizens...on number sof 400,000
From beginning to now. ..don't buy opposition song.

Opposition team does not have statistics of 400,000!
New citizens is this much....wake up

Anonymous said...

So what is wrong with importing new citizen to Singapore? If these new citizen can contribute to the economy of Singapore, what is bad in that? As long as these new citizen can grow the GDP and the betterment of Singapore as a whole, I think we should welcome them with open arms. Singaporeans who are oppose to this policy are just insecure. Remember many foreigners come here to provide jobs for the locals. OK?

Anonymous said...

New citizens have been coming since the 1990s. Nobody is fooled by that.

But my question to you is if someone has been a new citizen for 20 years, has children who performed NS, obeys all Singapore laws, pays all Singapore taxes, contributes to CPF, pays GST, then why should they be thought of differently? What can't opposition parties also believe that they can sway over these people? Their gratefulness to the PAP might last for 5-10 years, but are they are not facing the same problem as us?

My opinion is that opposition parties should not give up on swaying a certain bulk of new citizens. But it depends on the issues they raise. If opposition parties want to talk about civil rights, want to protest and all that, I guarantee most new citizens are not interested in all this. After all, maybe in their own country already have this, and they value the fact that Singapore does not. But if opposition parties continue to campaign as some of them have, about making the transport better, taxes better, I think in time to come, even some new citizens, especially those who lived here 10 years or more, will also start to believe them.

Anonymous said...

There is in fact another factor as to why PAP average vote is so high this time.

If we look at GRCs where an average PAP team is contesting against a very good opposition, the vote share for that opposition can be 35-40% even though there is a swing against them. In better areas it is even close to 50%, eg. Aljunied, Fengshan and Punggol East. Even for Marine Parade, a relatively good WP team can get 34% against Tan Chuan Jin and Goh Chok Tong.

But the problem is also that opposition has sent their worst available people to contest against the key PAP top guns. This resulted in outstanding wins for PAP leaders like LHL, Tharman, Teo Chee Hean, Chan Chun Sing and so on. All with wins of 78-79%. In the case of LHL, very few swing voters really want him out of parliament, but almost all want to make sure that Roy and M Ravi can never get in. There is no choice presented to them, as compared to say, in Holland Bukit Timah, where some swing voters really consider choosing Chee over Vivian.

This actually helped PAP to boost their share of the vote beyond a scale that is truly reflective of how people might want an alternative voice.

Anonymous said...

I think the reason for the stinking defeat of oppositions is much simpler.

Case 1: Met a relative a day after polling day. This relative has been descending down the career ladder: from insurance agent to taxi driver to selling tickets in cinema. Life sucks for him. He voted pap. "My opposition SDP cannot make it" is his reason. He voted in amk grc and didn't even know who his opposition team is.

Case 2: Came across an old woman buying meat at wet market. She voted for pap. "My opposition is no good" is what she said. She doesn't even know that there is only 1 professional contesting in the election and he's with the opposition. She also didn't know who her oppositions are.

While the army of new citizens is a reason for the landslide victory for pap, the single bigger reason is the immaturity of the electorate. Not because our oppo is not credible enough. Didn't walk the ground enough. Didn't contest in the right grc/smc (that might chance the margin by 1-2%, but not chance the final result).

Anonymous said...

Redbean,
Thanks for your humility and honesty to correct. Hope our political masters start having such an attitude.

"The rich man though he has a full stomach, he does not sleep well; he hoarded wealth to his grief. While the labourer who worked hard, sleep soundly every night."

Anonymous said...

The results of this GE is very different from all the past GEs. Oppositions, no matter how good, except for Hougang and Aljunied, could barely get 35% of the votes with many hitting below 30%.

There was definitely a big swing to the PAP. Is this good or bad for the well being of Singaporeans. The PAP claimed that this is good, the future of Singapore is secure. Their million dollar salaries also secured. Thank you very much.

ℳatilah_$ingapura said...

prematurely patting himself on the back @ redbean:

>> As my two articles were based on a single factor analysis <<

Bullshit lah. All your articles relating to "oooh oooh the new citizens pushed the PAP to victory" are FLAWED because you make the FALSE PREMISE that the new citizens overwhelmingly voted for the PAP.

Of course, it is understandable that you'd make assumptions to favour your originally held beliefs. Die die you wanna be RIGHT.

This is called MOTIVATED REASONING, and is all too common cognitive bias none of us are immune to.

The PAP ran a better game lah. When people were SURE GCT would lose Marine Pde, I was the one who alerted people to their cognitive bias which could make them predict things erroneously. Same with LHL at AMK---I said, LHL is very very popular guy, especially in AMK.

People get "pumped up" during election time and before sex. Which is why they shouldn't be making key decisions at those times. ;-) Because their "assessment of reality" is way, way off.

I'm waiting for someone to prove their "new citizen election number theory" to 2 or 3 sigma, and then officially COMPLAIN to the Elections Department to rule the Singapore 2015 null and void. i.e. balek balek, do another election.

Can or not? If cannot, fuck you and your entire bloodline lah.

The said...

New citizens should not be just restricted to those from the last 4/5 years. Even those who became citizens 10 or 15 years ago would still be beholden to the gov and vote accordingly.

Anonymous said...

1. Net increase in local born voters is not zero. if you get the number of births and deaths and emigration accurate it should tie to DOS numbers per 2 below after subtracting this number from the 110000 (assuming that is correct increase in the number of eligible voters.)
2. Check the statistics department - new citizens is 82k for those four years (it has breakdown by years)
3. new citizens not of voting age is between 35% to 41%
4. there are approx 9000 foreign spouses who married to locals - they are likely to vote per their spouses.
5. the net increase is new citizens eligible to vote divided by the total vote cast cannot be used as the swing percentage. illustrate: new voters 10, original number was 100. say 60 originally voted for pap: original popular vote is 60%, new popular vote is (60+10) / 110 = 63.6%. hence swing due to new citizen is only 3.6% not 10%
6. based on the above my computation new citizens account at most 0.5% of the swing

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hahah. Ok use your reasoning, I am not going to try to figure out the validity of 1 to 4.

Start with 5. If you add 10 to the whole, the base should be as you rightly used, 110. The percentage for the 40% would now be 40/110 giving you 36.4%. The net shift would be 3.6 + 3.6 = 7.2%.

Item 6 should be 7.2%. Please tell how did you get to 0.5%?

Anonymous said...

Dear Redbean, how about just analysing one GRC where boundaries have not changed?

WP got 69,929 votes, this is 1.7% down from GE2011 - maybe we can attribute this to natural death or other instances leaving the GRC?

PAP got 67,317 votes. If you apply the same 1.7% attrition from GE2011, that works out to having 8,600 new citizens added to their votes. That's a population increase of 6.6% for this GRC. This sort of fits the official data.

If you do the same analysis for Punggol East SMC, you will conclude that the WP candidate did almost as well, the difference being attributable to the 2013 result being a By-election instead of a GE.

I hear alarm bells when the mainstream media keeps drumming that the popular votes have shifted, if they talk loud enough, they get everybody to believe them. However, I think there is a strong case to conclude that those who voted for them in 2011 have continued to vote for them in 2015.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Anon 11:39, yes the data did tell a story. But what is real? How many people believe the accuracy of the data? Statistics lie, data also lie, people presenting the data can also lie. In the real world, many data are presented to fit the story the producer of data wants to tell.