Presidential Election 2015 Projection of Probable Results

8/10/2019 Presidential Election 2015 Projection of Probable Results

1/14

Presidential Election 2015: Projectionof Probable Results

by Dr. Siri Gamage on 01!05!2015

"urt#er to t#e initial forecast $ made in

my %re&ious article 'Ground&ie(s) 1st *anuary 2015+) in t#is article $ ma,e

se&eral %rojections about t#e %ossible result in t#e fort#coming %residential

election based on %re&ious election results. $ %rimarily use %ercentages

from t#e 2010 Presidential election result) 2005 Presidential election result

and t#e 201- &a Pro&incial /ouncil result) in %articular t#e result of t#e

adulla district) for t#is %ur%ose.

s can be seen from t#e able 1) 3R recei&ed more t#an 50 %ercent of

&otes in all %ro&inces e4ce%t in t#e ort#ern %ro&ince in 2010 elections. $n

t#e 2005 Presidential elections) #e recei&ed more t#an 50 %ercent in 11

districts 'see /olumn $) able 2+.

Gi&en t#e fact t#at 2010 Presidential election mar,s t#e %innacle of #is

%o%ularity and all ot#er factors t#at #as emerged since negati&ely
http://groundviews.org/2015/01/05/presidential-election-2015-projection-of-probable-results/http://groundviews.org/2015/01/05/presidential-election-2015-projection-of-probable-results/http://groundviews.org/author/dr-siri-gamage/http://groundviews.org/2015/01/02/2015-presidential-election-in-sri-lanka-an-initial-forecast/http://groundviews.org/images/groundviewslogo.pnghttp://groundviews.org/author/dr-siri-gamage/http://groundviews.org/2015/01/02/2015-presidential-election-in-sri-lanka-an-initial-forecast/http://groundviews.org/2015/01/02/2015-presidential-election-in-sri-lanka-an-initial-forecast/http://groundviews.org/2015/01/05/presidential-election-2015-projection-of-probable-results/http://groundviews.org/2015/01/05/presidential-election-2015-projection-of-probable-results/


2/14

im%acting on #is ability to command a similar result in t#e current election

including t#e fact t#at #e c#anged t#e constitution to see, a t#ird term) it is

not logical to assume t#at #e (ill increase #is &ote %ercentage in t#e 2015

election from (#at #e recei&ed in 2010. $nstead) (#at (e can e4%ect is a

decline in t#e %ercentage of &otes country(ide for 3R. $n some %ro&inces

and districts (it#in t#em #e may still %erform (ell abo&e 506 mar, and in

ot#ers #e (ill %erform (ell belo( 506.

#e ,ey 7uestion t#en is #o( muc# decline in #is &ote %ercentages is

re7uired for #im to fall belo( 5068 $f (e use 2010 9gures) se&eral

%rojections can be made. e could calculate t#e c#ange!decline in &otes in

%ercentage terms (#en (e a%%ly s%eci9c numbers suc# as ;6) Percentage ?otes Recei&ed by 3a#inda Raja%a,se in t#e 2010

Presidential Election toget#er (it# Se&eral Di@erent Scenarios


3/14

ote: ABcial 9gure for 3R in t#e 2010 election (as 5C. and for Sarat#

"onse,a -0.156. $n t#e abo&e calculations) $ used Pro&incial 9gures from

t#e Elections De%artment eb site. #en added u%) t#e total is marginally

belo( t#e oBcial total.

oo,ing at t#ese %ercentages of results obtained from t#e De%artment of

Elections (eb site and t#e %rojections) e&en if 3R obtains 126 less &otes in

t#e fort#coming election) #e (ould still get 50.;-6 of t#e total &otes. $f #e

gets =6 less &ote %ercentages t#is time) #e could still %erform at 51.=


4/14

belo( 506 only in t#e Eastern and ort#ern %ro&inces. E&en a 156

decline in t#e &otes for 3R (ill ma,e #im &ulnerable only in t#ree

%ro&inces) i.e. /entral) Eastern) and ort#ern. #us) if (e use 2010 election

results as t#e basis of %rojections) it is #ig#ly biased to(ard t#e incumbent

as it re%resents a #ig# (ater mar, in t#e electoral cycle (it# uni7ue

c#aracteristics t#at broug#t #im success. #erefore) (e need to em%loy a

di@erent met#od for %rojecting t#e result of current election.

An t#e surface) abo&e scenarios are 7uite c#allenging for t#e common

candidate of t#e o%%osition %arties. Fo(e&er) %olitical dynamics #a&e

c#anged since t#e 2010 Presidential elections and certainly after t#e

declaration of t#e ne( election in 2015. strong o%%osition coalition #as

rallied around clear goals including t#ose t#at relate to constitutional)

electoral) and go&ernance c#anges (it#in t#e 9rst 100 days. 3edia re%orts

indicate t#at t#ere is a real contest t#is time unless t#e &oting is not

disturbed by &iolence and ot#er e&ents during t#e remaining fe( critical

days.

Projection $$

Some argue t#at 2005 Presidential election result is a better base one can

use to %redict t#e results of t#e fort#coming election rat#er t#an t#e 2010

result due to t#e reasons e4%lained earlier. "or t#is reason) t#e %ercentage

&otes obtained by 3R in t#e 2005 Presidential election toget#er (it#

se&eral scenarios of decline or gain in &otes are %resented in able 2.

$nstead of Pro&incial 9gures) $ am using District 9gures for 22 districts > as

t#e former is not a&ailable in t#e Elections De%artment (ebsite.

able 2 > Percentages of ?otes Abtained by 3a#inda Raja%a,se in t#e 2005Presidential Elections toget#er (it# Se&eral Scenarios


5/14
http://groundviews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Screen-Shot-2015-01-05-at-1.32.35-PM.jpg


6/14

ote: 3R (on t#e 2005 Presidential election (it# a total &ote of 50.2=6.

Fo(e&er) in t#e abo&e table (#en district &ote %ercentages are tallied (e

get a 9gure some(#at less t#an t#is) ie. -


7/14

/olumn $?: ctual &otes in t#e districts of *a@na) ?anni) atticaloa and

Eliya may be #ig#er in t#e 2015 election) t#oug# $ am using %rojected

%ercent increase #ere uniformly across all districts.

#e 7uestion to as, #ere is (#et#er 3R (ill get less t#an (#at #e %olled in

t#e 2005 Presidential election8 ormally) (#en a candidate (ants to

contest a national election for a t#ird term) it is logical to assume a decline

in &otes >unless t#ere are factors contributing to t#e %o%ularity of t#e

candidate since t#e %re&ious election. $n t#e case of 3R t#is is a

contestable 7uestion. #ere are factors contributing to #is %o%ularity. An

t#e ot#er #and) t#ere are factors contributing to #is un%o%ularity also. An

balance) t#e latter (eig#s #ea&ily on #im t#is time.

$f #e %olls ;56 less t#an (#at #e %olled in t#e 2005 Presidential election

t#is time) #e (ill fall (ell belo( 506 mar, t#at is re7uired 'see /olumn $?)

able 2+. An t#e ot#er #and) if #e %olls ;


8/14

facilities and communication facilities. #us t#e more realistic scenario is to

assume t#at t#is time #is &ote %ercentage (ill increase from t#e 2005

le&els.

/olumns $$$ and $? in able 2 %ro&ide %ercentages assuming t#at #is &otes

increase by ; or < %ercentage %oints from t#e 2005 le&els. /olumn $? s#o(s

t#at (it# a

t#oug# t#e P itself could not ac#ie&e t#is outcome on its o(n. #e

number of &otes obtained in adulla district at t#e &a P/ election 201- by

t#e P '--.C=+) Peo%les iberation "ront '-.


9/14

'0.C;+ com%rise a total of 50.< %ercent of &alid &otes '$n t#e 2005 election)

t#e P recei&ed 5;.116 in t#e adulla district+.

$f t#e common o%%osition candidate Sirisena is to (in t#e 2015 Presidential

election) at t#e minimum #e #as to obtain a &oter %ercentage of 506)

%referably more.

#us it ma,es sense to use t#is combined o%%osition %arty result in t#e

adulla district in 201- P/ election as a benc#mar, to estimate t#e c#ances

of t#e common o%%osition gaining a majority of o&er 506 in t#e current

election. "or t#is %ur%ose) (e can still use t#e 2005 Presidential election

results '%ercentages+ as a base,no(ing its limitations. #is #as its o(n

limitations as t#e &oting %atterns country(ide may #a&e substantially

c#anged since 2005. Fo(e&er) gi&en t#e fact t#at 2010 Presidential

election (as a #ig# &oter mar, for 3R as e4%lained earlier and t#us biased

in #is fa&our) it is better to use 2005 election results as it reIects a more

conser&ati&e conte4t (#ere an emerging leader li,e Sirisena (as contesting

t#e election against many odds.

Scenario $

$n t#is scenario) (e can utilise t#e %ercentage di@erence or ga% bet(een

(#at t#e combined o%%osition obtained in adulla at t#e P/ elections >

201-'50.1=6+ and (#at 3R obtained in adulla district at t#e 2005

Presidential election '-5.1=6+ as a basis for t#e t#ird %rojection.

#e 50.1= 9gure ac#ie&ed by t#e combined o%%osition in t#e 201- P/

elections in adulla re%resents an additional 56 com%ared to t#e &ote

%ercentage t#at 3R obtained in t#e adulla district in 2005 Presidential

election. #e closest column to t#is 9gure in table 2 abo&e is column $? (it#a


10/14

Scenario $$

"rom t#e %ers%ecti&e of t#e P) (#ic# is t#e main o%%osition %arty) t#e

2005 Presidential election reIected a bestcase scenario as its national &ote

%ercentage '-.-;6+ (as &ery close to 3Rs '50.2=6+ reIecting a ga% of

only 1.


11/14

"ad& .30 6.515 !.73

'atale 50.25 52.762 55.275

Nl*&a 70.37 73.!!! 77.07

Galle 0.26 2.273 .2!6

'ata$a 36.71 3!.55 0.3!1

+tota 35.23 36.,,1 3!.753

-aa 70.20 73.71 77.22

Va* 77.!, !1.7! !5.67,

/att*aloa 7,.51 !3.!5 !7.61

*amad#

lla 55.,1 5!.705 61.501

$*omalee

61.33 6.3,6 67.63

"#$#eal

a6.72 ,.056 51.3,2

Poloa$#

4a50.71 53.25 55.7!1

/ad#lla 53.11 55.765 5!.21

'oa$aal

a1.65 3.732 5.!15

atap#$a 5.55 7.!27 50.105

"ealle 7.67 50.053 52.37

P#ttalam 50.7 53.277 55.!1

A#$adhap#$a

3.62 5.!01 7.,!2

otal -.-;6 5-.-26 5C.016

ote: o ot#er minor %arty obtained &otes in any district abo&e one

%ercentage %oint in t#e 2005 Presidential election. #e result in Eliya in

2015 can be less t#an (#at is %rojected #ere due to t#e /eylon or,ers

/ongress su%%orting 3R.


12/14

nder scenario $ 'i.e. 56 increase+) t#e 12 districts (#ere t#e P 'by

im%lication common candidate Sirisena+ (ill %oll abo&e 506 are /olombo)

3atale) u(ara Eliya) *a@na) ?anni) atticaloa) Digamadulla) rincomalee)

Polonnaru(a) adulla) Hegalle and Puttalam. $n reality) (e can add a fe(

more districts to t#is list gi&en t#e %olitical dynamics in t#e 2015 election

com%ared to 2005 election) e.g. nurad#a%ura.

nder Scenario $$ '106 increase+) t#e P 'or t#e common o%%osition

currently+ (ill %oll 506 or more in 1- districts) i.e. /olombo) 3atale) u(ara

Eliya) *a@na) ?anni) atticaloa) Digamadulla) rincomalee) Hurunegala)

Polonnaru(a) adulla) Ratna%ura) Hegalle and Puttalam. e can add

nurad#a%ura also to t#is list.

An t#e basis of t#is calculation) it is reasonable to assume t#at if t#e

common candidate is to (in t#e Presidential election in 2015) #e needs to

obtain at least 56 more t#an t#e &ote %ercentages t#at t#e P recei&ed

district(ise in t#e 2015 Presidential election. #e P candidate recei&ed

only --.C=6 of &otes in t#e adulla district in t#e 201- Pro&incial /ouncil

election. #e combined o%%osition recei&ed more t#an 506 in t#e adulla

district in t#e 201- P/ /ouncil election as s#o(n already.

#is (ould mean t#at 3R #as to %oll a%%ro4imately 5


13/14

2005 Presidential election.

#e 2010 election results (ere considered as too biased to(ard t#e

incumbent to dra( reasonable %rojections as t#ey re%resent t#e %innacle of

3Rs %o%ularity as t#e election (as #eld in t#e aftermat# of t#e (ar &ictory

in 200=. Results of t#e 2005 election (ere considered t#oug# it (as seen

as a far distant conte4t to use as a basis on its o(n for credible %rojections.

onet#eless) t#e outcome of &arious scenarios (as discussed. $t (as

#o(e&er deemed necessary to re9ne t#e %rojection met#od by using a

di@erent formula t#at combines an outcome from t#e &a Pro&incial /ouncil

election 201-.

#e use of adulla combined o%%osition %arty result 'P) P") DP+ in t#e

201- P/ election as a basis (as considered as t#e most realistic conte4t to

use for a logical %rojection. #is result (as contrasted (it# a %rojected

result (it# a 56 increase in t#e &ote for t#e common o%%osition from a

base &ote %ercentage recei&ed by t#e P in 2005'/olumn $$) table ;+.

106 increase in t#e &ote %ercentage recei&ed by t#e P in 2005

Presidential election (as %rojected as a second scenario '/olumn $$$) able

;+. Results indicate a signi9cant rise in t#e %otential outcome for t#e

combined o%%osition in t#e 2015 election as many districts reIect a

fa&ourable result beyond 506 for t#e common o%%osition!candidate.

Fo(e&er) t#ese are calculations based on certain %ercentage di@erentials

only. onet#eless) t#ey %ro&ide clues to (#at is %ossible and %lausible in

t#e fort#coming election.

Ground realities #a&e c#anged in &arious districts (it# t#e recent

defections) t#e (ay t#e go&ernments de&elo%ment initiati&es #a&e a@ectedor not a@ected) %erce%tions of t#e t(o leaders and coalitions formed by t#e

&oters on t#e basis of &arious media re%resentations and messages being

deli&ered t#roug# %ublic meetings) %arty and leader symbols etc. $f t#e

electorate is confused) it can deli&er a signi9cantly di@erent result to 2005)

2010 Presidential elections. y t#e same to,en) if t#e e4%erience of t#e


14/14

&oter in t#e cities and &illages matc# (it# (#at one coalition is saying

against (#at t#e ot#er is saying) t#is can deli&er a clear result one (ay or

anot#er.

$t is t#is aut#ors considered &ie( t#at t#e common candidate 3ait#ri%ala

Sirisena (ill be able to garner a 5106 increase in t#e &ote %ercentages in a

majority of districts >com%ared to (#at t#e P recei&ed in t#e 2005

Presidential election t#at (ill deli&er a &ictory for #im and #is coalition in

t#e 2015 Presidential election.

Dr. Siri Gamage) ni&ersity of e( England) ustralia

Posted by Thavam
http://www.blogger.com/profile/01338571660162781025http://www.blogger.com/profile/01338571660162781025

Documents

Presidential Election 2015 Projection of Probable Results