Irresponsible (But Fun) Econometric Predictions

Based on the voting model that I created here, I am now going to report what that model would predict for the outcome of this election. As the title of this post already tells you, this model will likely have** low****predictive value** for this year’s election and should in no way be read as anything other than an amusing blog post. SUN is not SBS (for the purpose of this exercise, I am treating it as such, however), SOCC is particularly energized this year, there is a new coalition (S.Ex.), and the candidates themselves have almost no carryover (I believe that there is one returning incumbent, as well as two other returning candidates, but there could be one or two more) from last year. Oh and did I mention that I’m using a model based on one year of data? All of this combines to tell us that my aforementioned model will not have anywhere near the value that it had for last year. That said, I have run the predictions, so here they are:

Predicted “Future Senators:”

Ed Négiar
Juany Torres
Carolyn Simmons
Percia Safar
Stewart Macgregor-Dennis
Rebecca Sachs
Daniel Khalessi
Showly Wang
Madeline Hawes
Dan Thompson
Nikola Milanovic
Kamil Saeid
Rahul Sastry
Will Seaton
Bennett Siegel
If this actually occurred, then SUN would take 11/15 seats in the Senate, with SOCC taking the other four. Such an outcome would absolutely blow my mind and is not one that I would actually expect. For one thing, I expect that SOCC will have a higher vote bonus than SUN due to heightened efforts this year. Second, the Crichton-organized Students with Experience (the aforementioned S.Ex. group) will likely also benefit from group work, which is not reflected here. I wouldn’t be surprised if this list does show many of the Senators, but an accuracy of 10/15 would be about as much as I’d hope (as a note, if I switch the vote bonuses for SUN and SOCC (thus giving SOCC the advantage) the results don’t change much, but Siegel drops out and Pat Bruny sneaks in).

I’ll leave you all with that. As I said, this last bit was an exercise in having some fun, so don’t read into it too much.

Subscribe to the Stanford Review