Who will win the election on March 3?
At the end of the day the 'blue' clan will prevail over the 'tomato' clan with a comfortable margin. Maybe with 60-40 per cent vote-sharing exhibited, I predict.
With all utmost respect to the poll outcomes to date, and I must say I also come from the same background.
However, my study used a slightly different approach, which I believe is more compelling.
I reviewed relevant literature on elections and gathered some of the existing models to compare and contrast in order to build the most suitable model for our upcoming Bangkok election.
After carefully testing the newly constructed model, statistics show significant support for the model, which means it has revealed an interesting voting pattern for how Bangkok people will vote in the coming election (my study was carried out last year to ensure stability of the results).
A few months has passed since then but I am quite certain, after looking at how things are going during this campaign, my model is still very valid for explaining how the voting phenomenon for the gubernatorial election that is about to take place will be.
Now, come to my governor race's prediction, my model predicts that all the indecisive voters as well as the decided voters will behave according to the pattern it has found.
What is this pattern? It can be explained by using three conceptualisations.
First, the 'issue' conceptualisation, for this, people will consider three sub-themes: 1) policies focused on 'quality of life', but only in a few certain aspects, 2) policies on the prevention of delinquent behaviour and 3) characteristics of the candidates.
Further, in all the issue's sub-themes, people will specifically look for 13 sub-items, my findings purported. For example, when people examine the characteristics of candidates, 'knowledge and honesty' traits are the only two important sub-factors people prefer in general.
Now, let's look at the two big weight candidates in this race - the 'blue' and the 'tomato' candidates.
Regarding the first conceptualisation (or 'issues' for the quality of life, prevention of different types of delinquent behaviour and characteristic of the candidates), after a few weeks of campaigning performance, let's just say both candidates/parties - "the blue" vs "the tomato" - are more or less on equal par.
Now, come to the second conceptualisation, in most previous studies, it has been proved that whenever one of the candidates reruns for the same post, he/she will have a certain amount of 'loyalty' votes (which is roughly 10 per cent more from the main opponent candidate).
Why? The answer is tied with 'theory on switching cost', or the risk/benefit for taking a new alternative. Looking at a distance on the current campaign trails up to now, it is obvious that the switching 'cost' to a newcomer can still be slightly higher when compared to the benefit.
Thus, for the second conceptualisation, we can 'scientifically' assert that the loyalty vote will still stay with the blue clan. The last conceptualisation - the normal curve, most polls, if not all, are based on mathematical principles and the concept of 'normal distribution'.
However, my study is a bit different as I mentioned, it was based on a behavioural deduction and then comes the mathematics. This means, if the 'normal representation' of Bangkok population (all walks of life come out) take place on the day of the election or in the everyday language 'a big turnout', the model will come true together with loyalty in strength.
Why? Because the normal pre-presentation probability will strengthen the whole phenomenon that my study showed, which means the scale will tip into the blue's favour (it is widely believed that a big turnout can be expected this time).
In sum, as I mentioned at the beginning of this article, we can predicted with comfort that, at the end of the day, undecided voters as well as the decisive will vote the way they will (according to the model my study has found) and the blue clan will win.
Can we change this voting phenomenon that is about to happen? It is rather difficult now, as the flaw lies in the fundamental or main campaign strategy of the tomato clan (the smooth cooperation with the government).
The discovered equation clearly shows statistically that it will reduce the votes rather than increase it.
Why, one might ask? With close scrutiny, the model hints that Bangkok population will 'only' consider policies that touch on social issues, and not that much on the political or economic issues for this election.
Why, one might ask further? I think, simply because people perceived that it is not the direct concern of the governor's duty to prioritise or focus on economy and/or political issues first.
Lastly, one might ask, why don't I talk about other candidates?
Well, my model also illustrates that a few independent candidates have very valid policies definitely worthy of being elected. But however one might like to vote for them, the fact in life is winning an election is also an art, not just pure logical thinking or science (of management) alone.
These independent candidates need to know what 'gains' votes from the public, which may or may not be the same as 'how' they want to run the city.
'Running' only comes once they have been elected, which is again different from gaining votes.
Lastly, to finally test my model, I asked my wife how she would vote.
She says she will definitely vote for the candidate who has the most trustworthy trait (as much as she can tell) and then she will consider other factors.
Well, that is not a bad idea, actually, even though it is not exactly what my model says.
Dr Vorapot Ruckthum