On Predicting the Winner of Strictly Come Dancing

Now that the US elections are over and we also know that nobody cares enough about crime to vote for the person in charge of the police my thoughts turn to election of the Britain’s best celebrity dancer. Who will Strictly Come Dancing? I don’t know, but I think I can take a shrewd guess as who is going to be in the final.

Contenders are

Denise Van Outen

Danni Harmer

Michael Vaughan

Lisa Riley

Louis Smith

Nicky Byrne

Victoria Pendleton

Kimberley Walsh

I’m basing this guess on a combination of judges scoring and what little can be gleaned about the public voting.

Victoria Pendleton is by far the weakest dancer left in the competition. She’s had the lowest score twice. Last week she was 7.5 points below the average including Richard. She has the lowest score this series for three dances.

Yet she’s never been in the bottom two. So she clearly has some support in the voting public.

Michael, Nicky and Kimberley have all been in the bottom two.

I think Denise will go through to the final.  She typically tops the scoreboard and it is very difficult for someone who tops the scoreboard to end up in the bottom two.  You basically need the public vote to exactly reverse the judges score. There can be a little bit of variation on this but that is the pattern you need to see for the top scoring couple to end up in the bottom two. That scenario puts the top two dancing couples into the dance off.

Remember that in the event of tie on points the couple with the highest public vote goes through.

If Denise does end up in the dance off I think it likely she would end up facing stiff competition.  She’s been top of the leader board 5 weeks out of 7. I’d back her on the night and on her record to carry her through.

So, so long as Denise can stay in the top two each week I think she’s okay.

Baring accidents of course.

I don’t think Nicky is a strong enough dancer to avoid placing low enough in the table to be safe. His best score of 30 isn’t enough to compete with the remaining contenders.  He should place above Pendleton and he might place above Michael if Michal has a bad day dancing Latin but I don’t think he has the votes to survive more than two more weeks and unless he ends up against Pendleton in a dance off I think he’s a goner.

Kimberley I think  has problems with the public vote.  Finishing joint second in week 6 she ended up in dance off.  She must have polled badly.  (One caveat, we don’t know how close the voting is. Kimberley may have finished low down in the voting in a very tight race, only missing out by not getting a few hundred votes from people who thought she was safe in second place.) However, she is a strong enough dancer that I think she can see off the more vulnerable dancing efforts of Pendleton, Nicky, and Latin Michael.

But in a few week’s time she might struggle to see off a Lisa or a Danni or a Denise.

I think also potentially vulnerable on a dancing front is Louis.  On paper he has a good record. Best score of 35, average score of 30.5 (cf Denise average of 32.4, best of 39, average overall of those left is 28.3).  However, his scores aren’t trending upwards.  His cumulative average score is pretty flat from week 4. 

Louis & Flavia 27.00 28.50 29.00 30.50 30.20 30.67 30.57

The average improvement in scores for those left in is 0.8.  Average improvement since week 4 is 0.68. Louise average improvement since week 4 is 0.02.

Everyone else left in the competition is improving and Louis doesn’t appear to be.  Now, he might be having a little rest whilst we waits for the competition to reach his standard or he might have peaked.  Difficult to tell. If he doesn’t start improving again at the same rate as everyone else then his currently good scores start to look a little mediocre in about 2 week’s time.

So who do I think is going to make it to the final.  That’s difficult and I reserve the right to be totally wrong about this.  This is my best guest based on the data and the analysis that I’ve seen.  If (when) I turn out to be totes mistaken then, hey ho. The purpose of this post isn’t to dazzle the world with my Nate Silver like powers of using a calculator and understanding the rules. It’s part of a discussion. About a popular dancing programme.

I think we have a couple of weeks of Nicky, Pendleton and Kimberley fighting it out in the bottom two.  Pendleton on quality, Kimberley on popularity and Nicky on combination of not being quite good enough to overcome his apparent lack of public support.  Out of this I think Kimberley wins because she by is far the better dancer of the three.  I think this will probably earn her sufficient goodwill to avoid finishing bottom in the public vote. Either that of she’ll be so irritated she’ll lift her game.

After that we’ll know if Louis has woken up or if he’d peaked in week 4.  Judging by some of the It Takes Two footage of Louis and Flavia they don’t appear to be working very well together, so my money is on him not improving enough to avoid ending up in the dance off.

At some point Michael’s lack of Latin ability is going to catch up with him.  The competition shifts to doing two dances a week at some point and his lack of innate Latin rhythm is going to be on show more often.  On the other hand, he will be seen to be trying really hard and sportspeople, particularly cricketers seem to have the right combination of skills and drive to improve. Who knew that being physically adept and having the determination to be world class sportsperson would make you good at a physical activity you need to practise a lot? (This makes Pendleton and Louis all the more unusual in my view.)

Lisa seems just a little off the pace of Denise and Danni and Kimberley. She’s improving again now but I don’t see her quite matching those three technically.

So I think we have a second shake out between Louis, Michael and probably Lisa.  I could be wrong about Lisa. She might prove popular enough to avoid the dance off. Her charisma does come through very strongly when she dances. She is a popular soap actress and also there is the Susan Boyle effect working in her favour. I’m not sure how this particular shake out does shake out.  On a good day any of these three could beat either of the other two on a bad day.  I think I will probably go for Lisa to make it through.

So that gives us a semi-final of Lisa, Kimberley, Danni and Denise.

And a final of Danni and Denise and A N Other.

My money is still on Denise to win the coveted glitter ball trophy.

On The Effect of Electoral Processes in the General Synod

I don’t know what to make of the decision of the Church of England not to allow women to become bishops.  Technically, but importantly, actually a decision not to change their current policy.

On the one hand it makes heehaw difference to me.  I’m not a member of the Church of England. To be blunt, and wearing my militant atheisticalism a little more on my sleeve than I like to think I usually do, the Church of England is wrong about several bigger things than women bishops.

Except, that as an atheist, actually that’s not true.  I don’t think there is a god and I think the process most people use to arrive at the conclusion gods exist is flawed.  I do think women are equal to men, that humans are equal to other humans, and I think the process I’ve used to arrive at that position is sound.  So, being mistaken about something I think doesn’t exist seems to me to be less important than being wrong about something as important and obvious as equal rights.

But then it’s not my church.

Except it is. Sort of. Being the Established Church. Well it’s the Established Church of England but not of Scotland where I live.

But Church of England Bishops get to sit in the House of Lords and make laws that affect me. Well, they do when the policy area isn’t a devolved matter.

Anyhow, electoral reform. I blame First Past the Post. Except it’s not really relevant here. Well, it kind of is.

The constitution of the Church of England seems to have what I would call a Constitutional Conservative Anchor. The constitution is explicitly rigged in favour of the status quo. This appears to be a feature of constitutions and operates to prevent a temporary majority changing the constitution to their long term advantage.  A notable exception is our constitution. In order to change the rules on eligibility for bishophood the General Synod requires a two third majority in each of its three houses. On the plus side, this does prevent rules being passed for which there is not  persistent and widespread support. On the other it does allow a relatively small number of people to block any reform. It places the right of a minority for things not to change over the right of a majority  who want change. Everyone moves or no one does.

This is in marked contrast to the way things would work at the Westminster Parliament. There, using First Past the Post sufficiently motivated and well organised minorities can gain control of the legislative process for a time.  If you actually have a popular majority (rather than a popular plurality) then you are pretty much unstoppable. 

Were the general Synod operating more like the Westminster Parliament the pro-equality side would have won the vote. But they clearly wouldn’t have won the argument.  Those against women bishops clearly feel very strongly about it.  No matter the literally open mouthed surprise from My Lovely Wife at their views those who hold them appear to hold them very dearly.  So what would their choices have been had the decision been taken by a simple majority?  They could leave the Church.  But it is their Church.  They could meekly accept the will of others. But they think those others are not only wrong but gravely mistaken about the nature of what it means to be part of the Church. They could not so meekly accept the new rules. Accept that they are the rules but complain about them all the time, protest them, not co-operate with newly ordained women bishops.  They could seek to reverse the decision.

I imagine all of those would happen to some degree.

To restore the status quo anti the traditionalists would need to gain temporary control of the General Synod and reverse the decision and make things right again. Dealing in some way with those actual women who had actually been made bishops in the meantime.  And if they succeeded their now enemies would try to re-gain control of the Synod and reverse the reversal and deal in some way with those men who have been appointed bishops who would not have been had women been eligible at the time. Whomever is left standing at the end of the process may well have won the war but have already lost the peace.

This does not sound like a consensus to me. This sounds like an open sucking wound in the soul of the institution.

What I imagine will happen now is that the Church of England will continue to discuss the issue of the appointment of women bishops during the period when the matter is barred from a vote in Synod. They will try to reach consensus because that is the practical effect of the constitutional rules they have.  In a few years  they will vote again.  If they vote in favour of appointing women bishops then I would have confidence that this decision will be stuck with and that most people in the Church of England will accept it as legitimate. When the change comes I think it will be persistent and enjoy widespread support.

Whilst I think the current decision is wrong I think the eventual final decision will have been made in a better way and enjoy more support and more legitimacy.

So for me it’s an interesting example of how electoral systems affect both the practise and the practical outcome of politics.

I don’t imagine this is much comfort to the many women priests who continue to be barred  from practising their ministry or leading their church.

This would all be by-the-by for me. An interesting example of electoral processes in a body which means nothing to me and where I am actively against the founding tenants.  A bit like watching the internal appointment process for the manager of Rangers Football Club.

Except that some bishops of the Church of England get to sit in the legislature of my country as of right.  No leaders from other religious or philosophical groupings get a bye into the House of Lords. Richard Dawkins has to apply the same way as everyone else. Which is by sucking up to the Prime Minister.

The reform I want for the House of Lords is not for other religions to be able to appoint their leaders into my legislature.  I want the whole thing done away with and replaced by an elected body. If you want the Archbishop of  Canterbury to sit in the Upper House you get him (or her) elected.  But the Constitutional Conservative Anchor that is the House of Lords seems to be reluctant to abolish itself. So I guess I’ll just have to go about building some consensus about Lords Reform.