You would think that politicians would improve their personal appeal if they engaged in conversation with their constituents. But, is this actually the case?
We recently did some deep analysis of data we hold on the UK General Election 2015. We found that there is a negative correlation between candidates’ predicated share of vote and how many conversations they have on Twitter. What this means is, as their number of conversations increases, the likelihood of being voted for decreases!
Furthermore, we can break this down to individual parties. What we find is that 4 of the main 7 parties see a negative impact on votes, whilst only 3 show a positive effect. The SNP is the worst performer, by some margin, whilst the Greens see the biggest positive impact.
The negative results can be interpreted in, at least, one of two ways. Firstly, the more a candidate engages in conversation, the more they convince the electorate that they shouldn’t be voted for. Alternatively, it could be that those candidates in safe seats don’t have, or need, to engage in conversation. What do you think?