Quibans 89 – Men vs Women in the European elections 2019

I voted by post earlier in the week.  Some parties had more female candidates than others.  I wondered whether it was the case that across the country certain types of party have more male or female candidates.  Here’s what I did with my Year 12 Core Maths class.

Some background to the electoral system:

Each country in the EU has its own voting system for the European elections.  England is divided into 9 regions and Wales and Scotland are each a region (Northern Ireland has a different system, so I didn’t involve them).  In each region there are a number of seats, ranging from 10 seat for the South East region to 3 seats in the North East.

You don’t vote for an individual but for a party.  Each party has a ‘list’ of candidates for each region.  Last time around in the 7-seat East of England region most parties had seven candidates.  Having worked out that UKIP should get 3 seats, the Conservatives 3 seats and Labour 1 seat (using the D’Hondt method – but that’s not relevant here), the top three candidates from the UKIP list were elected as MEPs, the top three from the Conservative list and top Labour candidate.

What we did:

On a shared Excel file, I had each region on a separate sheet.  I divided these up around the class (some students had a sheet each, others worked as a pair).  First they sorted out whether each candidate was male or female.  This wasn’t always obvious, so they Googled if they weren’t sure.

Then they typed into another sheet the number of female and male candidates for each party.

They had to deal with some issues.  For example, some candidates are standing as ‘independents’, meaning they are not part of a party.  We decided to ignore them.  Some candidates have withdrawn from the election; we removed the ones we knew about.

These are the results, for the parties that are standing in every region:

11% of the UKIP candidates are female, through to Change UK, for whom 57% of the candidates are female.

Is it interesting that the more pro-Brexit parties tend to have more male candidates, while the more pro-Remain parties have roughly equal numbers of men and women?

Better methodology?

But hold on: maybe this doesn’t tell the whole story.  What if the LibDems have the same number of male and female candidates but the top few in each region are all men?  It is extremely unlikely that those further down each list will be elected, so this is important. 

Here is how I intend to deal with that.

The students recorded a list of Male and Female candidates for each party.  Here’s part of that list:

Since the lesson (we will talk about this next week) I have turned that into a set of binary numbers, where F becomes 1 and M becomes 0.

I then turned the binary into a decimal.  This means the first-ranked candidate in each list is worth double the one that follows, which is worth double the one after that, etc.  If there are 5 candidates in a list, the 5th one is worth 1 point, the 4th is worth 2 points, the 3rd gets 4 points, the second gets 8 points and the first is 16 points.  Add up the number of points for the female candidates and then divide by the total (which is 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 = 31).  That gives a fractional weighted-score for the female candidates in each region.

Then I found the average of these. 

The second column shows this new figure (with the first column showing the previous data):

Not much difference (apart from the Green Party)! 

Final thoughts:

It was good for the students to see a way to carry out this sort of analysis.  

It was good to divide up the work.  I couldn't find an easy way of getting hold of the gender of each candidate, so sharing the workload was a good thing.

We had to decide how to deal with problems (withdrawn candidates).

We had to think about how to do the analysis.

Here are links to my original spreadsheet and the one my class filled in.

If you want your class to use the original version then you will need to save it and share it with them (your IT people in College will be able to help if you haven't done this before).

Source:  https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/european-elections-2019-candidates-mep-who-standing-eu-vote-full-list/

Quibans 88: Bottled water

I started by giving out just this paragraph from the Guardian article that follows:

Imagine laying out half-litre bottles on the pitch at Wembley Stadium. You could fit ### bottles on the grass, packed into a tight grid. Now imagine building up layers of bottles, covering the same area, to build a tower. To contain all the bottled water we buy each year [in the UK], you would end up with a ###-metre skyscraper.

There are some nice Fermi estimations required here.

What are the dimensions of a football pitch? What are the dimensions of a water bottle? How many bottles are used in this country in a year?

Then we need to convert some units and carry out the calculations, not forgetting to round off sensibly.

The students worked in groups. A typical estimate for the size of a football pitch was 110m by 60m. Some measured their water bottles (!) and found a diameter of about 6cm and a height of 20cm.

If working out the area covered by the pitch and by a bottle we need to be careful when converting units (10,000 cm² = 1m²). We also need to decide what “packed into a tight grid means” (we took it to mean a rectangular grid). The easiest way is to work out how many bottles fit along each side of the pitch and then to multiply these. These figures gave us 1.8 million (pleasingly close to the 1.7 million in the article). Other estimates in the room varied between 1.6 million and 2.8 million.

Working out the height is more difficult. If everyone in the country has one bottle per week then that would give us about 1.7 billion bottles per year. That would need to be stacked 1000 rows high, which means a height of about 200m. In fact the article says it’s 2.2 billion _litres_ per year (each bottle holds 500ml), so we have underestimated the answer.

I then gave out a fuller version of the article (below) and asked what things they could work out.

If we care about plastic waste, why won’t we stop drinking bottled water?

Sun 28 Apr 2019

For all the innovation and choice that define the food and drink industries, if you want to make money, you could do a lot worse than bung some water in a bottle and flog it. A litre of tap water, the stuff we have ingeniously piped into our homes, costs less than half a penny. A litre of bottled water can cost well over a pound, especially for something fancy that has been sucked through a mountain.

Yet the bottled water market is more buoyant than ever, defying the plastics backlash inspired by stricken albatrosses on the BBC’s Blue Planet, and a broader, growing sense that something has to change.

Sales in the UK were worth a record £558.4m in the year to last November, an increase of 7%, according to the latest figures from the market analyst Kantar. Separate data from the analysts Nielsen show that last year we guzzled more than 2.2bn litres of bottled water, including “take-home” and “on-the-go” products. That’s an annual rise in volume of 8.5%.

Imagine laying out half-litre bottles on the pitch at Wembley Stadium. You could fit 1.7m bottles on the grass, packed into a tight grid. Now imagine building up layers of bottles, covering the same area, to build a tower. To contain all the bottled water we buy each year, you would end up with a 514-metre skyscraper – 200 metres taller than the Shard.
Hope is not entirely out of reach. That plastic skyscraper conceals attempts in the bottled water industry to change. If nothing else, the rate of growth has begun to ease (sales were up 7% in the year to November 2018, compared with 8% the previous year).

But even if large numbers of us are quitting bottled water because of care for the environment, others are taking it up. The introduction of the “sugar tax” on juices and fizzy drinks has pushed more people to bottled water, while health awareness has boosted its desirability. Kantar says tap water consumption is growing at roughly the same pace (we still drink almost three times as much tap water as bottled water).

So the plastic tide only creeps higher. The industry is quick to point out that all its bottles are recyclable. “But collection rates are, at the most generous estimates, 56%, so the actual recycling rate will be lower than that,” Chetan-Walsh says. And while bottles may be recyclable, very few are made of recycled plastic. Highland Spring launched recycled half-litre “eco” bottles alongside its standard bottles in January; Evian has vowed to use only recycled plastic across its range by 2025.

Kinvara Carey, general manager of the Natural Hydration Council, an association of the biggest bottled water manufacturers, cites a survey in which people were asked what they would do if bottled water were not available. “Forty-four per cent would buy another drink, which is not great, 14% would go without and 4.5% said they would find a fountain,” she says. “The choice is important.”

We can work out things like:

1) The cost of a litre of bottled water
2) How the price has changed in the past year
3) What the amounts were last year
4) How many bottles are recycled
5) The volume of landfill taken up by bottles
6) Why the percentages in the final paragraph don’t add up to 100%
7) How much water each person drinks each day

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/28/if-we-care-about-plastic-waste-why-wont-we-stop-drinking-bottled-water