Methodology

PollSignal helps voters understand which right-of-centre candidate appears best placed in their Westminster constituency. The aim is simple: reduce avoidable vote-splitting between Conservative, Reform, and other right-of-centre candidates where that split could affect the result.

Our recommendations are based on constituency-level evidence, public election data, candidate information, polling or forecast data where available, and manual editorial review. They are not guarantees, predictions, or instructions. Voters should make their own decision.

What we are trying to answer

For each Westminster constituency, we ask:

Which right-of-centre candidate, if any, appears to have the strongest realistic path to winning the seat or preventing the least preferred outcome for right-of-centre voters?

The answer may be one of five outcomes:

Data we consider

We do not rely on a single number or one model. A constituency recommendation may use some or all of the following inputs:

• The most recent general election result.
• Notional or boundary-adjusted results where relevant.
• Candidate lists and nomination information.
• Current or recent polling and forecasts, where reuse is permitted.
• National polling trends.
• Party vote share and trend by constituency.
• Whether Conservative and Reform support appears to be split.
• Whether the non-right-of-centre vote is split.
• The sitting or previous MP and seat history.
• Candidate credibility, local profile, campaign strength, and public information.
• Manual editorial review and source notes.
• Corrections submitted by users, candidates, or local observers.

Recommendation workflow

Recommendations go through a controlled review process.

1. Ingest source data
   We import or review constituency data, candidate data, previous results, and any relevant polling or forecast evidence.

2. Validate and normalise
   Constituency names, party names, candidate names, and external identifiers are checked and standardised before they are used.

3. Compare right-of-centre options
   We compare Conservative, Reform, and any other right-of-centre candidates in the constituency.

4. Assess split-vote risk
   We look at whether right-of-centre votes are likely to be divided in a way that changes the constituency outcome.

5. Assign a recommendation state
   The seat is assigned a recommendation, “too close” status, or “no realistic path” status.

6. Assign confidence
   The recommendation receives a confidence rating based on the strength, recency, and consistency of the evidence.

7. Editorial review
   Human editors review the seat before publishing. Automated data can flag a seat for review, but it does not automatically publish a political recommendation.

8. Publish and archive
   Published recommendations are versioned. When a recommendation changes, the page is updated and the public data snapshot can be refreshed.

Confidence ratings

A confidence rating shows how strongly the evidence supports the recommendation.

Confidence is not the same as probability of victory. A high-confidence recommendation can still lose. It means the recommendation is strongly supported by the available evidence.

Split-vote risk

Split-vote risk measures whether right-of-centre voters appear likely to divide their support between multiple candidates in a way that could affect the result.

Candidate classifications

Candidate labels are editorial notes designed to help explain the recommendation. They may include labels such as:

• Sound right.
• Mainstream conservative.
• Wet / centrist.
• Unknown.
• Reform candidate credible.
• Reform candidate paper-only / low information.
• Other right-of-centre independent.

These classifications are not automated. They are reviewed manually and may change as new public information becomes available.

Manual overrides

Election data is imperfect. A purely automatic model can miss local realities such as candidate selection problems, withdrawals, campaign strength, tactical pressure, local polling, or boundary changes.

For that reason, editors may apply a manual override. When this happens, the recommendation should include an explanation and a last-reviewed date.

Why we sometimes do not make a recommendation

We may choose not to recommend a candidate where:

• Conservative and Reform are too close to separate reliably.
• Data is too old or inconsistent.
• Candidate information is incomplete.
• No right-of-centre candidate appears competitive.
• A local factor needs further review.
• A reliable recommendation would require data we do not have.

In those cases, the page will normally show Too close / insufficient data or No realistic right-of-centre path.

Limits of the methodology

PollSignal is an evidence-based political information tool, not an official electoral service. The methodology has limits:

• Polls and forecasts can be wrong.
• Constituency-level polling is often unavailable.
• National polling may not reflect local dynamics.
• Boundary changes can make historical comparisons difficult.
• Candidate strength can change quickly during a campaign.
• Some postcode-to-constituency tools assign postcodes using a centroid, which may be imperfect near constituency boundaries.
• Tactical voting depends on how many voters coordinate around the same option.

We therefore avoid absolute claims such as “only X can win here” unless the evidence is strong. Where the evidence is weak, we say so.

Corrections and reviews

Each constituency page includes a last-reviewed date. Users can report corrections if they believe candidate data, constituency data, sources, or recommendations are wrong or outdated.

When a correction is accepted, the relevant constituency record is reviewed and the public page may be updated.

Editorial standard

Our standard is:

• use identifiable sources where possible;
• avoid overstating weak evidence;
• separate factual data from editorial judgement;
• show confidence and uncertainty;
• update recommendations when evidence changes;
• publish enough information for users to understand the recommendation.