Italian Referendum 2016 – NO loses traction: a deadlock

There appears to be some lexical pollution in the identification of the searches mainly coming from the fact that “si” means both “yes” and “oneself”. This is the reason I looked at perche votare no vs. perche votare si searches which show a slight lead for NO but nonetheless a loss of traction.

I tried cleaning these up as much as I could: votare no -si -come  -sì  -dove -puo vs. votare si -no -vales -come  -può -patente -dove -puo. While the level changes and favors the NO vote when I do so the one thing that remains constant is the loss of traction for the NO searches down the stretch. Nonetheless the levels change significantly so as to lean towards inconclusive.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

I might need to look at the linguistics of this more carefully at a later point. The best identified searches for now seem to be  “perche votare no” and “perche votare si”. They record a loss of traction for the NO vote and show just a slight lead which however is too close to call.

In fact if I quote these searches “perche votare no” and “perche votare si” so as to look at the exact expression I get a deadlock!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This entry was posted in Big Data, Social Media and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.