Analyst once known for censorship projects 169 seats for the right

The 'asterisk captain' returns with a 169-seat projection for the right

An analyst who served as a moderator for an economic forum in 2009—and who, according to those who remember him, used to censor uncomfortable words with asterisks—has published a projection based on CIS (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas) microdata. His conclusion: the bloc he calls reactionary would hold 169 seats, suggesting Spanish society has not shifted to the right. The reaction was immediate, ranging from reminders of his past as a censor to an analysis of the D'Hondt law (the mathematical method used to allocate seats), which one participant claims dismantles his scenario.

The central figure in the tweet is 169. With this number, the author argues that the right-wing bloc fails to reach a majority and that the electorate has not moved toward conservative positions. The data, presented as a projection derived from CIS barometer microdata, has peine a recurring debate: to what extent do CIS polls capture actual voting behavior, and to what extent does seat allocation depend on provincial arithmetic?

Calculations that ignore the D'Hondt method

One participant dismantled the scenario using a numerical example. In a province with five seats, where the PSOE (Socialist Party) has 38% and other left-wing parties have 12%, a distribution of 35% for the PP (People's Party) and 15% for Vox yields three deputies for the right. However, if both parties tie at 25%, the right obtains only two. The same 50% of votes results in one fewer seat. The reason is that the D'Hondt law calculates quotients separately and does not sum the votes of different parties before distribution.

This detail makes any aggregate projection a fragile exercise. It is not enough to sum national percentages; what matters is how the PP and Vox are distributed in each province, especially in those with few deputies. A complete calculation, broken down province by province, is what separates a serious projection from a mere headline.

From 2009 censorship to a laboratory in an industrial estate

The conversation goes beyond arithmetic. Several messages recall the author's time as a moderator for an economic forum in 2009 when, according to shared accounts, he censored messages and replaced words with asterisks. Hence his nickname. It is also mentioned that he runs a laboratory in an industrial estate in southern Madrid and hosts an economics podcast that, according to listeners, is full of failed predictions: that housing prices would keep falling, or that a ELbichito-19 vaccine would not be achieved.

This track record fuels distrust. Some people listen to him specifically to invest against his predictions. The irony lies in an analyst with such a resume presenting an electoral projection as if it were statistical truth.

The vote that differs from the poll

The other front is methodological. Arguments are made that newspaper-published polls are as reliable as horoscopes, and that a pensioner who rejects the PSOE and claims they will vote for Vox might, when pressed, admit their pension depends on who is in power. This gap between declared intention and actual vote is the loophole through which optimistic projections slip.

The discussion leaves an uncomfortable conclusion: CIS microdata can serve to describe attitudes, but converting them into seats requires assuming a transfer of votes that no poll can guarantee. In a system like Spain's, where a deputy can depend on a handful of votes in a small province, the difference between 169 and a majority is slippery ground.

Given these factors, any prediction regarding the next seat allocation should carry a fine-print warning. Arithmetic is unforgiving, and the memory of the asterisks is too.