This is really a pernicious article, in that it encourages the dangerous conflation of accuracy with precision. B.d.M.'s predictions are precise, but their accuracy is never demonstrated -- never even begins to be demonstrated. To demonstrate accuracy, given the method described, we'd need to see some pretty precise supporting evidence. And I don't see any documentation, here.

Bueno de Mesquita claims great accuracy, and Good cites some "successes", but they don't say anything about those successes. For B.d.M. to be "right" about any of these cases, given his claims of rigor, he has to be right in his details. It's not enough to say that the Sandinistas would be deposed in an election, they have to be deposed in the way and on the dates and with the numbers he predicts (or close to them), or his method is not validated.

Otherwise, his "method" is at least as much voodoo as everyone else's. More so, I'd argue, since it involves a sham of elucidation.