Let me take a wild guess at the result of the Falklands referendum - yes, 100% of the British citizens taking part in this farcical exercise would like the islands to remain a British overseas territory.
Maybe some maverick among the 1,672 eligible voters will say no or spoil their ballot paper. But I somehow doubt it.
A Reuters report states that a high turnout is expected and an overwhelming "yes" vote is likely. Likely? It's a given. No wonder Ladbrokes called the result "the biggest certainty in political betting history".
I agree with the tenor of an opinion piece in today's Independent headlined "Falklands referendum: why ask British people if they want to be British?"
For a state to ask the descendants of people they exported to garrison a colony generations before whether they want to maintain their links with the mother country is a no-brainer. The answer is bloody obvious. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Think also of Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. The settled people, always unloved by the indigenous (or neighbouring) community and therefore under pressure, naturally tend to wrap themselves in the Union flag and proclaim their love for the British monarch.
Argentina's response, that the referendum is a meaningless publicity stunt, is surely correct (even if one disagrees with the territorial claim by Buenos Aires). And it will be seen that way across the world, including the United States (to The Sun's evident displeasure).
So John Fowler, deputy editor of the Falklands' weekly newspaper, the Penguin News, is wrong to say that people who are undecided or uninformed on the matter, including "those countries that might otherwise be prepared to give the nod to Argentina's sovereignty claim might have pause for thought". They will not pause. It will prove nothing.
Note also how those who are not of British background - such as the sizeable community of immigrants from Chile and Saint Helena - are (supposedly) excluded from the vote.
In fact, as an editorial in the English-language Buenos Aires Herald, "Chronicle of a vote foretold" explains, that isn't quite true.
It takes issue with the Argentine ambassador to London, Alicia Castro, who has dismissed the referendum because it was "called by the British in which only British citizens can vote to decide whether the territory they inhabit is to be British."
The Herald's senior editor, Michael Soltys, writes: "The voting requirement is seven years' residence so that recent British arrivals are disenfranchised while various Chileans (or even the odd Argentine) can vote."
He therefore believes the Malvinas population (the paper prefers to use the Argentinian name for the islands) "is not so much 'implanted' as globalised" and that it "might well be a transitional phase towards finding its own place in the world."
I'm not so sure about that. The referendum still amounts to a rigged ballot. Perhaps Argentina's best hope lies in persuading 1,700 of its people to emigrate to the islands in the hope of Britain holding another ballot in seven years' time.
Sources: Reuters via The Guardian/BBC/Melbourne Herald Sun/Buenos Aires Herald/The Independent (1) and (2)/The Sun