Australian Capital Territory, October 2020
Greens with 14 percent of the vote took 6 out of 25 seats.
Was this proportional? No.
Was it what voters wanted? Yes.
Proportionality of party representation is just measure of one aspect of an STV election.
After the first count, what is important is wide acceptability. At least that a candidate is acceptable to enough supporters of other parties. Wide acceptability is more important than first count vote tallies in the later stages of the vote count.
Can't find official final seat totals for election so using Wikipedia 2020 Australian Capital Territory election, which have Green taking 5 seats.
I note that in the official results nowhere, as far as I could see, is it noted how much percentage each party took of the votes. This is appropriate as overall number plays no part in a STV election.
STV is district level pro-rep, with pro-rep being taken in a broad sense
Those with deep single-party support or broad consensus support will take more seats than those that don't have either of these things.
and at district level in each district
the most popular party won more seats than any other party or at least no other party took more seats.
the second most popular party (either Labour or Liberal) took more seats than the third most popular party (Greens)*
the lesser parties took no seats.
*Exception appears to be Kurrajong where Green took more seats than the Liberals. but in first choice votes the two parties were only 4 percent apart.
The transfers must be factored in. This difficult to do with what we know - the vote counting process is how back-up preferences are factored in.
The results must by definition be representative of the voters' sentiments because they were produced by the voters' marked preferences.
You might say STV produces results that are proportionate (in relative value), not exactly proportional.
STV is candidate-based and voter-driven.
Candidate-based because there are no transfers from minor parties but from candidates who are bottom of rankings, who may happen to be of minor parties, to those more popular,
voter-driven because transfer are not made party to party -- party actually has no place in an STV election.
Transfers are made according to back-up preferences marked by voters on each ballot, according to whatever criterion that specific voter used.
Anyways, the Greens' 14 percent would be about 4 seats. Greens took only two more than that, according to what I've heard, obviously due to vote transfers from candidates of other parties who were eliminated. One or two Green candidates in each district despite placing low in the first count, received enough vote transfers from eliminated Green candidates and eliminated candidates of other parties to take a seat or two.
Let's look at one district
Kurrajong
candidates in order of popularity in first count.
first count* Final result (as per preliminary vote tallies)
Barr Labour 22 percent ELECTED
Rattenbury Greens 13 percent ELECTED
Lee Lberal 10 percent ELECTED
Burch Liberal 8 percent [not eleted]
Vassoreti Greens 6 percent ELECTED
Stephen-Smith Labour 5.6 percent ELECTED
and so on.....
* percent of the votes used instead of vote tallies for ease. it still shows the relative popularity on the first count.
quota in each district is 17 percent of the vote.
So Barr (Labour) was declared elected on the first count. His surplus was transferred, likely mostly to the other four Labour candidates.
The vote transfers made little difference in the result versus the first preferences. Only one of the top five in the first count, Liberal Burch, was not elected. Labour's Stephen-Smith moves up into top five through vote transfers - the three eliminated Labour candidates had a combined total of more than 10 percent of the votes of the first preferences. (As well, Barr's surplus, which was five percent of the vote, also likely stayed among the remaining Labour candidates.) Much of these transferred votes probably were shifted around the Labour candidates until Stephen-Smith eventually became the last Labour candidate not elected and not eliminated, and accumulated enough to take a seat.
Labour thus benefited from having surplus votes already in the first count. No other candidate was declared elected in the first count, so no other party had that advantage.
These other parties had to rely mostly on vote transfers arising from elimination of the least popular candidate in each count.
Gradually through what may turn out to be 25 or so counts - the vote transfers are still being conducted a couple days after the election - those proven to have enough wide acceptability to pass quota are declared elected and the field of candidates is thinned down until eventually either four are declared elected to fill the remaining four seats (after Barr's first count election) or when there become only as many remaining non-elected non-eliminated candidates as there are remaining open seats, these "survivors<' are declared elected. Or a combination of the two.
Expected counts - why 25?
28 candidates in the district
1st Count Barr elected
2nd Count Barr's surplus transferred
3rd Count elimination of least popular candidate votes transferred
(Williams Community Action Party 72 votes (plus any received from Barr's surplus transfer) This small transfer will not take much time at all. Just need to examine each of the 72 -odd ballots and put on a pile designated for the next preference if any or on exhausted pile if voter only marked one preference for Williams and did not mark any back-up preference.)
elimination of at the most another 22 candidates
counts used to transfer of surpluses following any time a candidate exceeds quota.
altogether about 25 counts in total at the most
There will be fewer than 25 counts if individual candidates achieve quota early.
Unlike the Labour Party which had more than 10 percent of he votes spread among its bottom-three candidates, the Liberal party had less than 10 percent of the vote available for vote transfers when its first three candidates were eliminated. A slight difference granted, but it must have contributed, along with Barr's surplus transfer and with perhaps more votes transfers from candidates of other parties going to Labour than to Liberals, to ensure two Labour seats and only one Liberal seat.
Green had few party votes available for transfer - only 4 percent - but having two candidates popular enough to be in top five in first count gave them boost for two seats that a few good vote transfers from others cemented in place.
Vote transfers don't mean lots when you note that a candidate can win a seat with pretty much only his or her original first count support as long as he or she is popular enough not to be eliminated.
The vote total is decreasing through exhausted votes. so it may become impossible for a candidate in the last few counts to ever acquire quota. Then the last seat(s) is filled by the last remaining candidates, the ones that are popular enough not to have been eliminated. A candidate can win a seat with pretty much only his or her original first count support as long as he or she is popular enough not to be eliminated.
When presenting first counts, using the list of names of candidates in order of popularity on first count is more informative than computing the amount of quotas that each party takes.
Always at least half of the candidates who are top of list in first count go on to win seats.
Sometimes all of them do with no change created by vote transfers. This happened on three occasions in Alberta provincial STV elections - Edmonton 1930; 1930 Calgary; 1944 Calgary
Usually one or two of the front runners are not elected. Vote transfers putting a candidate of a new party into a seat, or a different more individually-respected candidate of an old party replacing a candidate of the same party. (This is one of the ways that STV acts as deterrent to extreme or bigoted candidates - a candidate must have wide acceptability to win through vote transfers.)
At the most, in only two elections were as many as three of the front runners in the first count not elected. These were 1935 Edmonton and 1955 Edmonton. (It happened in no elections in Calgary.)
1935 Edmonton
Howson's massive surplus gave boost to fellow Liberal candidate, Van Allen, who moved up.
UFA Lymburn in top six of in the first count but did not have wide acceptability. UFA and Labour had lost support - many people believed that the Social Credit Party promised quicker action to address Depression.
D.M. Duggan Conservative was just barely out of top six in first count. Vote transfers from the other four Conservative candidates - all eliminated in early and middle counts - helped him take a seat.
And that is fine -- Mixed and roughly proportional representation is already created in the first count. This is done by use of single vote in multi-member district. The vote transfers, where they have any effect, merely polish the results.
That is why I think single-vote Limited Voting (AKA SNTV, AKA Japanese system) would work good enough to rid us of much of the unfair results produced by FPTP.
I believe municipal-level STV is not forbidden under the Alberta Municipal Act as a couple of my blogs explain.
Hope that gives you some idea of why I support district level preferential voting.
------------------------------
------------------------------
What is STV?
From a 1902 reform magazine: "Thinking it well to have in every number something by way of a brief explanation of proportional voting, I repeat in this number the following. Proportional representation means the use of a reasonable and scientific system of voting instead of the present stupid, unfair and inefficient procedure. Methods: There are several systems by which the principle of proportional representation may be given effect to. Large electoral districts, each electing several members, are a necessary feature. The "quota" plan is usually employed. It means that a quota of the votes elects one representative. To arrive at the quota, the number of valid votes cast is divided by the number of seats to be filled. For instance in a seven-member district any one-seventh of the voters could elect one representative and the other six-sevenths could not interfere with their choice. The three principal systems of proportional representation are the Free List as used in Switzerland and Belgium [party-list pro-rep], the Hare system as used in Tasmania [STV], and the Gove System as advocated in Massachusetts. The Preferential Vote [Alternative Voting/Instant Run-off Voting] -- This is used in the election of single officers such as a mayor. It is not strictly a form of pro-rep but is akin thereto, and uses part of the same voting methods. The object of preferential voting is to encourage the free nomination of candidates and to obtain always a clear majority at one balloting, no matter how many candidates are nominated." (From the Proportional Representation Review Dec. 1902, p. 77) (Hathi Trust online resource, page 81/180) Thanks for reading. Check out my blog "list of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject. ----------------------------------- This year: *Alberta is celebrating 150 years in Confederation 1870-2020 *100th Anniversary of STV first being used to elect legislators in Canada Winnipeg MLAs first elected through STV in 1920 ==============================================================
コメント