Under Single Transferable Voting (STV), a large proportion of voters are content to see someone they favour among those elected in their district.
This is true in the Glasgow city elections.
How do we know this?
We cannot ask each voter if they saw someone they liked among those elected.
But information released by the Glasgow election officials show this general contentment to be the case.
Information on how the ballots were marked shows the actual sentiment of the voters,
And whether or not the votes was actually used to elect anyone, the preferences marked on the ballot show that the winners had wide support. The voter who cast that ballot is likely well pleased with the result.
Recent research in Scotland, where they elect members of the Glasgow city council through STV, shows that in the 2007 Glasgow city election,
the use of multi-member districts meant many groups, not just one, could elect representation (it often happens under FPTP that just one group - usually a minority - are the only ones who elect representation), and the use of single voting (each voter casting just one vote) meant no one group would take all the seats in the district and STV's preferential ballots meant each voter could mark back-up preferences in case their first choice was not electable (allowing more nuance than just hit or miss as under X voting) so STV in that election, in the 16 wards where four members were elected, produced representation where -- about 73 percent of voters saw their first preference elected; about 86 percent saw at least one of their first or second preferences elected; about 89 percent of voters saw at least one of their first, second or third preferences elected; about 90 percent of voters saw at least one of their first, second, third or fourth preferences elected. Only one in ten saw no one whom they favoured, among the four elected in their ward. And in fact, some voters saw two or more of their top choices elected, and some even saw all four of their top four preferred candidates elected. (although of course their vote could only be used to elect one of them). If one looks at lower preferences, preferences that bore numbers 5 or more, you get an even higher proportion of voters who saw at least one person whom they liked to some degree, among those elected in their ward.
Note that in many cases, the preferences marked for the successful candidates was not actually used to elect any of the winners. Of the preferences marked for successful candidates, only the first-preferences that were marked for a successful candidate votes were for sure used to help elect that candidate. We know this because the first-preference/successful-candidate votes went directly to those who were elected (elected sooner or later) and so were never transferred. The votes were counted among the candidate's votes when he or she was elected. Stats based on the preferences marked on the ballots by-pass the STV process (except in so far as under STV, voters rank multiple candidates and no one group can take all the seats in the ward, so there is a range of winners that is used to compile "represented voters"). It reminds me of a 1922 write-up of demonstration STV elections, which says applauds STV because almost all the voters in the room could look to someone who was elected and see that name among the top rankings on their ballot. Such reckoning of voter satisfaction was not part of the election but it proved the system's true representational capability. Here's a link to my blog reprinting the instructions for a demonstration STV election from a hundred years ago: STV demonstration election (montopedia.wixsite.com Presented were several ways to test the results of the mock STV election. The research into voter satisfaction in Glasgow seems to echo method C (the first-preference/successful-candidate voters), and methods E, F. and G. So 100 years later the methods are used to confirm results of actual elections! ======================== Testing the Results (A) If the candidates were arranged in pretend or actual parties, point out that the successful candidates represent the different parties and different points of view within the parties. Usually it can be shown that each party received its fair share of the seats, as nearly as that share can be estimated by the first choices. It must not be inferred, however, that the final result should correspond exactly with the party grouping indicated by first choices: some voters cross party lines when they mark their back-up preferences, and the full and true story of the voters' real wishes is shown only by the final result. (B) Point out how many of the voters have had a share in the election of the representatives. The number is found by subtracting the number of wasted votes from the total number of ballots cast. Wasted votes are spoiled votes, exhausted ballots, votes left undistributed with the candidate or candidates last defeated, and votes left with surviving unelected candidates. (C) Ask all who saw their first choice elected to raise their hands. The number can be determined exactly by reference to the first count results posted on the blackboard. (D) Best choice used. Take up the ballots that have elected one of the last candidates to receive the quota and read out the choices of two or three of them to show that each one has been counted to help elect the candidate whom, under the actual circumstances existing, the person who marked it most wanted to help. That is, leaving out those who have been elected or eliminated, demonstrating that the vote had gone to the first back-up preference who was elected. (E) Examine the un-used votes. These are the few ballots that have not helped to elect anyone. Show the audience that even they were cast by voters who are in most cases satisfied. Many of the back-up preferences marked on them are for candidates who were elected. Read aloud the first choice, second choice, etc., on each one of the un-used votes until you come to a candidate who has been elected. As you do this, arrange the ballots in piles and at the end announce how many of the "unrepresented" voters saw their second choice elected, how many their third choice, etc. (There will be none that have their first choices elected - they would not be unrepresented.) (F) Examine the "wasted" ballots as listed in B above. Read off the first five choices — the group that the voter would have picked if he had been able to cast five votes under Block Voting— and note how many of them have been elected. Announce how many of the "unrepresented" voters saw none of their five elected, how many saw one of their five elected, how many saw two of their five elected, how many saw three of their five elected, how many saw four of their five elected. (There will be none that have all five of their top five choices elected - any with five elected would not be among the "wasted" votes.) (G) Exhausted votes Some of the "wasted votes" are exhausted votes that could not be used because the preferences marked on them had already been elected. Read aloud the first choice, second choice, etc., on each one until you come to a candidate who has been elected. Sort the exhausted votes into two piles - one for those who saw none of their candidates elected and one for those that did. So we see that quite a few of the exhausted votes actually did see one or more of their choices elected. Then, if you have time, arrange into piles the ballots who did have a choice elected. At the end announce how many of the "unrepresented" voters saw their second choice elected, how many their third choice, etc. (There will be none that have their first choices elected - they would not be unrepresented.) If there are too many wasted votes to handle them all expeditiously, examine a few of them only. Try to leave plenty of time for questions. ==============================================
The large proportion of represented voters in Glasgow in 2007, typical of STV elections, is in sharp contrast to the wasted votes under single-winner FPTP.
Glasgow's STV city elections produced much much more fair and representative results than under FPTP where as much as 82 percent of voters see their vote not used at all to elect anyone. Such was the case in the 2014 Toronto city election where a ward winner received just 18 percent of the ward vote. Scotland today, where STV is used in Glasgow and other cities, shows us that STV produces representation that, to a large extent, actually reflects how voters cast their votes!
Thanks for reading.
=============================================
Comments