The STV system used in Tasmania today varies in some particulars from the STV system that was used in Alberta provincial elections from 1924 to 1955. But both - by using single votes cast in multi-member districts - produced mixed roughly proportional representation.
As you may know, in STV, first there is the count of first preferences and the calculation of the quota (the minimum required to win a seat).
Perhaps someone achieved quota on the first count.
This happens in many STV elections anywhere.
In the district of Bass, Tasmania in 1998, three did this.
Each went over quota, so to avoid waste, their surplus wvotes (those over the quota) are transferred according to back-up preferences on the votes.
Here is where the Tasmanian system varies from the old Alberta one.
in the Alberta system, just the surplus votes were transferred, quota remained with the elected candidates. The make-up of the surplus transferred and the quota remaining behind were made to be of almost identical make-up as per back-up preferences marked on the ballots.
In Tasmania, all the votes are transferred but at various transfer values, to express their proportion in the elected candidate's votes.
Their initial math is easier than under Alberta system but all later transfers are complicated by votes at different transfer values being counted and transferred. Apparently the system works well enough though.
The amount of votes a candidate retains after his or her election is immaterial. He or she was already elected. Published Alberta election results show some elected candidates with more than quota and others at only quota or less. This is misleading - they are all elected. All achieved quota (or were elected at the end when the field of candidates thinned to no more than the number of remaining open seats). Those shown with only quota had had their surplus votes stripped from them so vote total of quota is not indicative of their support.
This is how it works in Tasmania:
The total number of the elected candidate's votes divided by the amount of the surplus. This is transfer value.
Election officials examine the next useful back-up preference marked on each of he candidate's votes. Some may not have any available back-up preference - these are put in pile marked exhausted.
No votes are transferred to those already elected.
The number of votes with back-up preferences indicated for A are moved to A with note taken of the transfer value.
Once any necessary surplus transfers are resolved, if there are still open seats, the least popular candidate is eliminated. (Tasmania uses the softer term "excluded"!)
The transfer of the votes of the excluded candidate is straightforward - just look at how the next available preference indicates where the vote should go or to exhausted pile. But each vote (or group of votes) carries its transfer value with it.
When it comes to adding the transferred votes to the receiving candidate's running total, each type of vote (categorized by transfer value) is added in separately in separate counts. All candidates' running totals are recalculated at the end of each count.
If a candidate achieves quota in a count, he or she is immediately declared elected and subsequent transfers are not sent to him or her.
In Tasmania, election at this stage is done slightly differently than was done for those elected on the first count. Transfer of surplus votes of those elected after the first count is done at transfer values based on the proportions in the last transfer (the one that put the candidate over quota) and not on the total number of votes that the candidate has.
(At this point in history it is not clear how the Alberta elections were conducted. The mathematical calculations used to determine surplus transfers are not preserved. Rules say that the last transfer is to be used to calculate transfers. But In at least one case where a candidate was elected after the first count, it seems the surplus transfer must have been based on the total votes of the candidate as the last transfer did not have as many votes as the number of candidates that were transferred to.)
Anyways, in Tasmania (as under the old Alberta rules), exclusions and transfers of votes and transfers of surplus votes, where necessary, continue until all the seats are filled.
if it happens that the field of candidates thins to only one more than the number of remaining open seats, then the lowest is "excluded" and the survivor(s) is declared elected and the transfers end.
Although the quota is calculated to allow as many candidates to be elected as there are open seats based on valid votes cast, the exhausted votes have decreased the number of votes still in play, and sometimes prevents all to win through achieving the quota.
This is clarified in the Tasmania Electoral Commission internet piece "Hare-Clark Explained":
"Do you always need a quota to get elected?
It is common that the last member is elected without reaching the quota. In some cases, the last two members have been declared elected without reaching the quota.
Why does this happen?
If some ballot papers do not include a preference for every candidate, it is possible to be elected without reaching the quota. If a distributed ballot paper does not have a preference for any of the continuing candidates, it will drop out of the count and the vote it carries is declared "exhausted".
The number of exhausted votes usually increases quickly towards the end of the counting process as fewer candidates remain. The greater the number of votes exhausted, the more likely the last elected candidate will not reach the quota.
The ballot papers instruct the voter to mark a preference for all candidates to reduce the number and impact of exhausted votes."
Not stated is that some of the exhausted votes are indicated for candidates already elected, who do not receive any additional votes. These voters thus do not have their wishes denied but actually have them satisfied but not by the use of their vote.
As there are assorted variations of STV and multiple versions of party-list pro-rep and MMP, there is much cause for debate and discussion to nail down a system once the general type is decided on. So the initial pick of system must be done as quickly as possible.
Not just the mechanics of the vote but also the boundaries of the districts and more must be decided under any new system that is chosen.
At least an experimental one- or two-election experience should be embarked as soon as possible or we'll never get anything done in the foreseeable future.
As STV is the only one of the three that has been used in Canada, I put that forward as the easiest to set up, at least for an experiment.
How can voters know if they like any alternative to FPTP if they have no experience with an alternative?
How can they know the weaknesses of FPTP if they don't have anything to compare it with?
Let's move on STV, at least in entire cities or areas where most of the citizens want to try it, as soon as possible.
And remember that the transfer rules used in Tasmania or the transfer of whole votes as was done in the old Alberta system actually have little impact.
Most of the mixed representation - a hallmark of proportional representation - is created by single votes cast in multi-member districts.
The Bass election elected five representatives.
In Bass, the four most popular in the first count (before any transfers), were elected.
Gutwein, Ferguson, O'Byrne, Courtney were front-runners and were elected.
Dawkins, the most popular Green candidate, was fifth in the first count. He or she received 4333 in first count. But he (or she), and all the other Green candidates, did not receive enough votes to make quota.
Labour's Houston was sixth in the first count, with 2258 votes.
He or she initially received fewer votes than Dawkins.
At the end, only Houston and Dawkins were left competing for the last remaining open seat. Both had increased their vote tally through vote transfers but neither had achieved quota.
Houston by that time had accumulated more votes than Dawkins.
Dawkins was excluded, leaving Houston to take the seat.
Thus vote transfers only affected the outcome of one seat. Four winners were exactly the same as the order in the first count.
Note though that the mixed representation produced in the election -- three Liberals and two Labour Party - was not something that could be depended on to be produced by FPTP.
STV -- single votes cast in multi-member districts supplemented by vote transfers - achieve such things, not FPTP.
Thanks for reading.
Check out my blog "list of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject.
=========================================================
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) ----------------------------------- 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 ==============================================================
Comments