Fairvote (U.S.A.) projected results under STV and put itonline.
I picked Ohio somewhat at random
and I find that I disagree with the findings.
For one, the proportions of votes they show for the four districts show that Republicans have majority - Dems' 198 parts to 202 Republican so not the 50-50 that the summary shows. A clear majority to the Republicans -- at least in 2020.
And why if PR is P, why under PR would a party with 53 or 54 percent of the votes in a district not be fairly certain to get 3 out of 5 seats or 2 out of 3 seats in the district? Do they expect lots of cross-party transfers? There are not many third-party votes to go to the big-tent parties through transfers, at least not many now.
Why the uncertainty such as in District C for Dems where expected result is 1D, 1R and 1?, and District B for Rep. where expected result is recorded as 2R, 2D and 1? ? That means it is possible for District C, where vote is recorded as D 54, R 46, to have a seat result of D1 and R2. Not very Proportional!
Let the votes count - give a majority of the seats to a party with majority of the votes. It is only fair - although it means fewer sets to the other party. Not every party can win!
And if vote proportions 50-50, where are the votes that will be cast for candidates outside the two parties if there are none as "starter" even under FPTP? They actually do exist, they just are not shown in the 50-50 summary
In fact in 2020 House of Reps elections in Ohio,
Republicans got 56 percent of the state-wide vote
Dems 43%,
Libertarians 1%,
so not 50-50 at all.
(
That partly explains why R got 12 and D 4, which is what actually happened in 2020 and what the seat summary shows.
With the actual percentages of 2020, under STV we would expect 9 R and 7 D.
Due to district splitting up the electorate, the result might vary but should not very much - if it is actually P.
so district as proposed would be something like this
(based on 2020 House of Representatives election
District A 5 seats Dems. 47, Rep. 52, Libert 1 expected seats Dems 2, Rep 3
District B 5 seats Dems. 41, Rep. 58, Libert 1 expected seats Dems 2, Rep 3
District C 3 seats Dems. 46, Rep. 53, Libert 1 expected seats Dems 2, Rep 3
District D 3 seats Dems. 38, Rep. 61, Libert. 1 expected seats Dems 2, Rep 3
Parts: Dems 172 (43 percent) Rep 224 (56 percent) Libert 4 (1 percent)
Overall state seats counts would be Dems 8, Rep. 9
Very proportional to overall state vote counts
and more balanced and reflective of votes cast than the present FPTP seat count:
Dems 4 Rep 12 Libert 0. Very dis-proportional!
Democrats would not take majority of seats in any district but that is to be expected when they only take 43 percent of the overall vote.
However, under STV , Dems would take their due portion unlike under FPTP.
Dems are not shown as taking a majority of the votes in any district. Taking a majority in the district is important under FPTP where the leading party takes the one seat, but under STV, taking a majority is not as important because the leading party does not take all the seats -- even the other parties get their fair due of seats.
I guess the House of Reps does not have a large enough number of reps to give Ohio enough seats to allow a district to be a city-wide district, so the state is to be divided into four same-sized districts. same old arbitrary artificial districts, dividing counties into two, lumping cities and country together.
It seems to me a city district of three seats would be more attractive to voters than a quarter of the state in one district, where the cities would overwhelm the rural voters. If you are gong to use large division of the state without regard to city boundaries, you might as well have a district of half the state (with eight seats or nine and seven!). This would allow a large DM that would allow a proper low threshold, at least compared to those too-large/too-small quarter-state-sized districts.
A district of only three seats in a city would have mean threshold (quota) would be fewer votes than a quota of one-sixth of a quarter of the state. and the district would make more sense on the ground than a quarter-state-sized and -shaped district.
That is what I figure anyway.
=======================================
Comments