[fvc-wat-disc] Total ballots ...'wasted' votes

Wed Mar 1 00:46:51 EST 2017

There's no magic number. Lots of PR countries using Party List systems do
have thresholds - 3%, 4%, 5% is common.

The idea of setting a threshold is a party-based system idea that would
apply to MMP or Rural-Urban PR (systems with compensatory seats). A party
must get X percent of the vote (usually provincially) to qualify for a *list
*seat (which might be regional or provincial).

*But realistically, **natural **thresholds apply to party-based systems
like **MMP *making imposing thresholds close to irrelevant*.*

In an 8 seat region MMP model, it would take* 8-11% of the party vote *in a
region to qualify for a list seat.

Now yes, you could apply a 5% threshold, too, and say "Well, if you got 11%
of the vote in Region A but you didn't get 5% overall provincially, too
bad, you don't get that list seat." Many people would be in favour of that.

The Rural-Urban model which was designed to deal with rural MP concerns
about riding sizes also has much bigger regions than MMP for compensatory
seats, meaning that the natural threshold to win a list seat is a lot lower
than with MMP. In some areas of the country like Ontario, in a 20 seat
region a party *could *get a seat with RU-PR with 3% of the vote, not
8-11%.

That is the only system where - if applied as FVC designed it - anybody
would really need to set a 5% threshold if they wanted to try to keep a
smaller party out of one of the few regional seats.

*Systems like STV don't have this party threshold idea at all because
they're designed around candidates, not parties. *

So while it might take 16.7% (or sometimes less) to get one of those seats
in a 5 seat STV riding - sounds high compared to other systems - a small
party with say only 3% of the national vote who has a few very popular
local candidates can pick up a few seats.

Thus you see in Ireland with a very moderate STV system the People Against
Profit Party with a few seats in the legislature but only less than 2% of
the national vote. They had a few candidates who could garner 16% support
in a multi-member riding. If they are re-elected a lot of that is based not
so much on their party (a party with 2% of the vote doesn't have much of a
national TV campaign :) but on how popular they are as individuals in the
constituency.

But I guess overall what I'm saying is that for most of what's on the table
for Canada, this conversation about "*Where should the threshold to get a
seat be? 3% 5% 15% No threshold*?" is entirely *ACADEMIC *because of
natural thresholds in the designs and what our politicians are willing to
give us.

Even the most moderate PR system you can imagine - the Liberals call that
RADICAL.

Anita

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> John Cooper wrote:
>
> > I'm just asking why 5% is the 'magic' number? How is that
> > percentage justified?
>
> Different voting system proposals have different thresholds for the
> percentage of votes needed before seats are gained. I've seen anything
> from 3% to 15% proposed for the threshold.
>
> But I think that if there are 338 seats in Parliament, then 1/338th of
> the vote should be sufficient to elect a member to Parliament. That's
> about 0.3%, or 52,402 votes based on the results of the 2015 election.
>
> Now someone is going to think that this will elect fringe parties, and
> have the tail wag the dog. But when 52,402 voters all agree that a
> particular view should be represented in Parliament, that should
> result in at least one seat. In comparison, Marwan Tabbara got only
> 20,215 votes, and *he* got a seat...
>
> And for one seat in Parliament to have any tail-wagging-the-dog
> influence, there have to be at least 168 other members who agree, and
> vote the same way. So, a single seat cannot, by itself, pass any
> legislation without cooperation from other parties.
>
> - --Bob.
>
>
> On 2017-02-28 10:59 PM, John Cooper wrote:
> > The problem with the concept of a 'wasted vote' is this: unless
> > everyone votes for one candidate, some people are going to think
> > that their vote is 'wasted', even if that is just one person.
> > That's not about the method of voting, it's about the perception
> > that some people have.
> >
> > I have never wasted my vote because I vote for the person I want to
> > be elected, not for someone who was necessarily going to win or
> > because other voters told me that I was wasn't my vote because my
> > candidate was not going to win.
> >
> > I don't like the idea that a party receives less than 50% of the
> > vote and gets 50% or more of the seats. Yes, I do believe we must
> > change from FPTP. I have believed that before Fair Vote came
> > along.
> >
> > Another dilemma in determining what system to use: what is the
> > threshold of number of votes or percentage of votes that a party
> > receives determines the number of seats that they are allocated if
> > the party does not elect a candidate in any constituency?
> >
> > Why is 5% a magic number? How valid is that? Why not 10 or 20 or
> > 30% Why not the number of votes that are assigned to one
> > constituency in that province or territory? (The number of votes is
> > less in lower populated provinces and territories.) If a party
> > received that number totally across Canada (or in that province or
> > territory), one seat is assigned. For each subsequent multiple of
> > 'the number', one seat is assigned.
> >
> > Is it fair that PEI with 145,000 people has 4 seats based on the
> > Electoral Quotient while the 4 largest populated provinces require
> > more than 100,000 per seat? That allows PEI  to have more
> > representation in Parliament so the bigger provinces can't have all
> > of the power.
> >
> > I'm NOT proposing this; I'm just asking why 5% is the 'magic'
> > number? How is that percentage justified?
> >
> > One final comment: when the NDP won Ontario in 1990, Bob Rae said
> > that he and the caucus had to represent everyone, not just the
> > views of the NDP - partly because the NDP was elected with less
> > than 40% of the votes. At one point he commented that it was
> > 'unfair' that the NDP received a majority of seats with less than a
> > majority of the votes. Many supporters were not happy with these
> > comment because it sounded like he was not going to present
> > legislation that the party had proposed in the election. Now that
> > he's a Liberal, what does he think about FPTP?
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: fvc-wat-disc
> > [mailto:fvc-wat-disc-bounces at listserv.thinkers.org] On Behalf Of
> > STUART CHANDLER Sent: February-28-17 4:17 PM To: Bob Jonkman; FVC
> > Waterloo Region Discussion Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Total
> > ballots ...'wasted' votes
> >
> > Thanks Bob. I hope John finds that helpful. I suspect he is correct
> > that more Canadians are unhappy with FPTP than those who really
> > like it. But most are not aware of how PR could work, or how much
> > it would improve our Parliament and the decision making there. As
> > far as how it might work, a simple explanation that comes to mind
> > is this: take Kitchener Centre, and add to it the three closest
> > ridings. That would allow for a riding where 4 Candidates (the top
> > 4 with the most votes) could each win a seat without having to
> > increase the seats in Parliament. Now suppose that there were 8
> > candidates running in that riding in a hypothetical election. And
> > let's imagine that the top 4 just happened to be 1 Liberal 1
> > Conservative, 1 NDP, and 1 Green.  Then, at least those who voted
> > for each of those 4 parties would feel as though their vote had
> > counted/ mattered and that they would have representation in
> > Parliament, so their voice could be heard.
> >
> > Cheers. Stu.
> >
> >
> > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
> > Original Message From: Bob Jonkman Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017
> > 2:53 PM‎ To: FVC Waterloo Region Discussion Reply To: FVC Waterloo
> > Region Discussion Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Total ballots
> > ...'wasted' votes
> >
> > John Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> The fact is that only one candidate can be elected.
> >
> > That's the case under our current FPTP system.
> >
> >> Maybe our way of selecting our political leaders by votes is all
> >>  wrong.
> >
> > Yes!
> >
> >> Is there another way?
> >
> > Almost all the proposed systems for Proportional Representation are
> > an improvement. The main exception is block voting (choosing only a
> > party, not a candidate), and that's not being proposed by anyone
> > for a Canadian voting system.
> >
> > --Bob.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2017-02-27 11:48 PM, John Cooper wrote:
> >> Hi Stu
> >
> >
> >
> >> So based on your argument, all votes must elect the winner or
> >> none are of any value.
> >
> >> The fact is that only one candidate can be elected.
> >
> >> Why bother to have more than one political party and more than
> >> one candidate?
> >
> >> Or as George Washington proposed: no political parties.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Maybe the “make every vote count" phrase is the ‘wrong choice’?
> >
> >
> >
> >> Maybe our way of selecting our political leaders by votes is all
> >>  wrong.
> >
> >> Is there another way?
> >
> >> Is it possible to have consensus when thousands of people are
> >> selecting a representative?
> >
> >
> >
> >> Based on voter intentions and the results in the last election,
> >> more people are opposed to ‘first past the post’ than those who
> >> support it.
> >
> >> Trudeau and the Liberals have chosen to ignore this for their own
> >>  purposes.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I'm from the older generation too.
> >
> >> There are many of ‘our generation’ who do not vote because they
> >> never did or they have become too cynical.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: fvc-wat-disc
> >> [mailto:fvc-wat-disc-bounces at listserv.thinkers.org] On Behalf Of
> >>  STUART CHANDLER Sent: February-27-17 10:46 PM To: John Cooper;
> >> 'FVC Waterloo Region Discussion' Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc]
> >> Total ballots ...
> >
> >
> >
> >> Hi John.
> >
> >> I'm not sure about others, but I choose to use the term "wasted
> >> vote" for a deliberate purpose. I use it for any potential
> >> shocking effect it might have on the reader/listener‎, and I
> >> always follow it with brackets stating something like: () to
> >> explain what I mean by "wasted vote".
> >
> >> I've heard others advance the theory that no vote is wasted, but
> >> I find I'm not interested ‎in pursuing that theory as I worry
> >> that the opponents of PR will simply use it as a way to justify
> >> their satisfaction with the status quo. I would not want to feed
> >> their addiction to FPTP.
> >
> >
> >
> >> My vote in 2015 was one of the more than 9 Million "wasted
> >> votes"‎, so I am taking it personally that the person I chose to
> >> support was beaten by someone I was opposed to, so I am
> >> effectively without representation in Parliament (at least from
> >> my riding - and it appears from most other ridings as well,
> >> particularly since all the Liberal MPs have betrayed those of us
> >> who were voting for the concept of electoral reform).
> >
> >
> >
> >> I'm from the older generation, many of whom will continue to
> >> exercise the civic responsibility to vote, even if my choice
> >> doesn't win. But many others are discouraged from voting because
> >> they do not expect their vote will actually affect the outcome.
> >> Consequently, I believe we need to stick with identifying such
> >> votes as wasted, in order to advance our cause "to make every
> >> vote count". ‎(Otherwise that phrase is pointless.)
> >
> >
> >
> >> Sincerely.
> >
> >> Stu Chandler.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
> >
> >
> >> From: John Cooper
> >
> >> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 5:55 PM
> >
> >> To: 'FVC Waterloo Region Discussion'
> >
> >> Reply To: FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
> >
> >> Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Total ballots ...
> >
> >
> >
> >> in a democracy (whatever that is) , no vote is a ‘wasted vote’.
> >> Everyone who meets the criteria has a right – and a duty as a
> >> citizen - to vote.
> >
> >> It’s only wasted if you did not vote according to your principles
> >> and values for the person or party who shares those with you or
> >> you did not vote at all.
> >
> >
> >
> >> There’s a difference between a ‘wasted vote’ and a ‘principled
> >> vote’.
> >
> >
> >
> >> The real issue is whether the person elected receives more than a
> >>  simple plurality of votes over the other candidates.
> >
> >> Is that democracy?
> >
> >
> >
> >> The people who voted for the ‘winners’ and are not happy with the
> >>  decisions of those ‘winners’ after they gained power – those are
> >>  wasted votes
> >
> >> because you did not vote according to your principles. You got
> >> ‘sucked in’ by the promises of liars.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: fvc-wat-disc
> >> [mailto:fvc-wat-disc-bounces at listserv.thinkers.org] On Behalf Of
> >>  Eleanor Grant Sent: February-27-17 5:08 PM To:
> >> fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org Subject: [fvc-wat-disc] Total
> >>  ballots ...
> >
> >
> >
> >> Hi Fair Voters -
> >
> >
> >
> >> These are the numbers that Jenn found for me on Feb 9.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Results of 2015 Oct 19 election:
> >
> >> 35,749,600 - Population of Canada
> >
> >> 25,638,379 - Eligible Voters
> >
> >> 17,559,353 - Ballots cast
> >
> >> 8,214,532 - Effective votes
> >
> >> 9,106,926 - "Wasted" votes, elected no one.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I noticed the numbers don't add up;
> >
> >> 237,895 votes are unaccounted for.
> >
> >> Would there be that many spoiled ballots across the country?
> >
> >
> >
> >> But even if all of these were added to the effective votes,
> >> they're still far outnumbered by the votes which elected no one.
> >> That's scandalous.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Eleanor
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> _______________________________________________ This is the
> >> fvc-wat-disc mailing list Post a message:
> >> fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org Unsubscribe:
> >> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.th
> >>
> >>
> inkers.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ This is the
> > fvc-wat-disc mailing list Post a message:
> > fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org Unsubscribe:
> > http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_
> listserv.thinkers.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ This is the
> > fvc-wat-disc mailing list Post a message:
> > fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org Unsubscribe:
> > http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_
> listserv.thinkers.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ This is the
> > fvc-wat-disc mailing list Post a message:
> > fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org Unsubscribe:
> > http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_
> listserv.thinkers.org
> >
> >
> - --
>
>
> - --
> Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com>          Phone: +1-519-635-9413
> SOBAC Microcomputer Services             http://sobac.com/sobac/
> Software   ---   Office & Business Automation   ---   Consulting
> GnuPG Fngrprnt:04F7 742B 8F54 C40A E115 26C2 B912 89B0 D2CC E5EA
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
> Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAli2V6EACgkQuRKJsNLM5eq58gCgw21IB65JWfX82S0H6m17C7KK
> Ws4An3JpAviFrKpyVN5JdOlTX6JQcDxe
> =W454
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_
> listserv.thinkers.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20170301/d6ed8d52/attachment-0002.htm>