[fvc-wat-disc] "Local Proportional Representation"

[Anita Nickerson]

Here you go - Byron's simulation:

http://election-modelling.ca/LPR_no_topup/index.html

Anita

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Evan Rosamond <erosamond at worldline.ca>
wrote:

> Hi Eleanor,
>
> Yes, your concerns are accurately expressed. The AllVotesCount.ca
> explanation seems a bit incomplete. So I got curious and tried to create a
> test case based on the 5 ridings (Guelph-Oakville etc.) in the web site's
> examples and the 2015 election results. To help me guess at 2nd and
> following preferences, I assumed that most voters would continue to vote
> for the same party until all the candidates were gone, and that voters
> would stop assigning preference numbers at some time before voting for all
> candidates.
>
> In these 5 ridings, 3 Libs and 2 Cons were elected with FPTP. Using LPR,
> the same 5 people would probably have been elected. The best proportional
> result would have been 2 Libs, 2 Cons and 1 NDP. The only weird happening
> was that Lisa Raitt would be the first candidate elected, even though she
> never achieved the quota. All the other Milton candidates were eliminated
> early, so Raitt was in. That's because Milton had fewer votes cast than the
> other ridings.
>
> So it seems like the results under LPR aren't going to much more
> proportional than FPTP. Perhaps Byron Weber Becker can calculate a
> Gallagher Index for us.
>
> Still curious, I tried the same experiment with the 5 ridings in Waterloo
> Region. This produced some bizarre results. With FPTP in 2015, 4 Libs and 1
> Con were elected. The best proportional result would be 2 Libs, 2 Cons and
> 1 NDP. The LPR system generated those ideal numbers! But the way it did
> that is going to cause a lot of howling from candidates. Bardish Chagger
> got the most 1st preference votes in the 5 ridings, but was not elected in
> my LPR model. That's because the lower preferences of defeated candidates
> (NDP and Green) pushed Diane Freeman over the quota. So Chagger loses
> because there were still 2 other Libs in the race from whom she couldn't
> get any lower preference votes, whereas with Freeman, all the other NDP and
> Green candidates had been defeated. This kind of thing happens, and it's
> why STV is sort of proportional sometimes, but I bet the candidates won't
> like it.
>
> According to the ERRE report, there are 2 other ways to count ranked
> ballots. One is to assign points to the candidates based on the preference
> number assigned. You get the number of points by subtracting the preference
> number from the number of candidates. E.g. with 26 candidates, a voter who
> writes 1,2,3 on his ballot will be giving his candidates 25,24,23 points.
> then the computer adds up all the points to get a total for each candidate.
> This system has the advantage of counting all the preferences. Candidates
> are not eliminated. There is only 1 totalling of points, instead of many
> rounds of counting. I'm not sure how this will work with LPR, it might make
> the result the same as FPTP, but I think somebody should try to figure this
> out.
>
> Another thing that might upset candidates is that they will have to rely
> on votes coming from the other ridings in their cluster.  They are actually
> being elected/defeated by all the voters in the 5 ridings, but they will be
> MP of only one if they win.
>
> I hope this answers as many questions as it raises.
>
> Evan
>
>
>
>
> On 3/3/2017 3:35 PM, Eleanor Grant wrote:
>
> Hi Fair Voters,
>
> Cathy and Salim and I went to the meeting in Guelph Thurs evening about
> the new initiative called Local PR.  Their Liberal MP Lloyd Longford is
> prepared to push it forward if they get enough signatures.  They'll be at
> Guelph market Sat March 11.
>
> The speaker, Steve Dyck, said that Local PR has the support of Nathan
> Cullen, Eliz May, and Jean-Pierre Kingsley - and even our Anita N.  It has
> the advantage that it can be implemented more quickly than other PR systems
> because it would not require new riding boundaries or more MPs.  In this
> way we could call Trudeau's bluff, that there's "no consensus on a system"
> and "too hasty" to do by 2019.
>
> Web site AllVotesCount.ca
> Twitter @AllVotesCount , @SteveDyck .
>
> The system was not quite explained to my satisfaction.  I couldn't see how
> it's really different from STV - you just have *clusters* of ridings
> instead of larger ridings.  And every riding has to have one MP - so I
> couldn't see where it would actually work out be fair to the small
> parties.  Depending on the number of ridings in the cluster, the
> *threshold* at which a smaller party would get a seat would vary: the
> bigger the cluster, the lower the threshold.
>
> It appears to be less than true PR, but perhaps more palatable to those
> who are hesitant about change, and definitely an improvement over FPTP.
>
> Cath and Salim, and Anita, do you think I've explained it accurately?
>
> If Guelph succeeds in spear-heading Local PR, there'll be a push to get
> support across Canada in a very short time frame - like 2 months.
>
> FYI,
> 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.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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20170303/40f49092/attachment-0002.htm>