<div dir="ltr">Here you go - Byron's simulation:<div><br></div><div><a href="http://election-modelling.ca/LPR_no_topup/index.html">http://election-modelling.ca/LPR_no_topup/index.html</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Anita</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Evan Rosamond <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:erosamond@worldline.ca" target="_blank">erosamond@worldline.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="m_-2052555684721247420moz-cite-prefix">Hi Eleanor,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I hope this answers as many questions as it raises.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Evan</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/3/2017 3:35 PM, Eleanor Grant wrote:<br>
</div></div></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div dir="auto">Hi Fair Voters,
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Web site AllVotesCount.ca</div>
<div dir="auto">Twitter @AllVotesCount , @SteveDyck .</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Cath and Salim, and Anita, do you think I've
explained it accurately? </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">FYI,</div>
<div dir="auto">Eleanor</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-2052555684721247420mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class=""><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
Post a message: <a class="m_-2052555684721247420moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:fvc-wat-disc@listserv.thinkers.org" target="_blank">fvc-wat-disc@listserv.<wbr>thinkers.org</a>
Unsubscribe: <a class="m_-2052555684721247420moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org" target="_blank">http://listserv.thinkers.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_<wbr>listserv.thinkers.org</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list<br>
Post a message: <a href="mailto:fvc-wat-disc@listserv.thinkers.org">fvc-wat-disc@listserv.<wbr>thinkers.org</a><br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.thinkers.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_<wbr>listserv.thinkers.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>