Posts by Steve Todd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"Should Australians be outraged that the seat split didn’t follow the vote split?
"If you win the popular vote in a democratic election, shouldn’t you normally expect to win the election as well, whether you’re a leftie or a rightie? And if you tie the popular vote, shouldn;t you also tie the seat split?
"Is there any good, democratic reason not to expect this?"
In answer to the last question, "No, there's not, Rob."
As you have pointed out, the problem is single-member seats combined with the distribution of a given polity's population.
The answer for Australians is to adopt STV (NZ / Meek's method) in large multimember electorates, and to do away with above-the-line voting. (MMP does not meet the constitutional requirement that MPs be directly elected by the people.)
I won't expand on this suggestion too much now, but this is basically how it would work. Firstly, South Australia becomes one 11-seat electorate. Then, in descending order--
NSW (47) is divided into three 12-member and one 11-member electorates;
Victoria (37) 2 x 12 and 1 x 13;
Queensland (30) 3 x 10;
Western Australa (16) 1 x 16, followed by--
Tasmania 1 x 5 (constitutionally guaranteed even though entitled to only 4), and
the ACT and the Northern Territory both 1 x 2 = a total of 150.The organisation promoting this model, Electoral Reform Australia, give a number of advantages for it--
1. Minimum quota variation within and between states;
2. Proportionality - apart from Tasmania and the Territories, every electorate has a quota of less than 10% and more than 5%;
3. Increased choice of candidates;
4. Redistributions are eliminated, or made much easier to carry out;
5. MPs servicing electorates - sharing responsibilities; voters will much more likely be dealt with by an MP of the party for whom they voted.Although not guaranteeing it, this model would almost always ensure that the party winning the most votes would win the most seats. However, even with 12 large district magnitude electorates, slight upsets in votes/seats outcomes could occur on occasions, but would very likely even out across the country at any particular election.
Too many candidates facing the voters? There wouldn't need to be. Abolishing above-the-line voting, introducing fully optional preferential voting (as in STV elections in NZ), requiring candidates to stand for election in their own state (of usual residence), and increasing candidate deposits, would ensure the number of candidates on any ballot paper in any electorate would be perfectly manageable.
I would also add that by abolishing above-the-line voting and adopting Meek counting, all successful candidates would be elected with a quota of votes. This would greatly reduce the number of exhausted votes, which leads to the last one or two candidates (in current Senate elections) in each state being elected "without quota" (unavoidable with manual counting, even if computer-assisted).
This model would also overcome the problem of electoral stasis, being "a condition that can arise when an electorate cannot realistically change its political composition, regardless of the swing occurring in a general election." [Wikipedia - Issues affecting the single transferable vote.] (The main cause of electoral stasis in party-based, albeit candidate-centred, elections, is small 3- to 5- or 7-seat electorates.)
-
Polity: Australian election: Dust and Diesel, in reply to Paul Campbell,
I must continue to disagree, Paul. People need only rank-order as many of the candidates as they feel able to / know something about, in the order in which they wish to see them elected.
Click on this post at What if ... Dunedin? https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/why-not-the-stv-voting-sytem/ and scroll down to my reply to 'ro', dated September 22, 2010 at 7:54 am. Have a read, then click on the link to the table showing the example mentioned, of how a vote might be used in NZ STV elections.
As I know you already know, a little bit of each vote "sticks" (as you once put it) to any successful candidate you have ranked, until there is nothing left of your vote. The voter in this example has helped elect 6 candidates (say, out of 14), and will be very satisfied about that. The other successful candidates will have been elected by other voters - in PR/STV elections, there's enough room for everyone.
I would like to be able to vote online, too, but the vote-security problems seem to be insurmountable at this time - but that's another issue.
-
-
People can read about NZ STV here: http://www.prsa.org.au/2010-08-26_todd_stephen_stv_meek_new_zealand.html.
To view the 2004 Cargil Ward count paper, you may need to click on 'Edit document' to get the proper layout.
-
Polity: Australian election: Dust and Diesel, in reply to Paul Campbell,
<<< The big downside of STV voting (at least here in Dunedin) is having to rank 40 names 1-40[.] >>>
No you don't, Paul. A single '1' is all you need to mark against one candidate, for your vote to be valid. You can, of course, go further and just rank-order only those candidates who appeal to you (say, 1 to 8), to give your vote more chance of being effective in helping to elect one or more candidates.
NZ STV is greatly superior to Australian STV. For one thing, the final results do not "depend on the order in which votes are counted" - they're all counted, and re-counted, together, through as many iterations as are necessary to find the required number of winners. As you say, it takes just seconds, although you're also correct in saying it takes time to input the votes, but that is done as they're received - hardly a problem.
In my opinion, the people of Dunedin and Palmerston North have the very best electoral system in the world at their disposal - 14 and 15 councillors, respectively, elected citywide in both cases, using the very best version of STV (Meek's method) yet devised.
-
Hard News: Footpaths, not manifest destiny, in reply to Sacha,
the Auckland DHB takes in the North Shore and Henderson
"that's the Waitemata DHB"
Thanks, Sacha. You’re quite right.
The shading on the map at the MoH website is a bit confusing. I thought it was a bit odd, especially as I have previously compared the Massey-Henderson Local Board election result with the Waitemata DHB result, but in my agitated state – dead PC – and haste, I went with it.
The good thing is, my three-ward suggestion now more closely fits the three DHB areas. If the people of Auckland can elect 21 DHB members, 7 from each DHB area, then they can just as easily elect 7 city councillors from each of three wards that closely match those areas.
-
Hard News: Footpaths, not manifest destiny, in reply to linger,
Yes, that's the one. Thanks linger. Much appreciated. That response to Steve was drafted in Word yesterday. I tried to do a link (on another PC), but I couldn't get it to work. I'm just a basic PC user.
-
That's FPP thinking, Rich. Under (multiple-)FPP, candidates have to chase after any and every vote going, to ensure they get to be one of the five, or six, or seven, or whatever, successful candidates in the ward. Therefore, I suppose large (district magnitude) wards would favour well-funded candidates, especially in days gone by. But would that be true today, what with e-mail, internet / Facebook, video links, modern transportation, etc.? I'm not sure that it would be.
Fortunately, under STV, it's not an issue. As I pointed out up-thread, candidates in a 7-seat ward each need only 12.5% of the total of votes, to be elected. They will seek that 12.5% primarily from the voters in the area where they are based - as you imply, where they are (perhaps directly) known.
For example, in terms of actual campaigning, door-knocking and such like - do candidates really do that? Bill Nathan was the only candidate (national or local) who (has) ever knocked on my door, and that was in Island Bay in 1975! - a North Shore-based candidate will campaign primarily on the Shore. S/he will leave, say, Rodney or Waitakere voters to the Rodney- and Waitakere-based candidates.
Gotta go. Except for occasional visits to a cybercafe, I'm offline for two weeks, but I'll still respond to comments on my posts (if any) as and when I can.
-
Hard News: Footpaths, not manifest destiny, in reply to Steve Withers,
No, I’m in Wellington, Steve. If you nevertheless think I can help out with your campaign, just let me know.
You and I knew each other when you lived in Wellington in the mid-, late-90s. We were in the ERC with Phil Saxby.
For your information, in case you missed it at the time, I did a comparison between the outcomes of the 8-seat Henderson-Massey Local Board election (FPP) and the 7-seat Waitemata DHB election (STV) in 2013, which clearly showed, as you have done, just how appalling FPP is compared to STV. You can find it at Hard News: Local Interest (last response on page 4), which is on page 31 (of 146) at Active Discussions, All Discussions, Café, All Discussions.
-
Hard News: Footpaths, not manifest destiny, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Hello, Keir--
My computer died on Tuesday and is now on its way to Auckland to be fixed. I'm posting this from a cybercafe.
The “communities of interest” section of the Local Electoral Act (section 19T “Requirement for effective representation …”) is an FPP holdover from section 101L of the Local Government Act 1974 (as amended in 1989 – Local Government Amendment Act (No 2)).
The expression “communities of interest” has never been defined (as far as I can tell). Coming into existence as it did in 1989 it seems to me it was simply interpreted as meaning "(contiguous) suburbs” or “localities”, that sort of thing. Consequently, the ward system, introduced in 1986 to overcome distortions in
representation, which take account of communities of interest, merely ensures that separately-defined geographical areas, and by extension, the people within them, are represented.Basically, the concept of “communities of interest” is an FPP construct that becomes completely irrelevant with STV at-large (or in large wards). In political terms, especially with STV, the greatest indicator of “community of interest” is voter intention. As long as multiple-FPP is retained, the presence of wards will never correct distortions in the representation of the people themselves, by ensuring that as many electors as possible are represented by a councillor for whom they voted. Under my proposal, 87.5% of electors (12.5% ´ 7 = 87.5%) would be so represented.
I tried hard in 2000 to get officials to insert in the Local Electoral Act an STV-specific version of what is meant by the expression “communities of interest”, but I think that, having done the work necessary to provide the STV option, they felt their job was done.
Fortunately, the Local Government Commission is starting to understand that “communities of interest”, under STV, means far more than just geographical areas.
The Commission’s Determination of Representation Arrangements [for Dunedin City], dated 26 March 2010, stated, at paragraph 30, “An attribute of the STV system is that for the full benefits of proportionality in representation to be evident, a larger rather than a smaller number of members is required. The proposed Central Ward with its 11 members enables such proportionality and creates the potential for a diversity of members from different geographic communities and social groupings.”
Their Determination of Representation Arrangements [for Palmerston North City; 15 councillors elected city-wide by STV], dated 10 April 2013, stated, at paragraph 43—
* Palmerston North City comprises a single community of interest which covers the whole city. The city is geographically compact and relatively small. […].
* […].
* the city also comprises secondary communities of interest that cover the city as a whole, for example, communities based on students, low income, ethnicity and youth. A city-wide system would make it more likely for these communities to be represented than in a system which divides the city into wards.
Rather than having as its raison d’être the representation of communities of interest on a local council, STV emphasises and ensures the equality of representation of voters, i.e. *people*, regardless of where they live. I see no reason why the Auckland Council (or, if necessary, the Commission) could not apply the thinking reproduced above to each of the three wards set out in my first post. After all, the three district health boards in Auckland match that structure fairly closely – the variations being that the Auckland DHB takes in the North Shore and Henderson, and the Counties Manukau DHB extends down into Waikato – so the concept is not completely alien.
As I have opined elsewhere, STV works on diversity, not uniformity. A city or district elected at-large (or in large wards) by STV would produce outcomes that mirror the diversity, e.g. a mix of urban and rural voters, in that city or district (or ward) as a whole. Spurious geographical “community of interest” concerns would vanish – the community would be the entire city or district (or ward).
Two quick responses to your other points, then I’m done. The Commission’s 2010 conclusion that, “for Auckland, wards larger than those electing two members are undesirable” was, of course, in the context of FPP elections. If the Council adopted STV, that conclusion would become redundant.
The “Franklin/Rodney distortion embedded in the original Act” would be a total non-issue if my proposal (or even a lesser one, such as five 4-seat wards) were to be adopted.