Tag Archive for 'elections'

UK Elections Under Alternative Vote: An Analysis

Published on 12 August, 2010. 3 Comments

Both before and since the UK election in May, there has been a lot of talk of electoral reform and how it would affect British politics and the makeup of Parliament. As the Liberal Democrats have secured a referendum on bringing in Alternative Vote, I thought it would be a worthwhile exercise to develop a full simulation of how elections under Alternative Vote would work out in the UK, based on the results from May 6th.

While there are full methodological details below, the model I’ve developed is a full and thorough simulation of AV, modeling every round of transfers in all 650 constituencies, based on educated estimates of the transfer rates between different parties. I’ve run the model twice, under slightly different assumptions. In the first version of the model (which I’ll refer to as the simple model), I have assumed that the votes cast on the 6th of May would be the first preferences of voters in an AV election. This is a nice simple assumption to make, but it doesn’t take into account that people vote tactically in first-past-the-post (FPTP), and often won’t actually vote for their preferred candidate if they don’t think he has a chance of winning. AV would remove the incentive to do so, so you would expect that first preferences would be different than votes cast under FPTP.

In an attempt to account for this, I’ve also run a second version of the model (which I’ll call the adjusted model). One of the notable features of the recent election is how different the actual result was from what people were saying to pollsters right up to the day before the vote. It’s a reasonable hypothesis to say that the polls were reporting the actual preferences of voters, and that the shift on election day was the result of people voting tactically due to FPTP. As such, for the adjusted model, I’ve applied a proportionate adjustment to the first preference votes in each constituency, to make the national tallies add up to what the pre-election polls were predicting. It’s hoped that this adjusted model can better capture the true first preferences of voters than the simple one.

Anyway, on to the results. After running through the model for each set of assumptions, here are the predicted seat totals for the simple AV model (AV-Smp), the adjusted AV model (AV-Adj) and the actual election results for reference (FPTP):

FPTP AV-Smp AV-Adj
Con 307 285 (-22) 269 (-38)
Lab 258 245 (-13) 207 (-51)
LD 57 94 (+37) 148 (+91)
DUP 8 8 8
SNP 6 6 6
SF 5 5 5
PC 3 2 (-1) 2 (-1)
SDLP 3 3 3
Green 1 0 (-1) 0 (-1)
Alliance 1 1 1
Hermon 1 1 1

What’s immediately obvious is that, as would be expected, the Lib Dems gain the most benefit from the new system, as they’re the party most disadvantaged by FPTP. What might be surprising, though, is quite how much they benefit from it when you look at the adjusted model. It’s often pointed out that AV is not a truly proportional electoral system, which is quite true. However, my model suggests that it would be far more proportional than the current system, with the Lib Dems winning 23% of the seats on 27% of the vote, rather than the current 9% of the seats on 24% of the vote.

The model also suggests that coalition government could well become the norm under AV, as under both simulations a government would need any two of the big three parties to form a majority. Nonetheless, this simulation is being applied to an outlier election in the first place, and it’s still entirely possible for parties to gain an overall majority under alternative vote.

It’s worth pointing out that this isn’t developed as a predictive model of elections under AV; it’s a simulation of what might have been on May 6th, not what will happen in future elections. I might amend it in future to analyze likely results in the next election (if it’s held under AV), but the output will be unlikely to closely reflect what you see above, due to changes in political dynamics between elections. The Lib Dems, for example, are likely to lose out on transfers from Labour and independents after going into government with the Tories, but will be more transfer-friendly to Tory voters.

Continue reading for full methodological details >>

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

The Speech Kenny Should Have Given

Published on 16 June, 2010. 0 Comments
The Speech Kenny Should Have GivenThese past few days have seen the downfall of Enda Kenny as leader of Fine Gael. Following the sacking of Richard Bruton, his leadership became untenable, following the resignations of nine further members of his front bench, his leadership became impossible. What is most unfortunate about the whole affair is that, after four decades of political life, Kenny’s career should come to an end with him trying so desperately to cling to power, damaging both himself and the party in the process.
Yesterday afternoon he had an opportunity to change that. After witnessing the resignations of most of his front bench, he was due to speak for a vote of no confidence in the Taoiseach, a situation where he, not Brian Cowen, would paradoxically be at the center of the Dáil’s attention. I had hoped that he may have taken that opportunity to make a speech that would be worth capping a political career with, but unfortunately he gave the same speech in the same way he always does, a speech that reminded many why they no longer wished for him to be their leader.
The following is, in a brief form, my humble opinion of what he should have said, of the kind of speech he should have given.
“This is not a time for business as usual, and it is not a time for politics as usual. If we are to recover as a nation, if we are to leave our children the Ireland they deserve, then we cannot keep along the same political path that is so well trodden in this country. We need a class of politicians for whom the notion of putting the interests of the country above their own is not simply rhetoric. We need a class of politicians who can pass that most difficult test of leadership, stepping aside.
This morning you and I were in very similar situations, Taoiseach. We are both leaders, and we both serve those who elect us. Over these past 24 hours I have come to accept that those who elect me, the Fine Gael parliamentary party, no longer have confidence in me, and that the only honorable thing to do is to step down as leader of the party. It has been the most difficult decision of my life as a public servant, but one which has become inescapable to me if I wish to truly place the interests of my political party and the Irish public ahead of my own.
Over the course of weeks, months, and indeed years, you too must have come to the realization that the people of this nation, the people you serve, no longer have confidence in you as their leader. Beneath all the bravado, beneath all the rhetoric, deep within you you have come to the same inescapable conclusion that I have over these past few days. It is not an easy realization to come to, Taoiseach, it is that one fear that shakes a politician to his very core, and it is that one truth that is hardest for us to accept.
Tomorrow I will be stepping aside, accepting my fate and doing what is best for the country. I ask you to do the same, to resign as Taoiseach, call a general election and allow the Irish people their right to choose a new government that truly represents them. It would not be an easy decision, it would require a courage, an honesty and a decency that have been lacking in politics for far too long. It would be a selfless decision that is worthy of a true statesman, a true democrat, and a true public servant. It would be a decision that could help signal a return to those highest of standards in political life that we so often talk about but so rarely act upon. Most importantly, it is a decision which you know in your heart to be right.
Put simply, Brian, it’s time for us to go.”

These past few days have seen the downfall of Enda Kenny as leader of Fine Gael. Following the sacking of Richard Bruton, his leadership became untenable, following the resignations of nine further members of his front bench, his leadership became impossible. What is most unfortunate about the whole affair is that, after four decades of political life, Kenny’s career should come to an end with him trying so desperately to cling to power, damaging both himself and the party in the process.

Yesterday afternoon he had an opportunity to change that. After witnessing the resignations of most of his front bench, he was due to speak for a vote of no confidence in the Taoiseach, a situation where he, not Brian Cowen, would paradoxically be at the center of the Dáil’s attention. I had hoped that he may have taken that opportunity to make a speech that would be worth capping a political career with, but unfortunately he gave the same speech in the same way he always does, a speech that reminded many why they no longer wished for him to be their leader.

The following is, in a brief form, my humble opinion of what he should have said, of the kind of speech he should have given.

“This is not a time for business as usual, and it is not a time for politics as usual. If we are to recover as a nation, if we are to leave our children the Ireland they deserve, then we cannot keep along the same political path that is so well trodden in this country. We need a class of politicians for whom the notion of putting the interests of the country above their own is not simply rhetoric. We need a class of politicians who can pass that most difficult test of leadership, stepping aside.

This morning you and I were in very similar situations, Taoiseach. We are both leaders, and we both serve those who elect us. Over these past 24 hours I have come to accept that those who elect me, the Fine Gael parliamentary party, no longer have confidence in me, and that the only honorable thing to do is to step down as leader of the party. It has been the most difficult decision of my life as a public servant, but one which has become inescapable to me if I wish to truly place the interests of my political party and the Irish public ahead of my own.

Over the course of weeks, months, and indeed years, you too must have come to the realization that the people of this nation, the people you serve, no longer have confidence in you as their leader. Beneath all the bravado, beneath all the rhetoric, deep within you you have come to the same inescapable conclusion that I have over these past few days. It is not an easy realization to come to, Taoiseach, it is that one fear that shakes a politician to his very core, and it is that one truth that is hardest for us to accept.

Tomorrow I will be stepping aside, accepting my fate and doing what is best for the country. I ask you to do the same, to resign as Taoiseach, call a general election and allow the Irish people their right to choose a new government that truly represents them. It would not be an easy decision, it would require a courage, an honesty and a decency that have been lacking in politics for far too long. It would be a selfless decision that is worthy of a true statesman, a true democrat, and a true public servant. It would be a decision that could help signal a return to those highest of standards in political life that we so often talk about but so rarely act upon. Most importantly, it is a decision which you know in your heart to be right.

Put simply, Brian, it’s time for us to go.”

Tags: , , , , .

Some Hung Parliament Hypotheses

Published on 8 May, 2010. 5 Comments

Hypothesis 1: Any meaningful electoral reform in the UK would effectively prevent the Tories from ever having an overall majority again. Because of this, the Tories, whatever overtures they may be giving Clegg at the moment, can never credibly commit to real electoral reform.

The Tories have been a minority party in UK politics for three-quarters of a century. That may seem odd, given that they’ve come out with an overall majority of MPs in nine elections since, but you have to go all the way back to Stanley Baldwin in 1931 to find the last leader of the Conservatives to lead the party to get over 50% of the votes in a general election*. Even in Margaret Thatcher’s 1983 landslide, the Tories only managed 44% of the vote, but won a large majority of seats as the opposition vote was split between Labour and the SDP/Liberal Alliance. Winston Churchill, now considered one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time, never even actually won an election on the popular vote. During his three elections as Tory leader, he managed to win a majority of MPs in just one, and even then with a slightly lower percentage of the national vote than Labour.

The Conservatives know all this, and David Cameron, a former student of politics, knows it as well as an of them. The history of the Conservative party since universal suffrage has been of a declining popular vote, mitigated only by the gradual split of the center-left between Labour and the Liberals. With the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system, this had been good enough to secure frequent parliamentary majorities for the Tories, but under any even remotely proportional system their hopes for an overall majority would almost completely disappear. Their choices would either be eternal opposition, or a shift to the left for occasional coalition governments. Neither are particularly appealing to die-hard Tories.

Continue reading >>

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

On The Ordering Of Ballot Papers

Published on 27 March, 2010. 0 Comments

Even in the already nerdy field of political theory, the discussion of the ordering of candidates on ballot papers is quite an obscure one. It is, however, one of the few areas of politics where reform would be simple, uncontroversial, and provide relatively clear benefits to the democratic process. The problem is a pretty simple one; because our ballots are ordered alphabetically by surname, a candidate with a surname like Aaronson will likely be placed at the top of the list, whereas a candidate whose surname is Zykowski will be placed at or near the bottom. People have a slightly higher tendency to vote for candidates placed further up the list, so Aaronson is more likely to get elected purely because of his name.

There are a few different systems used or proposed to combat this. The first, and probably the simplest, is to just randomize the positioning of candidates on the ballot paper. From one election to the next, this does prevent a candidate like Aaronson appearing on top of the ballot every time. However, in any given election there is still one candidate who appears on the top of every ballot, and hence receives an advantage from that position. Likewise, one candidate will be unfortunate enough to be on the bottom of every ballot, and will be similarly disadvantaged.

Continue reading >>

Tags: , , , , , , , .

Just How Proportional Is Proportional Representation?

Published on 11 December, 2009. 0 Comments

This is the first in a series of posts I’ll be writing on electoral reform, based on a submission I sent into the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution recently. You can find the full series by clicking here.

When Proportional Representation by Single Transferrable Vote (PR-STV) was first established as Ireland’s electoral system in 1921, it was presented as an alternative to the first-past-the-post  (FPTP) system employed in the UK. The main reason that the new system was adopted was that, as its name suggests, it is more proportional than FPTP, in that the number of seats each party wins should be roughly proportional to the share of the vote they receive. While PR-STV has certainly improved from FPTP in that regard (not a difficult feat, as FPTP is particularly disproportional), it is worth noting that Ireland was the first country to implement PR-STV in national elections, and hence there was little evidence at the time it was chosen with which to analyze its proportionality. With almost a century of elections now held under the system, however, there’s now a considerable amount of data with which to examine whether PR-STV fulfils its purpose of proportionality.

The above graph shows the correlation between the proportion of national first-preference votes (FPV) a party receives and the number of seats it wins as a result. It is based on the results of every party in every general election held since 1981 (the first 166-member Dáil), and each point on the graph represents a party’s result in one of those elections. The dashed red line represents a perfectly proportional allocation of seats according to national vote.

What’s immediately visible about our current PR-STV system from the graph is how it benefits the larger parties compared to a perfectly proportional system. In only one outlying case did either of the state’s two large parties win less seats than would have been allocated proportionally (FG, 2002), and in every other election they received a bonus from the PR-STV system. For Fianna Fail in the 1997 and 2002 elections, this bonus gave them an extra 12 and 13 TDs, respectively, over their representation in a purely proportional system.

The PR-STV system, as currently implemented, likewise disadvantages smaller parties.  The second graph is enlarged to only show the results of parties that received less than 8% of the national FPV. It can be seen that in the considerable majority of cases, parties in this bracket win less seats than a proportional system would allocate them. Furthermore, there are often large variations in the number of seats won on a similar proportion of the vote. For example, between the 1992 and 1997 elections, the Progressive Democrats went from 10 to 4 seats, despite receiving exactly the same proportion of the national vote on both occasions (4.7%). In a perfectly proportional system, they would have won 8 seats in each election.

Tags: , , , , , , , , .

The Healy-Rae Criterion and Reforming Irish Politics

Published on 18 June, 2009. 8 Comments
The Healy-Rae Criterion and Reforming Irish Politics
kdsvadjhf
Hence, I propose a simple criterion to be applied to all proposals for reform of the Irish political system:
If Jackie Healy-Rae still gets elected to the national legislature under the new system, the reform hasn’t worked.
I don’t mean this to be an attack on Mr Healy-Rae himself, but rather an observation of the way in which his repeated election is symptomatic of wider problems across the political system.
Jackie Healy-Rae, by his own admission, is a Kerry politician, not a national politician. He works for the people of Kerry, makes sure Kerry is pothole-free, fights for funding for Kerry hospitals, amenities and infrastructure, and sorts anything and everything out for his Kerry electorate. Many would agree that this is hard work, and judging by his continued reelection, a lot of his constituents think that he’s doing it well. The problem is that it’s not his job.

Faith in the political system in Ireland is reaching an all-time low. With a government that thinks “legal obstacles” are an excuse for every occasion, and an opposition that believes the best way to deal with a massive budget deficit is to borrow more money, some people have started to call for a complete overhaul in how our leaders are elected. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if these voices grow both in number and in volume over the coming months, as the gravity of our country’s situation begins to sink in. As this debate comes to the fore, I propose that everyone keeps in mind a simple criterion to be applied to all proposals for reform of the Irish political system:

The Healy-Rae Criterion

If Jackie Healy-Rae still gets elected to the national legislature under the new system, the reform hasn’t worked.

Continue reading >>

Tags: , , .