NB Election Results and Why FPTP is Outdated

[ReeferMadness]

You raise a good point, but I do think that people still vote based on geography, especially rural vs. cities, and province to province. The people of Quebec vote together, sometimes in a bloc.

What does that even mean?? Do you think that all rural people vote the same way? There are NDP supporters in rural Saskatchewan, Liberal supporters in Calgary and Conservative supporters in Victoria. Where numbers warrant, they all deserve representation.

When my supposed representative goes to Ottawa and everything he says or does is counter to my core values, nobody can possibly claim that I am somehow represented.

[ReeferMadness]

Let's say I formed the "JBG Party" whose motto and platform is "everybody must get stoned." (apologies to Bob Dylan) If I can get 3$ of the vote of people out on a lark or looking for fun on Election Day should I perhaps get the role of a kingmaker?

Whoa, that sounds crazy. Almost as crazy as giving a party that got 37% of the vote 60% of the seats and 100% of the power.

[jbg]

Tying this back into the OP, in the New Brunswick election 52% of voters cast ballots for losing candidates. Think about that.

Whoa, that sounds crazy. Almost as crazy as giving a party that got 37% of the vote 60% of the seats and 100% of the power.

Actually that happened in the U.S. in 1968, 1992, 1996 (I think), and 2000. And I think in 1980. It's not uncommon.

[Mighty AC]

Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about . Proportional Voting Systems.

Yep, my bad. I was thinking Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), in which voters also rank candidates but still only elect one person per riding. STV just combines that idea with multi-member super ridings.

If you feel that regional representation is important then STV isn't a good fit for Canada. It would work well in urban areas because 10 ridings can easily be joined together to form a super riding, yet still exist in one region. However, outside of larger cities, super ridings would have to cover such a massive area that all regional representation would be lost.

For that reason I think MMP would be a better fit.

[Michael Hardner]

What does that even mean?? Do you think that all rural people vote the same way?

Here's the last election I voted in:

There are NDP supporters in rural Saskatchewan, Liberal supporters in Calgary and Conservative supporters in Victoria. Where numbers warrant, they all deserve representation.

A federal conservative voter in Toronto is represented by conservatives in Ottawa, and his/her local Liberal MP.

When my supposed representative goes to Ottawa and everything he says or does is counter to my core values, nobody can possibly claim that I am somehow represented.

I don't see how you can represent everyone's "core values" in a riding unless you send all people who got votes to Ottawa. If you just send multiple MPs from every locality then it's meaningless.

Somebody has to lose. It's not grade 3 soccer.

[Mighty AC]

Representative democracy means that you elect representatives, not that the percentage of representatives matches the vote percentage exactly.

Agreed, but if the point is to represent the wishes of the population it just makes sense to install the parliament we actually voted for, not a distorted version.

But it's not mandated. You could call a system that doesn't mirror gender and race of the electorate as unfair too.

Though I personally would like to see more women and minorities in parliament, I wouldn't want it to be mandated. I would prefer that voters who are unhappy about the demographics of a slate of candidates punish parties at the ballot box.

Because it works well enough for most, and because people aren't anxious to change it, and because nobody has any idea how such a large change would affect things.

A majority of BC voters were in favour of installing PR provincially. That's shows some interest. I would also suggest that most people don't really understand how various electoral systems work, including FPTP.

Because there's something called a regional interest.

Exactly, which is why I suggested MMP. It actually strengthens local representation without allowing your neighbour's political views to alter the power of your vote. Stronger local representation and a proportional parliament; it's the best of both worlds.

That won't result in an exact proportional match in parliament, though. Therefore it's unfair by definition of 'fair voting'.

No system perfectly matches the popular vote. Especially, in large sparcely populated areas with diverse regional interests. However, MMP creates a much closer match than FPTP, while also strengthening local representation. MMP wastes roughly 5% (depending on the threshold) of votes cast versus +/-50% for FPTP. If we eliminate regional representation, something the CPC has effectively done through MP control anyway, we can get an almost exact match with less than 1% waste.

So are we doubling the number of MPs then ? Over 600 MPs ?

Nope. The number of seats would not have to double to create enough list members, even if we keep the current local ridings. I'm fine with more MPs, but we have options. For example we can increase riding size as we add list MPs to keep the seat increase to a minimum. Edited September 26, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

Agreed, but if the point is to represent the wishes of the population it just makes sense to install the parliament we actually voted for, not a distorted version.

Theoretically yes, but there are other examples where the 'wishes' aren't executed. What happens if the party I vote for changes their stance on an issue and goes against my values ?

Really, to take the extreme view of 'fairness' we would have to have direct democracy for all policies.

Though I personally would like to see more women and minorities in parliament, I wouldn't want it to be mandated. I would prefer that voters who are unhappy about the demographics of a slate of candidates punish parties at the ballot box.

But why mandate one type of representation and not another ?

A majority of BC voters were in favour of installing PR provincially. That's shows some interest. I would also suggest that most people don't really understand how various electoral systems work, including FPTP.

On the contrary - the systems proposed are more complicated so they are less likely to be understood.

If we really want to educate people, then we need to stop using cheat words like 'fairness'. That word denotes opinions on the current system, not facts.

Exactly, which is why I suggested MMP. It actually strengthens local representation without allowing your neighbour's political views to alter the power of your vote. Stronger local representation and a proportional parliament; it's the best of both worlds.

It can't strengthen local representation while giving more PR as far as I can see - those two objectives are logically opposed to each other, mathematically. You can have one or the other. If you disagree, then put some numbers into an example.

No system perfectly matches the popular vote.

Then why call one imperfect system 'fair' and another one 'unfair' ? It's dishonest.

Why can't we call PR and MMP "Better" or somesuch...

Especially, in large sparcely populated areas with diverse regional interests. However, MMP creates a much closer match than FPTP, while also strengthening local representation. MMP wastes roughly 5% (depending on the threshold) of votes cast versus +/-50% for FPTP. If we eliminate regional representation, something the CPC has effectively done through MP control anyway, we can get an almost exact match with less than 1% waste.

Put together an example with numbers.

Nope. The number of seats would not have to double to create enough list members, even if we keep the current local ridings. I'm fine with more MPs, but we have options. For example we can increase riding size as we add list MPs to keep the seat increase to a minimum.

Numbers please.

[Smallc]

Said differently, the entire legislature is filled with people elected by a minority of voters.

No that isn't mecessarily what you said and is probably not true in every case. Also that supposes that to be fair you have to get a majority of the votes, when the definition of winning has almost always been to get more than the other guy.

[Mighty AC]

Theoretically yes, but there are other examples where the 'wishes' aren't executed. What happens if the party I vote for changes their stance on an issue and goes against my values?

That happens under any system, however a representative parliament that actually mirrors voter intention is a much better starting point. Voters are free to punish flip-flopper at the polls.

But why mandate one type of representation and not another?

One case is simply reflecting the way the population actually votes and the other is interfering with the ability of a party to choose their own candidates.

On the contrary - the systems proposed are more complicated so they are less likely to be understood.

If comparing countries that use FPTP to countries that use MMP, I think a true understanding either system would be about equal. I think most voters could understand the fact that they get one vote for a local rep and one vote for the government. Most would also appreciate the fact that they could now support the most qualified local candidate even if they don't want to help his/her party form the government.

If we really want to educate people, then we need to stop using cheat words like 'fairness'. That word denotes opinions on the current system, not facts.

As long as we convey the fact that currently not all votes are treated equally, I don't really care what words are used.

It can't strengthen local representation while giving more PR as far as I can see - those two objectives are logically opposed to each other, mathematically. You can have one or the other. If you disagree, then put some numbers into an example.

Since, MMP allows people to vote for the local representative separately from the governing party it removes the incentive to vote strategically thus freeing voters to choose the best local candidate. Voters wanting a conservative government need not support the local conservative to help achieve that. Hence, local representatives become more beholden to their constituents while list representatives are beholden to their party's platform.

To further increase the power of local rep and reduce patronage, some MMP systems install list MPs by choosing the losing local MPs that received the greatest percentage of the vote.

Then why call one imperfect system 'fair' and another one 'unfair' ? It's dishonest.

Why can't we call PR and MMP "Better" or somesuch...

I'm fine with that. The term fair is really just applied to the unequal power of votes in a FPTP system.

Put together an example with numbers.

Numbers please.

The total number of seats required is hard to answer, because it can be determined by several debatable variables. Extra MPs are required, however, we could simultaneously choose to increase local riding sizes to 200 or 250 thousand. Some countries also allow the size of their parliament to fluctuate. Germany, adds the minimum number of list MPs required to make parliament proportional. If the proportion of local winners is close to the popular vote only a few list MPs are required. I prefer this approach to others that fill every seat.

As for MMP proportionality and wastage numbers there are two sets of figures to look at.

Wastage: This simply means votes cast that do not create representation. 52% of the votes cast this week in NB were wasted. Since, MMP allows a second vote for the governing party, which is used to determine the popular vote this number gets reduced to a predetermined threshold. If we say that any party receiving at least 5% of the popular vote will be granted seats in parliament, then wastage would be very close to 5%.

Distortion: This is simply a measure of the discrepancy between how people vote and the resulting parliament. New Zealand used FPTP up until 1993 before switching to a form of MMP. New Zealand still experiences more disproportionality than most using MMP because they stick to a fixed number of seats and mandate a set number of seats to their indigenous (Maori) peoples. However, the distortion figures still improved greatly.

1946-1993 avg 11.10%

1996 4.36%

1999 3.01%

2002 2.53%

2005 1.11%

2008 5.21%

2011 2.53%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_New_Zealand

Edited September 26, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

No that isn't mecessarily what you said and is probably not true in every case. Also that supposes that to be fair you have to get a majority of the votes, when the definition of winning has almost always been to get more than the other guy.

However, when we form a parliament by simply installing the local winners, parliament can be far different than the wishes of the electorate. A party finishing second place in every riding could lead the popular vote yet end up with zero seats.

A better solution is allow voters to cast two ballots. One for the local rep and one for the party they wish to govern. The local rep wins by simply getting the most votes. However, parliament is adjusted to reflect the popular vote determined by the second ballot. In this system called MMP we retain and even strengthen local representation while also creating the government we actually vote for.

[Smallc]

That sounds far too messy. I'm not in favour of changing a system that works well because people don't think it's fair.

[Bryan]

Said differently, the entire legislature is filled with people elected by a minority of voters.

My MP got over 50% of the votes in our riding. Lots of other MPs did too.

Somebody has to lose. It's not grade 3 soccer.

You nailed it. That's exactly what the PR people are trying to do to elections.

[Michael Hardner]

As long as we convey the fact that currently not all votes are treated equally, I don't really care what words are used.

That's just another way to say 'unfair'.

Since, MMP allows people to vote for the local representative separately from the governing party it removes the incentive to vote strategically thus freeing voters to choose the best local candidate. Voters wanting a conservative government need not support the local conservative to help achieve that. Hence, local representatives become more beholden to their constituents while list representatives are beholden to their party's platform.

To further increase the power of local rep and reduce patronage, some MMP systems install list MPs by choosing the losing local MPs that received the greatest percentage of the vote.

I'm fine with that. The term fair is really just applied to the unequal power of votes in a FPTP system.

The total number of seats required is hard to answer, because it can be determined by several debatable variables. Extra MPs are required, however, we could simultaneously choose to increase local riding sizes to 200 or 250 thousand. Some countries also allow the size of their parliament to fluctuate. Germany, adds the minimum number of list MPs required to make parliament proportional. If the proportion of local winners is close to the popular vote only a few list MPs are required. I prefer this approach to others that fill every seat.

As for MMP proportionality and wastage numbers there are two sets of figures to look at.

Wastage: This simply means votes cast that do not create representation. 52% of the votes cast this week in NB were wasted. Since, MMP allows a second vote for the governing party, which is used to determine the popular vote this number gets reduced to a predetermined threshold. If we say that any party receiving at least 5% of the popular vote will be granted seats in parliament, then wastage would be very close to 5%.

Distortion: This is simply a measure of the discrepancy between how people vote and the resulting parliament. New Zealand used FPTP up until 1993 before switching to a form of MMP. New Zealand still experiences more disproportionality than most using MMP because they stick to a fixed number of seats and mandate a set number of seats to their indigenous (Maori) peoples. However, the distortion figures still improved greatly.

1946-1993 avg 11.10%

1996 4.36%

1999 3.01%

2002 2.53%

2005 1.11%

2008 5.21%

2011 2.53%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_New_Zealand

No, I won't go there. "Wastage" "Distortion" "Fairness"... stop using loaded terms to discuss this. I'm not stupid and I'm not going to engage in a discussion unless you accept equally distorting terms from me.

I asked you for this:

It can't strengthen local representation while giving more PR as far as I can see - those two objectives are logically opposed to each other, mathematically. You can have one or the other. If you disagree, then put some numbers into an example.

Show me how local representation is strengthened - and by that I mean numerically - while we get more PR. It's impossible, as far as I can see. Those are the numbers I asked for.

[cybercoma]

Half a million is WAY too small to even begin to think about giving someone an artificially inflated voice. They aren't all located in Windsor, or London, they're scattered

throughout the country. There is only ONE riding that actually had enough to elect a representative. What they got is an accurate measure of their actual support.

No offence, but I don't think you understand the meaning of accurate.

[cybercoma]

No that isn't mecessarily what you said and is probably not true in every case. Also that supposes that to be fair you have to get a majority of the votes, when the definition of winning has almost always been to get more than the other guy.

I'm not quite sure you get it. Out of all the voters, more people voted for losers than winners. That's a problem. I'm not saying more people voted for parties other than the one that's forming government. I'm saying more people voted for candidates that did not win. The number of people that actually voted for the MLAs that are sitting in Fredericton (27 L, 21 PC, 1 GR) is fewer than the number of people who voted for all other candidates who lost. That's a problem. I'm not sure there's any way to look at that other than it being a problem.

Feel free to go to Elections NB and look at the numbers. I could add it all up for you, but the number that's being tossed about is that 52% of the vote went to losing candidates. That doesn't sound very democratic because it isn't. The majority of voters didn't get the government or representation that they wanted. It's no wonder voter apathy is such a huge problem.

EDIT: Actually, tell you what. I'll tally up the numbers because it's Friday night and I'm a nerd.

Edited September 26, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

My MP got over 50% of the votes in our riding. Lots of other MPs did too.

That's very nice, Bryan. I'm not talking about your MP.

[cybercoma]

I added up all of the numbers.

There were 373,344 votes cast in the election. Winning candidates received 178,373 votes, while losing candidates received 194,971 votes. Thatmeans that losing candidates took 52.22% of the vote.

Only 16 out of 49 ridings had candidates win a majority of the vote. The largest majority went to Serge Rousselle from Tracadie-Sheila, who received 2645 votes more than the other candidates combined.

The least support was in the Fredericton-Grand Lake riding, where incumbent Pam Lynch (PC) received 3556 less votes than her opponents combined.

All of the numbers can be found under results in at ElectionsNB.ca.

[overthere]

I added up all of the numbers.

There were 373,344 votes cast in the election. Winning candidates received 178,373 votes, while losing candidates received 194,971 votes. Thatmeans that losing candidates took 52.22% of the vote.

Only 16 out of 49 ridings had candidates win a majority of the vote. The largest majority went to Serge Rousselle from Tracadie-Sheila, who received 2645 votes more than the other candidates combined.

The least support was in the Fredericton-Grand Lake riding, where incumbent Pam Lynch (PC) received 3556 less votes than her opponents combined.

All of the numbers can be found under results in at ElectionsNB.ca.

Thats what happens when you have multiple parties.

Shrug.

[cybercoma]

You might shrug, but I suggest that it's a significant problem. This means that in 2/3 of the ridings, more people voted for someone other than the MLA who was elected. It would be good for our politicians to remember this as they take office. They're supposed to represent ALL of their constituents and in most cases the majority of their constituents voted for someone else.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think it's a problem if the people feel that they're being governed well overall.

People don't even turn out to vote as it is, and I'm pretty sure it's not because of perceptions of mathematical imbalances.

PR will necessarily lead to more elections, more politics, and more backroom deals between power players... which is what people hate about politics. Yes, people hate politics about politics - I said that.

Take a look at the city of Toronto to see what planned-in overconsensus looks like. We can't build a subway until every single stakeholder approves it, so nothing gets built.

[cybercoma]

An even closer look reveals that the 7 ridings which are within or cross into Fredericton city limits had only 35% of the voters casting a ballot for winning candidates. 65% of the voters in Fredericton cast ballots for people who lost the election.

When only 35% of the voters in an entire city cast ballots for winning candidates, you can't tell me that's representative democracy.

[Smallc]

What I'm saying is this - the overall vote percentage doesn't show that there wasn't any ridings in which the winner had more than 50% of the vote.

[cybercoma]

What are you talking about? I'm telling you from the publicly available numbers that you can verify yourself at the Elections NB site.

[Smallc]

You didn't break down each riding you gave the aggregate.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

You didn't break down each riding you gave the aggregate.

im not going to post the entire spreadsheet that I put together of all 49 ridings. If you want to see every riding, then go to the website that I've refered to numerous times now. It's all there..