Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 25, 2016, 09:17:17 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 297
51  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Timmy's States on: August 26, 2016, 10:40:15 am

Jimrtex I also considered the name Plano would be fitting since it is largely a Plains state.
What do you think about that?
I would definitely consider using the name Comanche if you still thought so.
If you are going to split San Antonio and Austin, Comal and Guadalupe go with Bexar.

I would keep all (most/more) of the Hill Country in Texas. So add Crockett, Sutton, Schleicher to Llano based on proximity to San Angelo; Menard, Kimble, Kerr, and Bandera to Texas. Kendall is problematic since it would be considered Hill Country and San Antonio suburban.

Lafayette and Vermillion belong in Jefferson to avoid splitting of Acadiana,
52  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Timmy's States on: August 26, 2016, 10:31:22 am

Jimrtex I also considered the name Plano would be fitting since it is largely a Plains state.
What do you think about that?
I would definitely consider using the name Comanche if you still thought so.
It would be Llano rather than Plano.

I'd still extend Pawnee to include Logan, Morgan, Washington, Lincoln, Crowley, Kiowa, Otero, Prowers, Bent. These are definitely Plains or Lower Platte, Lower Arkansas counties, that fit better with the areas to the east, rather than the Front Range or Mountain areas.

I'd probably switch Baca and SW Kansas as well.

Incidentally, you have two different yellows in Pawnee.
53  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Timmy's States on: August 26, 2016, 12:51:18 am

I'd eliminate Durango, and split Texas into Texas and Commanche, though I might rename Texas to something else. What are the rules for names?

Commanche would include all of the Texas Panhandle and South Plains, and the area east of the Pecos, plus Little Texas, and Greer County. It could extend into the SW corner of Kansas and SE corner of Colorado.

Geronimo, which I would rename to Coronado, would include the northern part of New Mexico, and Colorado up to San Miguel, Ouray, Hinsdale, Saguache, Huerfano, Las Animas. Colorado would take in Gunnison, Chaffee, Fremont, Custer, Teller, El Paso, and Pueblo. Mesa, Delta, and Montrose go to Shoshone, and move the border in Utah to match. Shift Pawnee west to include Logan, Morgan, Washington, and Lincoln, Crowley, Otero, Prowers, Bent, and Kiowa.
54  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Timmy's States on: August 26, 2016, 12:09:02 am


You have split Amarillo and Midland-Odessa. I'd extend Texas to include the Little Texas area of New Mexico. I'd also redeem Greer County to Texas.

Terrell belongs with the rest of the Trans-Pecos.

I'd move Madison, Brazos, Burleson, Fayette, Gonzales, DeWitt, Karnes, and Bee to Houston.
Would Texas border Mexico in this arrangement?
No.  Eddy, Chaves, DeBaca, Lea, Roosevelt, Curry, and Quay in NM, along with the counties east of the Pecos in Texas.
55  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Lower court keeps from ballot Illinois redistricting reform proposal on: August 25, 2016, 02:40:58 am
Brief for SUPPORT INDEPENDENT MAPS

This is the final brief filed by the supporters of the initiative.

Formally, the law suit is between the plaintiff Madigan surrogates, and the defendant Illinois Board of Elections, seeking to enjoin the BOE from conducting a referendum. The BOE has no reason to care one way or another, their competency is limited to counting signatures, and causing the referendum to occur. So the Support Independent Maps intervened to defend the initiative.

The argument of the brief appears to be that the initiative is limited to the subject matter of the Legislature Article of the constitution; and does not have to be limited to the textual scope of the Legislature Article.

That is, for example, that to give the Auditor General, a role in the selection of redistricting commissioners is not extending the powers of the executive branch.
56  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Timmy's States on: August 25, 2016, 02:12:57 am


You have split Amarillo and Midland-Odessa. I'd extend Texas to include the Little Texas area of New Mexico. I'd also redeem Greer County to Texas.

Terrell belongs with the rest of the Trans-Pecos.

I'd move Madison, Brazos, Burleson, Fayette, Gonzales, DeWitt, Karnes, and Bee to Houston.
57  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Timmy's States on: August 24, 2016, 11:41:45 am
Perhaps you could make Puerto Rico a state?
We could also do that. I really like that.
Should we stick with 50 states or are you okay going over that?
50 is nice, because then we don't have to switch flags
Not a problem.



51 Star Flag

51 Star Flag (continued)
58  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: What would have happened if... on: August 23, 2016, 09:05:55 pm
We were a bunch of farmers.

In 1790 the most populous counties (adjusted for 3/5 rule) were:

(Lincoln)
Rockingham
Hampshire
Providence
Litchfield
Albany
Hunterdon
Philadelphia
Sussex
Frederick
Culpeper
Rowan
Charleston
Wilkes

Kings County, NY was about 1/3 slave.
59  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: What would have happened if... on: August 23, 2016, 08:58:50 pm
Following the 1790 Census, Congress reapportioned the 13 senate seats. The losses tended to be concentrated in the smaller states, which had apparently been apportioned too much power in the original document.

Losses: CT+RI, NH+DE, SC, GA
Gains: NY, VA(2), NC

Georgia no longer had the population for its own district, so it was merged with South Carolina. To keep the number of districts at 13, the largest district, Massachusetts proper, was divided into two districts.



Congress adopted the principle that a senator from a state that was losing a seat should be able to serve the remainder of their term. Class I senators had originally drawn a two-year term, and thus had run for full terms in 1790.

CT and RI both had Class III senators, so that one of them was eliminated.
NJ had Class I and III senators, so that the next to come up for election would be the Class III senator in 1794 when it would be eliminated.
GA had Class II and Class III senators. If the Class II senator was eliminated, Georgia would go 6 years without an election, so it was decided to eliminated the Class III senator. This resulted in the elimination of the Class II senator in SC.

So there were 3 Class III positions, and 1 Class II positions to be assigned.

Since Virginia was gaining two positions, it was assigned the position in Class II and a position in Class III. NY and NC then were given the remaining Class II positions.

ME      92
NH          94  96
MA(E)       94  96
MA(W)   92      96
RI          94
CT      92  94x 96
NY      92  94+ 96
NJ          94x 96
DE      92
PA(E)   92  94  96
PA(W)   92      96
MD      92  94  96
VA(E)   92+ 94  96
VA(W)   92  94+ 96
NC      92  94+ 96
SC      92x 94  96
GA      92  94x 96


Population data and shapefiles courtesy of:

Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011.

NHGIS website
60  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: What would have happened if... on: August 22, 2016, 10:46:27 pm
What would've happened if in 1787 Congress had decided to redraw the borders of the 13 states so that they had population equality? Theoretically, the Senate wouldn't need to exist any more, but what else? What would the states look like? How equal would they be today?

They didn't actually redraw the state borders, but provided for the election of senators from districts that elected between 2 and 4 senators. The total number of senators would be 3 times the number of States (39 in total).

The initial senate districts provided in the text of the Constitution were:

Massachusetts + New Hampshire (7, in 2 districts): NH+ME 3 senators; MA proper 4 senators.
Connecticut + Rhode Island (4)
New York (3)
New Jersey + Delaware (3)
Pennsylvania (5, in 2 districts) The eastern district elected 3 senators, the western district 2.
Maryland (3)
Virginia (6, in two districts)
North Carolina (3)
South Carolina (3)
Georgia (2)

Senators were elected by legislators from their district, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maine were guaranteed one senator - and based on the population that is all they received. All senators were elected in 1788/1789, and then when they met in 1789, they drew for classes.

I: two year;
II: four year;
III: six year.

(ME) II
NH I, III
MA I,I,II,III
RI III
CT I,II,III
NY I,II,III
NJ I,III
PA(E) I,II,III
PA(W) I,II
DE II
MD I,II,III
VA(E) I,II,III
VA(W) I,II,III
NC I,II,III
SC I,II,III
GA II,III
61  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: What would have happened if... on: August 22, 2016, 07:02:12 pm
What would've happened if in 1787 Congress had decided to redraw the borders of the 13 states so that they had population equality? Theoretically, the Senate wouldn't need to exist any more, but what else? What would the states look like? How equal would they be today?
(1) NH + MA(part, Maine + 1/2 of Essex)
(2) MA (most, except parts in (1), above; and (3), below.
(3) MA (part, Plymouth, Bristol, Barnstable, Dukes, Nantucket, i.e. SE) + RI + CT(most, except (4)).
(4) CT (part, Fairfield, Litchfield, New Haven) + NY (part, everything from Dutchess and Orange south).
(5) NY (part, everything from Columbia and Ulster, north and west) + PA (interior).
(6) NJ + DE + PA (Delaware, Chester).
(7) PA (southeastern)
(Cool PA (small part), Maryland (most).
(9) VA + small part of Maryland, perhaps Delmarva.
(10) VA
(11) VA (western, including KY) + NC (western)
(12) NC (except (11, above).
(13) SC + GA.
62  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: What would have happened if... on: August 22, 2016, 05:55:03 pm
Depends a lot on if slaves counted as population.

Let's say the 3/5 compromise remains, horrible as it was.
What happens when Vermont joins the Union?
63  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Several NC legislative districts struck down on: August 14, 2016, 11:26:42 pm
It is not clear that the North Carolina did any racial bloc voting analysis.


I read the opinion (beginning on p. 138) as saying that there was an analysis of racially polarized voting offered by two separate experts for the state. Both found that there was racially polarized voting in that the white population preferred different candidates than the black population. The opinion however discounts this, since the Court found that racially polarized voting is insufficient to satisfy the third Gingle prong. To satisfy the third prong one must also show that the polarization allows the white majority to "usually beat the minority's preferred candidate." That additional test was not done.
You're right.

Though it was also noted that the actual map-drawer did not attend any redistricting committee hearings, nor did he review the transcripts. The timing suggest that the studies were done in parallel with the actual map-drawing, probably to augment the Section 5 filing.


The tricky part is that additional test from Gingles requires knowledge of the district in question. One can't tell if the white majority will usually beat the black-preferred candidate without knowing how much of which white population is in the district (eg. are they college students or farmers). It certainly allows for sub-50% districts to meet section 2, but it feels like it requires them when there is enough white crossover. This is the part that seems to run counter to Strickland.

It would seem that the Court wants a process by which one creates districts using generally acceptable redistricting principles without regards to race. Then one should test the totality of the plan to determine if there is a section 2 violation, and redraw as needed if a section 2 violation is detected. Then there would need to be further iterations until no violation is apparent. Generic testing of individual counties as done by NC would not be useful.
The tricky part is that the Court didn't say what they wanted. They said what they didn't want.

In the North Carolina congressional case, the state drew a new map, and the plaintiff's are appealing that. But it is a lot harder to create a Gingles congressional district than a Gingles legislative district.

In Virginia, McAuliffe jammed the legislative process, a master did a radical redraw, and no one was found to have standing to appeal it.
64  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Several NC legislative districts struck down on: August 14, 2016, 03:46:59 pm
Is the bottom line of the case, that any BVAP percentage in excess of the minimum to elect a candidate of the minority's choice where it entails gerrymandering, is now illegal packing?
You can't place racial considerations above all traditional redistricting criteria (other than population equality).

In North Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama, there was an effort to maximize the BVAP.

One problem is that the "reasonably compact" part of the Gingles test was permitted to ignore traditional redistricting criteria.

A district running from Jacksonville to Orlando was reasonably compact, so long as it included swaths of rural territory within, but not if it cracks the population in Orlando, in which case a district running from Jacksonville to Tallahassee is now reasonably compact.
65  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Several NC legislative districts struck down on: August 14, 2016, 03:21:31 pm
This "soft Gingles" test seems to mostly eliminate the first prong. Under Gingles minority districts are not required unless there is a potential district of 50%+1 minority VAP. In Bartlett v Strickland the opinion said that a state did not have to consider crossover voters in drawing districts, and that section 2 only applied if there was a potential 50%+1 minority district. This "soft Gingles" would seem to require that Strickland be significantly altered and subordinated to a secondary position after other redistricting factors.

This "soft Gingles" also seems to heavily modify the third prong. The racial block voting analysis used by the state looks like standard fare used successfully in many cases for the last two cycles. The experts use various statistical means to show clear differences in preference between the white and black population. The Court here seems to rely on the fact that crossover voters exist to substantially change what has been meant by racial bloc voting. They point to the fact that as long as enough whites in an area support the candidate of choice by the blacks then overall bloc voting doesn't matter since given the crossover, the white majority can't defeat the preferred candidate of the black minority.

Both these changes seem to me to create a substantially new view of the VRA than the one that has been around since the 1990's.
It is not clear that the North Carolina did any racial bloc voting analysis.

In their finding that racial considerations predominated, the court pointed to numerous instances where Strickland was invoked as the rational for drawing 50%+ districts. Essentially, the map-drawers treated the words "VRA", "50%+", and "Strickland" as synonyms.

The court also pointed out that Strickland itself had noted that all the Gingles test had to be present.

I'm not saying the federal court in North Carolina is proposing a soft Gingles test, but that is what the Democrats want. Otherwise, on what basis is there a requirement for ordering race-based districting?

I assume that the US Supreme Court will take up this case.

The NC Supreme Court had previously upheld the legislative districts. That had been appealed to the US Supreme Court, which accepted the case for purposes of remanding it back to the NC courts, for them to consider the Alabama case. The NC Supreme Court then once again upheld the legislative districts. Perhaps the US Supreme Court could take up both cases, and uphold both decisions on a 4:4 vote.
66  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Several NC legislative districts struck down on: August 14, 2016, 02:25:42 am
There's no question that the NC map is an egregious gerrymander. But past SCOTUS rulings would have considered them to be partisan gerrymanders, not racial gerrymanders. The WI case may well set the standard for partisan gerrymanders in court, and if so the NC gerrymander would probably fall under that standard. But this NC case is really testing a new theory about racial gerrymanders, not established law. If the Dems were seeking to overturn it on established law the case would have been decided at the beginning of the decade.
The legislative district boundaries were precleared by the USDOJ. Now the courts are saying that even though they could not have got preclearance without the 50%+1 districts, they shouldn't have done so.

The districts were also challenged in the state courts and upheld. That decision was appealed to US Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the NC Courts to reconsider their decision in light of the Alabama decision. The NC Supreme Court did so, and once again upheld the legislative district boundaries. The federal case was permitted to go forward only because there were independent sets of plaintiffs. I don't see how the SCOTUS can stay out of this considering that the NC courts were acting under their direct instructions.

So is it also your sense that this is a new theory about what constitutes racial gerrymandering?
Covington v North Carolina (PDF)

What the court ruled was that everything had been subordinated to race. The chairs of the two redistricting committees had one person draw the maps (and only gave oral instructions). They told him to draw 50%+1 districts everywhere, which were referred to as VRA districts.

He also somewhat ignored the Whole County Provisions of the North Carolina Constitution as harmonized with OMOV and VRA by the NC Supreme Court. The North Carolina constitution forbids splitting of counties.

The NC Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that counties should first be grouped based on the following rules:

(0) Draw VRA districts;
(1) Single-county, single member;
(2) Single-county, multi-member;
(3) Multi-county, multi-member, with groupings with fewer counties preferred.

There are some additional rules related to the division of multi-county, multi-member groups, such as minimize crossing of county boundaries.

In this case, because of the emphasis on drawing 50%+1 districts, in some parts of the state no multi-county groups were constructed. There was also a lot of precinct splitting, and general disregard for compactness measures (i.e. it was not even considered). So not only was consideration of race elevated, consideration of traditional redistricting criteria was depressed.

The court also found that there was no effort to demonstrate that the 3rd condition of the Gingles test was met (that white voters voting as a bloc denied the opportunity for the minority to elect their  candidate of the choice.)   (e.g a district that is 40% black, might elect the black candidate of choice if 17% of white voters crossed over)

North Carolina also offered as a defense that they were attempting to avoid retrogression. At the time the redistricting occurred, 40 counties in North Carolina were subject to preclearance. While not required now, it was at the time the redistricting was done, and is thus a legitimate consideration for using race in redistricting. In the baseline, North Carolina had nine 50% house districts and zero 50% senate districts. After the redistricting there were 27 50% house districts, and nine 50% senate districts.

What the Democrats want is a soft Gingles test: That wasting minority votes is an abridgement of the right to vote. This leads to titration of districts where the minimum number of blacks are placed in a district such that it will vote Democratic. Whites who vote Democratic are allies, whites who vote Republican are an oppressing bloc vote. The corollary is that the number of white Republicans who would be just as effective if they went fishing on election day is maximized.

The manipulation may actually alter voter behavior in terms of turnout.

Ideally, an electoral district is a neutral measurement device, that measures voter sentiment. But it can turn into an influence on voters in and of itself.
67  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Black immigrant population on: August 12, 2016, 01:00:52 pm
Minneapolis-St. Paul  70,953  27.8%
A Somali-American defeated a 22-term (sic) incumbent in the Democratic primary for the Minnesota House in District 60B, which is on both banks of the Mississippi River southeast of downtown Minneapolis, including the University of Minnesota.

The results are quite interesting. Omar and Noor are both Somali-Americans, while Kahn is the incumbent. So not only did she lose, she finished third.

Ilhan Omar         2404
Mohamud Noor  1738
Phyllis Kahn         1726

Half the population is between 15 and 24 (and probably 18-24). The median age is 22.4, yet only 6.8% are 14 and under.

Since the election was August 9, hardly any students voted. W2-P4; W2-P7; and W2-P10; are the districts mostly closely related to the University and had 4% of the vote (3 of 12 precincts).

Kahn lives on Nicollet Island between downtown Minneapolis and St. Anthony, and carried the precinct handily W3-P3. The other two precincts in the ward are further to the SE. Notice the remarkable Omar-Noor result in W3-P3. W2-P5 and W2-P6 also carried by Kahn are on the eastern city and county line, north of the river. They're more remote from the campus.

Carter-Riverside is the core area of the Somali-emigre population in Minneapolis, and is in the two precincts of Ward 6. Note the turnout and amount of votes pile up by Noor in those two precincts. It may be that Omar picked up votes from whites who thought that Noor would beat Kahn.


Precinct             Omar Noor Kahn
MINNEAPOLIS W-2 P-03  236   51  143
MINNEAPOLIS W-2 P-04   39    2    6
MINNEAPOLIS W-2 P-05  260   59  291
MINNEAPOLIS W-2 P-06  194   12  205
MINNEAPOLIS W-2 P-07   50   27   38
MINNEAPOLIS W-2 P-09  144   33   48
MINNEAPOLIS W-2 P-10   34    4   22
MINNEAPOLIS W-3 P-01  207    1   37
MINNEAPOLIS W-3 P-02  212   21  189
MINNEAPOLIS W-3 P-03  244   71  410
MINNEAPOLIS W-6 P-02  392  450  157
MINNEAPOLIS W-6 P-03  392 1007   80
68  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Several NC legislative districts struck down on: August 12, 2016, 09:56:49 am
There's no question that the NC map is an egregious gerrymander. But past SCOTUS rulings would have considered them to be partisan gerrymanders, not racial gerrymanders. The WI case may well set the standard for partisan gerrymanders in court, and if so the NC gerrymander would probably fall under that standard. But this NC case is really testing a new theory about racial gerrymanders, not established law. If the Dems were seeking to overturn it on established law the case would have been decided at the beginning of the decade.
The legislative district boundaries were precleared by the USDOJ. Now the courts are saying that even though they could not have got preclearance without the 50%+1 districts, they shouldn't have done so.

The districts were also challenged in the state courts and upheld. That decision was appealed to US Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the NC Courts to reconsider their decision in light of the Alabama decision. The NC Supreme Court did so, and once again upheld the legislative district boundaries. The federal case was permitted to go forward only because there were independent sets of plaintiffs. I don't see how the SCOTUS can stay out of this considering that the NC courts were acting under their direct instructions.
69  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Several NC legislative districts struck down on: August 11, 2016, 08:12:07 pm
Article.

Quote
RALEIGH, N.C. Lawmakers unconstitutionally used race when they drew legislative boundaries for state House and state Senate members in 2011, a panel of three federal district court judges ruled Thursday afternoon.

The ruling is the latest federal ruling tossing out district lines drawn by North Carolina lawmakers, and it appears to mirror a decision earlier this year that rejected lines drawn for members of the U.S. House.

"Therefore, we hereby order the North Carolina General Assembly to draw remedial districts in their next legislative session to correct the constitutional deficiencies in the Enacted Plans," the court wrote.

However, this year's election will be unaffected.

"We regrettably conclude that due to the mechanics of state and federal election requirements, there is insufficient time, at this late date, for: the General Assembly to draw and enact remedial districts; this Court to review the remedial plan; the state to hold candidate filing and primaries for the remedial districts; absentee ballots to be generated as required by statute; and for general elections to still take place as scheduled in November 2016," the three judge panel of North Carolina's federal Middle District wrote.

More great news from NC!

The districts will be redrawn for 2018.
Unless the Supreme Court overturns the decision.

70  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Another NC Gerrymander struck down on: August 09, 2016, 11:30:14 pm
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article87107697.html

Just for the Wake County School Board and Board of Commissioners, but still nice to see a continued trend in the courts against gerrymandering.   I remember at one time the Koch Brothers were really interested and invested in the School Board for some reason,  don't know why.
A quite interesting decision.

After the 2010 census, the Wake County school board redistricted itself creating 9 districts within 1% deviation. The board of commissioners followed suit. After Democrats took control of both boards, the legislature redrew the districts, creating a plan with 7 single-member districts, and two additional overlay districts that covered the entire county. The relative deviation was much greater, but less than 10%.

The majority of the 4th Circuit differentiated this case from the Mathismander cases decided by the Supreme Court decision, as the plaintiffs not proving their case of a partisan gerrymander; in the present case the Appeals Court overturned the decision of the district court, the trier of fact (i.e. the district court ruled that the plaintiffs had proved their case; while the appeals court ruled that they had
71  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Should South Dakota be divided into two different states? on: August 08, 2016, 09:49:11 pm
Why not merge North Dakota into these states? Then it can be East and West Dakota, divided by the Missouri River.
Past Kingpoleon:

Atlas took your post seriously. STOP. Advise time travel preventing posting that. STOP. Do not attempt further contact. STOP.

- Future Kingpoleon

How about using the Mississippi as an eastern boundary, and dividing the area to the west using the Minnesota&Continental Divide, Missouri, Arkansas, Red, Brazos, and Rio Grande as boundaries. Eastern Minnesota and Louisiana would be added to Wisconsin and Mississippi.
72  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Australian Federal Election- July 2, 2016 on: August 07, 2016, 05:23:46 am
Isn't this at least partly to do with the ticket system not balancing the candidates as Irish parties try to do?  After 9 counts the Liberals in WA were left with four candidates elected after reaching quota (which was 105,091), one candidate on 101,888 looking certain to be elected, and their other two candidates way back on 1,202 and 647 and so heading for elimination before there was much chance to pick up transfers.  If they'd tried to get six candidates on around 5/6 of a quota they'd probably all have got elected.
Victoria is the first state where a party has had a full slate of 12 candidates, such that a voter could vote below the line entirely within a party column and have the vote considered to be formal. The Greens had 12 candidates, while ALP had eight, and the Coalition seven.

There was surprising amount of leakage among Green voters (around 2/3) but that may just be Green voters being Green. I suspect that both ALP and Coalition voters would be a little more loyal, since they are seeking to be a governing party.

The Coalition has 0.293 quotas after the distribution of the 8 initial surpluses. They could have been in trouble for their 5th seat, except that the party that did the best job of gaining transfers, Family First was in 10th place of those seeking the final 4 seats at 0.150 quotas.

By the time the field had been reduced to 9 candidates seeking the final three seats, ballots were going deeper on preferences, either being exhausted, or voters were tired of ranking minor parties and were just filling out the last parties on their ballot.

So while the Coalition did get 5 seats on 4.3 quotas, they made it harder than they had to.

Victoria ended up with 1.118 exhausted ballots, and the trash can was the #1 choice for the final three exclusions.
73  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Australian Federal Election- July 2, 2016 on: August 06, 2016, 01:20:12 am
Unlike in Tasmania, there were no secondary candidates. The Liberals had 5.004 quotas, and after distributing of surpluses had 0.987 quotas, almost all behind their 5th candidate.

Almost all the secondary candidates were eliminated before moving onto eliminating the first candidate of any group. The 5th Liberal candidate was soon pushed over the top, but with only an eleven vote surplus. After the distribution of the initial surpluses ALP and Greens together had about one quota, of the four outstanding, with three more to be elected. Because the transfers of the smaller parties were not directed, both a 4th ALP candidate and 2nd Green was elected, along with a One Nation candidate.

With five quotas of first preferences, you should be able to elect six candidates. The Liberals would have been better off with the Nationals in a group. It would actually be desirable for voters to vote below the line for a National Candidate, as long as they followed through with the Liberal candidates. Even if they stuck a few odd other candidates in their list, they would eventually flow back to the Liberals.

Isn't this at least partly to do with the ticket system not balancing the candidates as Irish parties try to do?  After 9 counts the Liberals in WA were left with four candidates elected after reaching quota (which was 105,091), one candidate on 101,888 looking certain to be elected, and their other two candidates way back on 1,202 and 647 and so heading for elimination before there was much chance to pick up transfers.  If they'd tried to get six candidates on around 5/6 of a quota they'd probably all have got elected.
What is surprising is that there was no attempt to do so.

In Tasmania, it appears that there were a couple of dissident senators who had been listed low, and made a personal appeal for votes. While it represented dissent within the party, it was still overall good for the party.

In South Australia, the Liberals had 4.236 quotas on first preferences. After the distribution of surpluses they had four elected and 0.227 quotas left over. This placed them 6th overall with 3 remaining to be elected, and Xenophon and Greens with very healthy bases, so they were 4th overall for the final seat.

Had they split the final two: 0.618 and 0.618 or even 0.718 and 0.518 that would have put them in 3rd and 4th place with 4 remaining to be elected. One Nation and Family First would have been forced out. While they might not have ranked the Liberals high, they wouldn't have materially ranked ALP or the Greens higher.

With 6 remaining it was:

Greens 0.926 quotas (+.147 gained since distribution of initial surpluses)
Xenophon 0.907 (+.142)
ALP 0.619 (+.121)
Family First 0.550 (+.161)
One Nation 0.539 (+.146)
Liberals 0.326 (+0.099)

But split the final two for Liberals and you squeeze out Family First and One Nation which probably puts you clear of ALP.

And even if it doesn't, the eliminated candidate will elect the other candidate on transfers. With the candidates of each party lined up in columns, it is not likely that there would be much failure to not rank all of them high. Even if they stick an ALP candidate up high for some personal reason (he lives across the road, etc.) it is unlikely to be _the_ ALP candidate who remains.
74  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: UK parliamentary boundary review 2016-2018 on: August 05, 2016, 10:02:06 pm
England, Wales and Scotland have seen the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration, which has the side effect of reducing the number on the register. Northern Ireland introduced IER about 15 years ago.
I was looking at these, and am even more confused.

Electoral Statistics for UK

Doing some quick Goo-research it appears that persons on the household register were able to vote in 2015. But the change appeared to occur in 2014 in England and Wales, and 2015 in Scotland.

England (2011-2015): +0.6%, -0.6%, -2.0%, -1.1% = -3.2%
Scotland (2011-2015): +1.1%, +1.1%, +0.2%, -3.4% = -1.1%
Wales (2011-2015): +0.1%, -0.2%, -3.1%, -2.0% = -5.1%

So while Scotland had the smallest drop from 2011-2015, it had the largest drop from 2014-2015. Is this related to the 2014 referendum?
75  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: UK parliamentary boundary review 2016-2018 on: August 05, 2016, 01:45:17 am
The review is under way. There is already plenty of discussion in the UK at http://vote-2012.proboards.com/board/2/boundaries and the official website (containing the rules and data) is at http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/

If you have a feeling of deja vu, it's because the UK had a similar review 5 years ago, but it was eventually shelved.
Are the changes in registered voters among the four countries due to actual demographic change, or to the quality of the registration roles.

Change from 2011-2015:

England -3.2%
Wales -5.1%
Scotland -1.1%
Northern Ireland +2.5%
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 297


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines