MMP: Is a wasted list vote a redistributed vote?
I was looking at the CHP website today and I found something interesting and would appreciate any comments. It's an email exchange between CHP's National Secretary David Simpkin and Peter Northcote, the Communications manager of the Electoral Commission regarding distribution of the party vote for parties who do not get 5 percent or an elected member. It was my understanding that "wasted party votes" get reallocated amongst the parties over the threshhold.
The CHPs site says the following
Proponents of the “wasted” vote argument say the votes going to a party like CHNZ are redistributed to other parties if CHNZ does not reach the 5% threshold. However this is just not true (refer email correspondence with Electoral Commission included at the bottom of this newsletter). If CHNZ does not reach the threshold the votes cast for it are simply not counted in deciding the make-up of Parliament. They are not re-allocated or redistributed and to say that they are is misleading. There is a real difference between having your vote not counted, and having it redistributed to a different party.Now, that was news to me. Here's the letter.
Dear Electoral Commission,Interesting.It appears that the vote percentages of all parties above the threshhold are tweaked - but how much different is that to a reallocation? I'd appreciate any comments on this.
I am confused about a point related to party votes and I was wondering if you could tell me whether you think the following statement is accurate:
Votes for parties that don't make it into Parliament are redistributed among the other parties according to their share of the total party vote. I was always under the impression that if I voted for a party that did not make it into parliament then my party vote was not counted. I did not realise that my vote would be given to another party or parties that I did not vote for. Is it true that if the party I vote for does not make it into parliament that my vote will be redistributed just like they do with preferential voting in Australia?
Regards, David Simpkin.
From: Peter Northcote To: David Simpkin Sent: Friday, 20 May 2005 3:47 p.m. Subject: Party votes
David,
You are right - there is no redistribution of party votes for those parties which do not cross the threshold for seat allocation of winning either 5% of all party votes cast or one electorate seat.
See this section of our website for further details. http://www.elections.org.nz/mmp/sainte_lague.html
Thanks for your interest,
Peter Northcote
Manager Communications
Electoral Commission - Te Kaitiaki Take Kowhiri
7 comments:
semantics. What he's saying is that all the CHP votes aren't divvied up - one for Labour, one for National, etc but they are simply thrown out and the percentages calculated from a smaller sample.
Your point, though maybe mitiated a little still stands. A vote for a party that does not make 5% is a waste of the petrol money to go to the polling booth, as its end result is exactly the same as if you never voted.
Yep - pure semantics. The effect is redistribution. Ashraf choudary is in parliament simply because votes for groups like CHP got cancelled and Labour's number of MP's got bumped up. The guy from the Electoral Commission should learn the system!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's say party A gets 10 out of 22 votes cast and party B gets 2 and is excluded.
If you redistribute party B's vote, then A gets 11/22 or 50%.
If you don't redistribute then party A gets 10/20 which is also 50%.
Technically wasted votes are not redistributed but effectively they are.
If Party A gets 19 out of 100 votes that is 19%. However if 5% of vote is for non threshold parties, then their % of the 'effective vote' is 19/95 which is 20% and this is what is the effective redistribution.
However the actual allocation of seats is done by the St Lague formula and that doesn't even look at percentages - it just applies the formula to the results of those who make the threshold.
The votes are NOT "redistributed".
I think that this is an important distinction.
Functionally, we get the same practical equivalent result as if they were, but let me explain why the difference is important.
In practice, our Parliament is made up of those parties that cross the party-vote threshold (or get one seat). If I vote for a little party that doesn't cross the threshold, my vote isn't "wasted" or given to a party that I didn't vote for, the fact is that Parliament is proportionately split according to those other party votes that the successful parties received. It has nothing to do with my vote. You can't be statistically honest and compare the "loss" that I suffered in relation to the state of parliament if we divided it up by all parties whether they cross the threshold or not. If 100% of NZ votes, that means all votes have been counted and included. But of course that isn't the pool of votes that parliament is split according to.
Some smaller parties are using this piece of deceitful statistics to make sure that people with a tendency to vote for a smaller party put all their votes on them. That's using ignorance and semantics for a scare-campaign designed to steal votes. I think that's wrong.
Here's a letter that I sent to an aquaintance at the Maxim institute, after some people I know got into an email conversation about this with her.
__________________________
Hi all,
So I went to this website to see what all the fuss was about.
It seems pretty clear to me, and it appears that ol' Bernie was being deceptive when he visited my campus.
Yes, I heard him tell me that voting for a failed party would ensure that my votes went to the devilish labour party, or some other equally dastardly party.
As far as I can see, this is how it goes:
Paul votes for United Future.
Ruth votes for United Future.
Bob votes for United Future.
Russell votes for National.
Valerie votes for National.
Iain votes for NZ First.
Lets say that United Future, with 3 votes, gets into Parliament.
Lets say that National, with two votes, gets into Parliament.
But now we'll say that NZ First, with only one vote, falls below the threshold required to get into Parliament.
Parliament is divided up between United Future and National, on a basis of party votes received. Not on a basis of getting anyone else's party vote, "more" party votes, or the votes of their failed competitors.
OF COURSE the winning parties will take up proportional seating in parliament, we expect them to fill all the chairs. What the slideshow that I saw said that somehow they were getting more votes. But that is comparing the final allocation to the state of seats in parliament if all parties - even ones below threshold - received a slice of the pie. That's rediculous. That is deceitful. That is lying and misleading, and using "scare tactics" via shonky abuse of statistics. That is taking advantage of voter ignorance.
Don't get me wrong, i'm a UF supporter, I just despise lying.
The thing is that people can say that this whole thing is "essentially correct", "equivalent 'in practice' ", or "close enough". But let me just say that 2% lie plus 98% truth, when that lie is part of the essential and necessary logic to the total statement, is just a REALLY REALLY good lie.
In fact, the more we package the lie to look like the truth and be as equivalent as possible, the better the lie actually is.
Be in no doubt that at least some small-party candidates, UF among them, are regularly abusing this misinformation to their gain.
They still get my vote...
...I don't have to like this nonsense.
Sincerely,
Iain.
Iain, what was her reply?
I'm currently awaiting a reply from Maxim and from Bernie Ogilvy (CC: Peter Dunne), as Bernie came to my campus and provided a wonderful and flashy slideshow scaring me with this statistical untruth (my own blog on it here), so I'll let you know what they say if they ever reply.
Post a Comment