![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danieldwilliamAfter each Scottish General Election I like to play around with some counter-factuals and see how some conceivable changes in voting pattern, turn-out, constituency wins would impact the overall result. Largely this involves dividing some large numbers by some small numbers in a spreadsheet.
Round 1 of this analysis will look at the following questions, which either occurred to me or were prompted by questions from someone.
(If you have a question you'd like me to look at please feel free. If you'd like a copy of the excel spreadsheet that I've built so far, you are welcome to it. )
Raw data comes from Ballot Box Scotland - who deserve some emotional and financial support from anyone interested in Scottish politics.
1) What would happen if Independent Green Voice votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party?
2) What would happen if Alba votes transferred to the SNP?
3) What would happen if Alba votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party? On top of the Independent Green Voice transfer?
4) What would happen if 10% or 20% of the votes transferred from the SNP to ALBA?
5) What would happen if 5% or 10% of the votes transferred from the SNP to the Scottish Green Party?
1) What would happen if Independent Green Voice votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party?
9,192 people voted for a party called Independent Green Voice. There is some question about whether Independent Green Voice are actually a green party.
They seem to be made up of far-right politicians including some former BNP activists. I guess it's not inconceivable that the far-right could take an environmentalist position. Hitler was a vegetarian after all. They have been standing in elections since 2003 polling a thousand or so votes each time. They don't appear to have been set up for this election.
https://greenpolitics.fandom.com/wiki/Independent_Green_Voice
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Registrations/PP293
Had those 9,192 votes been cast for the Scottish Green Party then the Scottish Green Party would have won two additional seats. One in South Scotland and one in Glasgow.
Given that Independent Green Voice have been operating for nearly two decades in Glasgow it is probably not a safe assumption that everyone who voted for them was duped.
2) What would happen if Alba votes transferred to the SNP?
44,913 people voted for Alba. Had all of those votes transferred to the SNP they would not have won any additional seats.
3) What would happen if Alba votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party? On top of the Independent Green Voice transfer?
Unsurprisingly, had the Alba votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party they would have won the same two additional seats in South Scotland and Glasgow. Even adding both factors together still only means those two additional seats.
The reason for this is the d'Hondt ratchet. D'hondt PR allocates the next seat in each round based on your number of votes divided by the number of seats you already have. (Votes / (Seats +1) So every time you win a seat it becomes significantly harder to win the next one. By way of illustration. The SNP won over a million regional list votes and only 2 regional seats on top of their 62 constituency seats. The Scottish Greens on 220k regional list votes picked up 8 seats. In North East Scotland the SNP on 147,910 list votes but 9 constituency seats start the d'Hondt allocation process with a score of 14,791 ((147,910 / (9+1)) and the Scottish Greens with 22,735 votes start on a score of 22,735 ( 22,735 / (0+1)). The Greens go on to win a seat in the 6th allocation round.
The Greens finish the election in 4th place but a distant 4th place, some 265 thousand votes behind 3rd place Labour.
Whist a relatively small number of votes just makes a difference in two regions the Scottish Greens had not won a second seat but were close, once those seats are won an extra few thousand votes in the regions they have already won two seats get divided away by d'Hondt pretty quickly.
4) What would happen if 10% or 20% of the votes transferred from the SNP to ALBA?
Had 10% of the total votes cast moved from the SNP to ALBA (SNP down from 1,094k by 271k to 823k, Alba up from 45k to 316k then Alba would have won 11 seats. 316k is a quite a lot more than the Scottish Greens vote tally which gained them 8 seats.
The SNP would lose 2 seats. The Scottish Greens would lose 2 seats. Labour 3 and the Conservatives 4. Net gain of pro-independence seats is 7.
Had 20% of the vote shifted Alba would have ended up on 20 seats, with the SNP down 2, Scottish Greens down 4, Conservatives down 8 and Labour down 6. Net pro-indy seats 14.
So the concept of the Alba strategy is sound. Perhaps the personnel involved need a closer look.
5) What would happen if 5% or 10% of the votes transferred from the SNP to the Scottish Green Party?
Had 5% of the total vote cast ( 136k) swung from SNP to the Scottish Greens the Scottish Greens would have won 5 more seats, the SNP down 2, Conservatives down 3. Net pro-indy seats +3
For a 10% swing Scottish Greens up 11 seats to 19, SNP down 2, Conservatives down 4, Labour down 5, net pro-indy seats 9. Which is one more than the net pro-indy seats from a swing the ame the size from the SNP to Alba. At a 20% swing (Alba's target the Scottish Greens finish on 25 seats, all but 2 from the Conservatives and Labour, and also enough to be the second largest party.
Who would have thought that tactical voting for an established already existing party would prove more effective than setting up your own just weeks before the election? (Me,)
So that's round 1 of the election counter-factual analysis.
Round 2 when I get to it is going to look at the impact of some of the marginal constituency votes and how marginal some of the regional list seats are. As a teaser the d'Hondt ratchet is a pretty stern mistress and once you've won a seat or two it takes a lot of additional votes at the top end to produce even small swings at the bottom of round 7 or 8. So prepared to underwhealmed by a lot "and they were not really close at all in the end" type comments.
Round 1 of this analysis will look at the following questions, which either occurred to me or were prompted by questions from someone.
(If you have a question you'd like me to look at please feel free. If you'd like a copy of the excel spreadsheet that I've built so far, you are welcome to it. )
Raw data comes from Ballot Box Scotland - who deserve some emotional and financial support from anyone interested in Scottish politics.
1) What would happen if Independent Green Voice votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party?
2) What would happen if Alba votes transferred to the SNP?
3) What would happen if Alba votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party? On top of the Independent Green Voice transfer?
4) What would happen if 10% or 20% of the votes transferred from the SNP to ALBA?
5) What would happen if 5% or 10% of the votes transferred from the SNP to the Scottish Green Party?
1) What would happen if Independent Green Voice votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party?
9,192 people voted for a party called Independent Green Voice. There is some question about whether Independent Green Voice are actually a green party.
They seem to be made up of far-right politicians including some former BNP activists. I guess it's not inconceivable that the far-right could take an environmentalist position. Hitler was a vegetarian after all. They have been standing in elections since 2003 polling a thousand or so votes each time. They don't appear to have been set up for this election.
https://greenpolitics.fandom.com/wiki/Independent_Green_Voice
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Registrations/PP293
Had those 9,192 votes been cast for the Scottish Green Party then the Scottish Green Party would have won two additional seats. One in South Scotland and one in Glasgow.
Given that Independent Green Voice have been operating for nearly two decades in Glasgow it is probably not a safe assumption that everyone who voted for them was duped.
2) What would happen if Alba votes transferred to the SNP?
44,913 people voted for Alba. Had all of those votes transferred to the SNP they would not have won any additional seats.
3) What would happen if Alba votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party? On top of the Independent Green Voice transfer?
Unsurprisingly, had the Alba votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party they would have won the same two additional seats in South Scotland and Glasgow. Even adding both factors together still only means those two additional seats.
The reason for this is the d'Hondt ratchet. D'hondt PR allocates the next seat in each round based on your number of votes divided by the number of seats you already have. (Votes / (Seats +1) So every time you win a seat it becomes significantly harder to win the next one. By way of illustration. The SNP won over a million regional list votes and only 2 regional seats on top of their 62 constituency seats. The Scottish Greens on 220k regional list votes picked up 8 seats. In North East Scotland the SNP on 147,910 list votes but 9 constituency seats start the d'Hondt allocation process with a score of 14,791 ((147,910 / (9+1)) and the Scottish Greens with 22,735 votes start on a score of 22,735 ( 22,735 / (0+1)). The Greens go on to win a seat in the 6th allocation round.
The Greens finish the election in 4th place but a distant 4th place, some 265 thousand votes behind 3rd place Labour.
Whist a relatively small number of votes just makes a difference in two regions the Scottish Greens had not won a second seat but were close, once those seats are won an extra few thousand votes in the regions they have already won two seats get divided away by d'Hondt pretty quickly.
4) What would happen if 10% or 20% of the votes transferred from the SNP to ALBA?
Had 10% of the total votes cast moved from the SNP to ALBA (SNP down from 1,094k by 271k to 823k, Alba up from 45k to 316k then Alba would have won 11 seats. 316k is a quite a lot more than the Scottish Greens vote tally which gained them 8 seats.
The SNP would lose 2 seats. The Scottish Greens would lose 2 seats. Labour 3 and the Conservatives 4. Net gain of pro-independence seats is 7.
Had 20% of the vote shifted Alba would have ended up on 20 seats, with the SNP down 2, Scottish Greens down 4, Conservatives down 8 and Labour down 6. Net pro-indy seats 14.
So the concept of the Alba strategy is sound. Perhaps the personnel involved need a closer look.
5) What would happen if 5% or 10% of the votes transferred from the SNP to the Scottish Green Party?
Had 5% of the total vote cast ( 136k) swung from SNP to the Scottish Greens the Scottish Greens would have won 5 more seats, the SNP down 2, Conservatives down 3. Net pro-indy seats +3
For a 10% swing Scottish Greens up 11 seats to 19, SNP down 2, Conservatives down 4, Labour down 5, net pro-indy seats 9. Which is one more than the net pro-indy seats from a swing the ame the size from the SNP to Alba. At a 20% swing (Alba's target the Scottish Greens finish on 25 seats, all but 2 from the Conservatives and Labour, and also enough to be the second largest party.
Who would have thought that tactical voting for an established already existing party would prove more effective than setting up your own just weeks before the election? (Me,)
So that's round 1 of the election counter-factual analysis.
Round 2 when I get to it is going to look at the impact of some of the marginal constituency votes and how marginal some of the regional list seats are. As a teaser the d'Hondt ratchet is a pretty stern mistress and once you've won a seat or two it takes a lot of additional votes at the top end to produce even small swings at the bottom of round 7 or 8. So prepared to underwhealmed by a lot "and they were not really close at all in the end" type comments.
no subject
Date: 2021-05-11 11:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-05-11 01:27 pm (UTC)1) Generally, winning seats on the list is hard if you do very well in constituencies.
2) Scotland's voting patterns are lopside (SNP 40%-50%, everyone else 60%-50%)
3) The split between constituency seats and regional seats in Scotland does have an effect on the outcome - it makes it difficult for smaller parties to win seats and easier for very, very big parties to win government, but not a majority. (If I were going to reform the sytem a little I might be tempted to add 2 or 3 seats decided on the national vote share). Lib Dems with 5% of the vote, 3 % of the seats, Greens with 8% of the votes, 6% of the seats, SNP with 40% of the vote, 49.6% of the seats)
4) Alba had almost no impact on the election. (Which is not the same as your point about whether Alex Salmond had an impact on the election - still thinking that over.)
5) Alba were right about their fundamental point about the electoral system.
6) I like Mixed Member Proportionality more than I used to but not as much as STV or AV+
More to follow...
no subject
Date: 2021-05-12 03:39 am (UTC)Alba were trying to be a decoy list, which is a known issue with mixed-member proportional systems. Happily the electorate realised that they were trying to cheat the system / thought Alex Salmond was a creep so nothing bad happened. But it's still a weakness.
Regarding the SNP's "both votes SNP" tactic, it has intellectual honesty and it acts as a floor on how many seats other parties are going to win. As soon as the SNP don't win every constituency in the region, a high vote tally on the list makes it possible for them to e up their losses there.
AV is better than FPTP for the constituency part, and maybe the SNP would be advised to consider it to avoid tactical voting that means that we don't know how much support parties actually have in a constituency. (I believe this year many Labour supporters voted Tory in Tory-favoured seats, and vice-versa; but this sort of tactical voting was only possible because things hadn't changed that much since 2016. When the SNP first won a majority in Holyrood, it was because they surged so much that nobody was expecting it.)
But STV has a problem in more rural areas: while it's easy to divide Glasgow's 16 seats into 4 STV constituencies, that's a tougher ask when you take a large constituency and, by dint of it and its neighbours electing 3 or 4 MSPs, multiply its size by 3 or 4. There's already a problematic divide between urban and rural Scotland, and I fear that STV might exacerbate that divide further.
no subject
Date: 2021-05-12 09:27 am (UTC)If we wanted everyone with at least 10% support to get a seat then you need 10 seats in your grouping. With 5 main-ish parties and ten smaller ones you could end up with 30-odd people on your voting list, making it near-incomprehensible.
no subject
Date: 2021-05-12 09:50 am (UTC)I've never voted in an Australian Federal election myself so I've never operated the system they use. They have STV for senate elections. Each state has 12 senators, elected in two divisions of 6 each election cycle. The system I think has changed recently but used to be
You can either vote for six parties *above* the line adopt their Group Voting Ticket - their list of how to distribute preferences - presumable 1st to 6th for their own party, then 7th to 12th for their allies, 13th onwards.
Or you can vote *below* the line, voting for at least 12 candidates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate#Ballot_paper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_voting_ticket
That allows Australian Senate elections for 6 seats at a time with up to 7 or 8 parties on the ballot.
You might just about be able to extend that to Scotland by making the current regions with approx 18 seats single STV constituencies. Which would give you a quota of about 5.5% and probably getting elected on 3%-4% if you had decent second preferences. Or you could divide the existing regions in to two or three with 9 or 6 seats each.
I think I would rather have MMP with larger regional lists, as we currently do, than STV with 3 or 4 seat constituencies. My observation of Scottish local council elections is that 3 or 4 seats is too few to get the benefits of STV in practice. Certainly when we have 5 or 6 or 7 parties operating.
no subject
Date: 2021-05-12 11:36 am (UTC)The other issue with 3- or 4-member STV constituencies is that while you don't get tactical voting, you do get tactical standing; how many candidates each party puts up is based on how many it thinks it can get elected, and if your vote is unexpectedly high, like Sinn Féin in the most recent Irish elections, you end up accidentally wasting votes because your excess votes don't transfer.
I can totally understand why the LibDems wanted a voting system that would favour them but not let in smaller parties, though ;-) .
no subject
Date: 2021-05-12 01:09 pm (UTC)They'd got in to the habit of only standing 1 candidate in 4 seat wards and were surprised when they got enough first and second preferences to elect 2 candidates.
And for me it's that sort of thing that makes STV less than awesome when using it in wards with 3-4 seats in a political environment where we have 5 - 6 parties. Everyone knows more or less that they are going to get 0-1 or 1-2, or 2-3 seats in a particular ward and only stands that number of candidates. It's not hugely proportional at a ward level and the voter doesn't get a choice between different candidates from the same party.
Don't get me wrong (and I have to say this because having stood a few times for the Electoral Reform Society's council I know people are scrutinising my social media to see how much of an STV supporter I am) - STV is my favourite electoral system. I am glad we use it in Scotland for local elections. I just don't think we get the full benefit of using it in our local elections the way we use it. I have concerns about how we might set up our Holyrood elections to get the best out of STV.
no subject
Date: 2021-05-12 10:15 am (UTC)Yes, I think fundamentally Alba were trying to operate as a decoy list party. You could argue there were some substantive differences on the main policy issue of the timing of the next referendum but as they were explicitly seeking List votes to max out the Yes majority in Holyrood it's not a very strong argument.
I think their lack of success is probably driven by 1) they are a new, small party and then 2) Alex Salmond is well dodgey 3) Sturgeon signalling a move towards a more Plan B position than she had previously articulated rather than concerns about gaming the system.
Agreed on the both votes SNP as prudent belt and braces approach. Also, the SNP don't want to be leveraged in to allowing the Greens too much policy freedom as the SNP coalition is much broader than the SGP's. They would mostly like to deliver beige social democracy without scaring the horses. Mostly.
I think you are correct about using AV for the constituency votes. I like AV+ as a system - nearly as much as STV. There is some evidence of Unionist tactical voting. I think it is safe for Labour and Lib Dem voters to switch a little to the Conservatives because they expect to get an SNP government anyway (doing beige social democracy) and have regional vote to make sure their party gets some seats anyway. I don't think a voting system should encourage voter to shrug their shoulders and say "this'll do."
I think in rural area with large constituencies what you will get in practice is de facto MSP for smaller geographical areas inside the larger one. But I think these problems are unavoidable. Orkney, the smallest seat by population has a population of 22 thousand, one quarter the size of the largest constituencies, and one third the size of the average constituency. Highlands and Islands as a region has about two thirds the population of the average region.
Given that only about 1 person in ten lives in properly rural Scotland I'm not sure how much we ought to bend our electoral system out of shape to accommodate rural voters. If you take the six geographically largest constituencies (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, Skye, Lochaber and Badenock, Argyle and Bute, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Orkney and Shetland as one STV constituency, that's pushing on for a third of the land area of Scotland but only 5% of the population. I'm not sure there is a solution that works well for rural Scotland that also works well for the country as a whole.
I don't like STV with 4 or fewer seats. I don't think it gains much of the benefits of STV over AV.