Overview of Featured Simulations
Introduction
What's New
2017-04-23: Lots of changes from the original work at election-modelling.ca to support Local PR.
2017-07-13: Clarified LPR and STV trace presentation.
This page:
Proportionality
| bcMultMbr4.4-RunoffLPR | 87 | 0 | 4% | -1% | 4% | 0% | -5% | 5.5% | 5.5% | 92% | 97% | 2015 |
| bcMultMbr4.4-STV | 87 | 0 | 4% | -1% | 5% | 0% | -6% | 6.4% | 6.4% | 91% | 97% | 2015 |
| bcMultMbr9.7-RunoffLPR | 87 | 0 | 5% | -1% | 0% | 0% | -3% | 4.3% | 4.3% | 97% | 97% | 2015 |
| bcMultMbr9.7-STV | 87 | 0 | 5% | -1% | 0% | 0% | -3% | 4.3% | 4.3% | 97% | 97% | 2015 |
| canMultMbr4.3-RunoffLPR | 338 | 0 | 5% | 1% | -2% | -1% | -3% | 4.6% | 6.8% | 90% | 97% | 2015 |
| canMultMbr4.3-STV | 338 | 0 | 5% | 1% | -2% | -1% | -3% | 4.5% | 6.7% | 90% | 97% | 2015 |
| canMultMbr5.6-RunoffLPR | 338 | 0 | 5% | -0% | -1% | 0% | -3% | 4.1% | 4.6% | 94% | 97% | 2015 |
| canMultMbr5.6-STV | 338 | 0 | 6% | -1% | -1% | 0% | -3% | 4.5% | 5.1% | 93% | 97% | 2015 |
| canSingleMbr-AV | 338 | 0 | 24% | -11% | -4% | -4% | -3% | 19.0% | 24.0% | 48% | 94% | 2015 |
| canSingleMbr-FPTP | 338 | 0 | 15% | -3% | -7% | -2% | -3% | 12.0% | 17.2% | 48% | 94% | 2015 |
Footnotes
- Number of Local MPs is the total number of MPs representing specific ridings. Those ridings may be either single-member ridings or multi-member.
- Number of Regional MPs is the total number of MPs that represent multiple ridings. This happens in systems with top-up seats such as MMP and RU-PR.
- Over-Representation by Party is the percentage of MPs in Parliament minus the percentage of the popular vote. For example, in 2015 under FPTP the Liberals received 54.4% of the seats but only 39.5% of the vote for an over-representation of (54.4 - 39.5) = 14.9%. Negative numbers mean the party was under-represented.
- Gallagher Index is a measure of disproportionality. It combines both over and under-representation for each party into a single number. Gallagherindicies less than 5 are excellent.
- Gallagher Index 2015 is the Gallagher Index for the simulated 2015 election.
- Gallagher Index Composite is the average of the Gallagher Indices for each province and territory, weighted by its number of seats. This corrects for a problem in calculating the Gallagher Index for the nation as a whole, which can can hide regional disproportionalities such as the significant over-representation of Conservatives in the Prairies offsetting the over-representation of Liberals in the Maritimes.
- % Voters with Preferred Local MP is the percentage of voters who have an MP representing their riding from the same party as their first choice candidate. Systems with multi-member ridings will do better under this measure.
- % Voters with Preferred Regional MP is the percentage of voters who have an MP representing their region from the same party as their first choice candidate. Systems with top-up seats will do better under this measure.
- Short System Name is a very consise abbreviation of the key parameters for this simulation.
Model Summary
Proportional electoral systems have many design parameters that can be tweaked. This table has two rows for each model. The bottom row applies to the riding; the top row applies to the region.
The first column of that table gives the name of the riding design (top) and the election algorithm used and the year of the election it's based on (bottom). The riding design specifies a particular mapping from old (e.g. 2015) ridings to new ridings, how the new ridings are gathered into regions, and finally how the regions are gathered by province. Riding designs are described in more detail at the bottom of this page and by following the riding design link.
| Region | # Tot Seats | % Seats | Avg # Seats/Region | Avg #Reg/Prov | Avg Adjust Seats / Region | ||
| Riding | Year | # Tot Seats | % Seats | Avg # Seats/Riding | % Single | % Multiple | Comp. Gallagher |
| STV-BC | 0 | 0% | 0.0 | 4.0 | |||
| RunoffLPR | 2015 | 87 | 100% | 4.3 | 0% | 100% | 5.5% |
| STV-BC | 0 | 0% | 0.0 | 4.0 | |||
| STV | 2015 | 87 | 100% | 4.3 | 0% | 100% | 6.4% |
| STV-BC | 0 | 0% | 0.0 | 4.0 | |||
| RunoffLPR | 2015 | 87 | 100% | 9.7 | 0% | 100% | 4.3% |
| STV-BC | 0 | 0% | 0.0 | 4.0 | |||
| STV | 2015 | 87 | 100% | 9.7 | 0% | 100% | 4.3% |
| Local PR (small regions) | 0 | 0% | 0.0 | 1.3 | |||
| RunoffLPR | 2015 | 338 | 100% | 4.3 | 4% | 96% | 6.8% |
| Local PR (small regions) | 0 | 0% | 0.0 | 1.3 | |||
| STV | 2015 | 338 | 100% | 4.3 | 4% | 96% | 6.7% |
| Local PR (larger regions) | 0 | 0% | 0.0 | 1.3 | |||
| RunoffLPR | 2015 | 338 | 100% | 5.6 | 5% | 95% | 4.6% |
| Local PR (larger regions) | 0 | 0% | 0.0 | 1.3 | |||
| STV | 2015 | 338 | 100% | 5.6 | 5% | 95% | 5.1% |
| fptp | 0 | 0% | 0.0 | 1.0 | |||
| AV | 2015 | 338 | 100% | 1.0 | 100% | 0% | 24.0% |
| fptp | 0 | 0% | 0.0 | 1.0 | |||
| FPTP | 2015 | 338 | 100% | 1.0 | 100% | 0% | 17.2% |
Representation
The Representation table focuses on how voters are represented by MP.
| bcMultMbr4.4-RunoffLPR | 87 | 0 | 87 | 4.3 | 1 | 5 | |||
| bcMultMbr4.4-STV | 87 | 0 | 87 | 4.3 | 1 | 5 | |||
| bcMultMbr9.7-RunoffLPR | 87 | 0 | 87 | 9.7 | 1 | 11 | |||
| bcMultMbr9.7-STV | 87 | 0 | 87 | 9.7 | 1 | 11 | |||
| canMultMbr4.3-RunoffLPR | 338 | 0 | 338 | 4.3 | 99,034 | 6,704 | |||
| canMultMbr4.3-STV | 338 | 0 | 338 | 4.3 | 99,034 | 6,704 | |||
| canMultMbr5.6-RunoffLPR | 338 | 0 | 338 | 5.6 | 99,034 | 12,659 | |||
| canMultMbr5.6-STV | 338 | 0 | 338 | 5.6 | 99,034 | 12,659 | |||
| canSingleMbr-AV | 338 | 0 | 338 | 1.0 | 99,034 | 368 | |||
| canSingleMbr-FPTP | 338 | 0 | 338 | 1.0 | 99,034 | 368 |
Footnotes
- Number of Local MPs is the total number of MPs representing a specific riding. That riding may be either a single-member riding or a multi-member riding.
- Number of Regional MPs is the total number of MPs that represent multiple ridings. This happens in systems with top-up seats such as MMP and RU-PR.
- Number of MPs is the sum of the local and regional MPs, or how many seats in Parliament is assumed by this model.
- Average Local MPs/Riding is the average number of MPs representing a local riding. Forsystems that have single-member ridings everywhere such as FPTP and MMP, it will be 1.0. For systems that have at least some multi-member ridings such as STV and RU-PR it will be largerthan 1.0.
- Average Top-up Seats/Region is useful for systems like MMP and RU-PR where it gives the average number of seats in the top-up region.
- Average Total MPs/Region is the average number of MPs representing a region -- the sum of all the local MPs in that region plus the MPs in top-up seats for that region.
- Population/Local MP is the total Canadian population divided by the number of local MPs.
- Area Represented by Median Local MP is a measure of the area covered by a local MP. In this case 50% of the ridings are smaller than the area (given in square kilometeres) and 50% of the ridings are larger.
- Short System Name is a very consise abbreviation of the key parameters for this simulation.
Riding Design Descriptions
Local PR (larger regions)
Local Proportional Representation: cluster ridings into regions of (ideally) 4-8 ridings. Run an STV-like algorithm to elect as many MPs as ridings in the region. The difference is that a candidate who is the last one left in his or her riding can't be eliminated. This guarantees that each existing riding will have an MP to represent it.
This uses larger regions than lpr_no_topup.json. Based on work by Wilf Day.
For comparison, the same mapping of ridings to regions was also simulated using STV to see the effects of the special rule described above.
Local PR (small regions)
Local Proportional Representation: cluster ridings into regions of (ideally) 4-8 ridings. Run an STV-like algorithm to elect as many MPs as ridings in the region. The difference is that a candidate who is the last one left in his or her riding can't be eliminated. This guarantees that each existing riding will have an MP to represent it.
For comparison, the same mapping of ridings to regions was also simulated using STV to see the effects of the special rule described above.
STV-BC
Multi-member ridings in BC for the 2017 provincial election.
Ridings/Regions specified by Antony Hodgson.
STV-BC
Multi-member ridings with larger district magnitudes in BC for the 2017 provincial election.
fptp
Canada's current riding design: 338 single-member ridings with no compensatory seats. Thisdesign can be used with either FPTP or Alternative Vote.
Election Strategy Descriptions
Election strategies are the specifics of how ballots are counted to determine which candidate fills a seat. Each strategy has three parts: how single-member ridings are handled, how multi-member ridings are handled, and finally how top-up or adjustment seats are handled.
AV
Single-Member Ridings:
During the election in each riding, votes were transferred in two steps. First, if a member of party X is eliminated and there are other members of party X still in the race, ALL of the votes are split equally between the remaining members of party X.
When the last member of a party is eliminated, the votes are transferred according to the following table.
| Xfer from↓ to→ | Bloc | CHP | Com | Con | Grn | Ind | Lbt | Lib | M-L | NDP | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bloc | 19 | 6 | 16 | 28 | |||||||
| CHP | |||||||||||
| Com | |||||||||||
| Con | 8 | 17 | 10 | ||||||||
| Grn | 15 | 8 | 16 | 22 | |||||||
| Ind | |||||||||||
| Lbt | |||||||||||
| Lib | 3 | 12 | 10 | 45 | |||||||
| M-L | |||||||||||
| NDP | 6 | 6 | 13 | 53 | |||||||
| Oth |
This table is based on Ekos polling performed just before the 2015 election which asked for voters' second choice party. As Wilf Day has pointed out,
On Oct. 14 it had Liberals at 33.5%, Conservatives 32.6%, NDP 22.9%, Greens 5.6%, Bloc 3.4%. However, the E-day figures were Liberal 39.5%, Conservatives 31.9%, NDP 19.7%, Green 3.4%, and Bloc 4.7%. Obviously a lot of NDP and Green second-choices for Liberals had switched by E-day
However, it appears to be the best data we have.
Source: http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_october_15_2015.pdf
Multi-Member Ridings:
An election strategy for where none are applicable. For example, for multi-member ridings in a FPTP simulation.
Top-up or Adjustments:
A placeholder election strategy for where no top-up strategy is applicable.
FPTP
Single-Member Ridings:
After collapsing all candidates running for the same party into one virtual candiate, choose the virtual candidate with the most votes.
Multi-Member Ridings:
An election strategy for where none are applicable. For example, for multi-member ridings in a FPTP simulation.
Top-up or Adjustments:
A placeholder election strategy for where no top-up strategy is applicable.
RunoffLPR
Single-Member Ridings:
During the election in each riding, votes were transferred in two steps. First, if a member of party X is eliminated and there are other members of party X still in the race, ALL of the votes are split equally between the remaining members of party X.
When the last member of a party is eliminated, the votes are transferred according to the following table.
| Xfer from↓ to→ | Bloc | CHP | Com | Con | Grn | Ind | Lbt | Lib | M-L | NDP | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bloc | 19 | 6 | 16 | 28 | |||||||
| CHP | |||||||||||
| Com | |||||||||||
| Con | 8 | 17 | 10 | ||||||||
| Grn | 15 | 8 | 16 | 22 | |||||||
| Ind | |||||||||||
| Lbt | |||||||||||
| Lib | 3 | 12 | 10 | 45 | |||||||
| M-L | |||||||||||
| NDP | 6 | 6 | 13 | 53 | |||||||
| Oth |
This table is based on Ekos polling performed just before the 2015 election which asked for voters' second choice party. As Wilf Day has pointed out,
On Oct. 14 it had Liberals at 33.5%, Conservatives 32.6%, NDP 22.9%, Greens 5.6%, Bloc 3.4%. However, the E-day figures were Liberal 39.5%, Conservatives 31.9%, NDP 19.7%, Green 3.4%, and Bloc 4.7%. Obviously a lot of NDP and Green second-choices for Liberals had switched by E-day
However, it appears to be the best data we have.
Source: http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_october_15_2015.pdf
Multi-Member Ridings:
An election strategy for where none are applicable. For example, for multi-member ridings in a FPTP simulation.
Top-up or Adjustments:
A placeholder election strategy for where no top-up strategy is applicable.
STV
Single-Member Ridings:
During the election in each riding, votes were transferred in two steps. First, if a member of party X is eliminated and there are other members of party X still in the race, ALL of the votes are split equally between the remaining members of party X.
When the last member of a party is eliminated, the votes are transferred according to the following table.
| Xfer from↓ to→ | Bloc | CHP | Com | Con | Grn | Ind | Lbt | Lib | M-L | NDP | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bloc | 19 | 6 | 16 | 28 | |||||||
| CHP | |||||||||||
| Com | |||||||||||
| Con | 8 | 17 | 10 | ||||||||
| Grn | 15 | 8 | 16 | 22 | |||||||
| Ind | |||||||||||
| Lbt | |||||||||||
| Lib | 3 | 12 | 10 | 45 | |||||||
| M-L | |||||||||||
| NDP | 6 | 6 | 13 | 53 | |||||||
| Oth |
This table is based on Ekos polling performed just before the 2015 election which asked for voters' second choice party. As Wilf Day has pointed out,
On Oct. 14 it had Liberals at 33.5%, Conservatives 32.6%, NDP 22.9%, Greens 5.6%, Bloc 3.4%. However, the E-day figures were Liberal 39.5%, Conservatives 31.9%, NDP 19.7%, Green 3.4%, and Bloc 4.7%. Obviously a lot of NDP and Green second-choices for Liberals had switched by E-day
However, it appears to be the best data we have.
Source: http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_october_15_2015.pdf
Multi-Member Ridings:
An election strategy for where none are applicable. For example, for multi-member ridings in a FPTP simulation.
Top-up or Adjustments:
A placeholder election strategy for where no top-up strategy is applicable.