Electoral Panorama / Panorama Electoral
Election Resources on the Internet's Weblog / El weblog de Recursos Electorales en la Internet

  Links / Enlaces
    Election Resources on the Internet
Recursos Electorales en la Internet
Global Economy Matters
A Fistful of Euros
Fruits and Votes
The Monkey Cage
World Elections
Elections en Europe - in French
Reading Politics

  Archives / Archivos
    July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
May 2009
July 2009
November 2009
January 2010
February 2010
April 2011
September 2011
March 2012
April 2012
August 2012
September 2013
June 2014
September 2014
November 2014
January 2015
September 2015
June 2018
 
  Mon, Jun 11, 2018
Voter turnout and invalid ballots under STV in Ireland
In recent years, a growing number of jurisdictions in the United States have adopted or given serious consideration to the Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) electoral system. At the same time, there have been concerns from some quarters that such a system would lead to a drastic increase in the number of invalid ballots, and even to a decrease in voter turnout.

However, it should be noted that RCV has been in place for elections in the Republic of Ireland since 1920, when the entire island was still an integral part of the United Kingdom. RCV is known as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system in Ireland, where the term is used for elections carried out in multi-member districts as well as single-winner races. Elsewhere, the system used in the latter case is known as the Alternative Vote (AV) or Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).

All the same, Ireland's implementation of STV is of particular relevance to the U.S., due to the fact that in the same manner as its American counterparts, the system does not require voters to indicate preferences for each and every candidate on the ballot. Moreover, voting in Ireland is not compulsory, just like in the U.S. And while elected officials in Ireland are largely chosen by proportional representation in multi-member districts under STV, there have been a number of single-winner contests, most notably among them the elections for the country's largely ceremonial presidency, which has a seven-year term of office.

Since its present day constitution came into force in 1937, Ireland has or would have held thirteen presidential elections. However, in the event only one candidate is nominated, he or she is declared elected and no voting takes place: this was the case in 1938, 1952, 1974, 1976, 1983 and 2004. According to official election results published by Ireland's Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, for the seven presidential elections contested by two or more candidates, the voter turnout and invalid ballot figures were as follows:

   Year       Election       Electorate       Votes
Cast
      %       Invalid
Ballots
      %   
   2011       Presidential       3,191,157       1,790,438       56.1       18,676       1.0   
   1997       Presidential       2,739,529       1,279,688       46.7       9,852       0.8   
   1990       Presidential       2,471,308       1,584,095       64.1       9,444       0.6   
   1973       Presidential       1,977,817       1,230,584       62.2       6,946       0.6   
   1966       Presidential       1,709,161       1,116,915       65.3       9,910       0.9   
   1959       Presidential       1,678,450       979,628       58.4       24,089       2.5   
   1945       Presidential       1,803,463       1,136,625       63.0       50,287       4.4   

The average turnout rate for presidential elections in Ireland currently stands at 59.4%, a figure comparable to the turnout rate in recent U.S. presidential elections. Moreover, voter turnout has not shown a clear downward trend in Irish presidential elections: to be certain, it fell sharply in 1997, but rebounded in 2011. Meanwhile, invalid ballots (including blank votes) have been on average just 1.5% of the total number of votes cast, and that figure drops to 0.8% for presidential elections held since 1966.

It should also be noted that similar trends can be observed in other types of elections in Ireland throughout this century, as shown in the following table:

   Year       Election       Electorate       Votes
Cast
      %       Invalid
Ballots
      %   
   2011       Presidential       3,191,157       1,790,438       56.1       18,676       1.0   
   2016       Dáil Éireann (House of Representatives)       3,305,110       2,151,293       65.1       18,398       0.9   
   2011       Dáil Éireann (House of Representatives)       3,209,244       2,243,176       69.9       22,817       1.0   
   2007       Dáil Éireann (House of Representatives)       3,110,914       2,085,245       67.0       19,435       0.9   
   2002       Dáil Éireann (House of Representatives)       3,002,173       1,878,609       62.6       20,707       1.1   
   2014       European Parliament       3,245,348       1,701,942       52.4       45,424       2.7   
   2009       European Parliament       3,199,289       1,875,920       58.6       46,607       2.5   
   2004       European Parliament       3,143,025       1,841,335       58.6       60,567       3.3   
   2014       Local (All Councils)       3,328,603       1,720,896       51.7       22,286       1.3   
   2009       Local (City and County Councils)       3,297,426       1,905,057       57.8       24,489       1.3   
   2009       Local (Borough and Town Councils)       542,043       315,387       58.2       4,470       1.4   
   2004       Local (City and County Councils)       3,166,033       1,856,570       58.6       36,809       2.0   
   2004       Local (Borough and Town Councils)       529,937       306,195       57.8       5,396       1.8   

The higher voter turnout rate for Dáil elections stems from the fact that Ireland, like most European countries, is a parliamentary polity: as such, the head of government or prime minister - the Taoiseach - is chosen by the party or parties commanding a majority of seats in the House of Representatives.

In conclusion, STV in Ireland has led to neither a decline in voter turnout, nor to significant invalid ballot totals. To be certain, these are legitimate concerns in the U.S., not least because in many ways it is different from Ireland, but even so the Irish experience shows that it is not a foregone conclusion that the adoption of RCV will in and of itself lead inevitably to an scenario in which such concerns become a reality.


posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 06/11/2018 16:32 | permanent link

  Tue, Jun 05, 2018
Composition of the Italian Parliament following the March 2018 general election
The official March 4, 2018 general election results published by Italy's Ministry of the Interior - available on this website's Italy page - do not indicate the specific party affiliation of single-member college candidates elected by party alliances. This omission becomes particularly problematic in light of the fact that one of the parties in the incoming populist coalition cabinet - namely the Northern League - won an unspecified number of single-member college seats as part of an alliance with other center-right parties, which nevertheless will not be part of the new government.

Fortunately, the Italian Chamber of Deputies and Senate websites publish the parliamentary group affiliation of deputies and senators, which I have used to prepare the tables shown below, summarizing the new party composition of both houses of the Italian Parliament. That said, it must be underscored that the figures published on this entry do not reflect changes in party membership or parliamentary group affiliation since members of the newly-elected Parliament were sworn in last March.

As such, following the general election held in Italy last March, the party composition of the Chamber of Deputies stood as follows:

   Ticket       Italy
Seats
      Overseas
Seats
      Total
Seats
  
   Forza Italia, Lega, Fratelli d'Italia, UDC       262       3       265   
      Lega       123       2       125   
      Forza Italia       103       1       104   
      Fratelli d'Italia       32       0       32   
      Noi con l'Italia - UDC       4       0       4   
   Movimento 5 Stelle       226       1       227   
   PD, +Europa, SVP-PATT, Civica Popolare, Italia Europa Insieme       116       6       122   
      Partito Democratico       107       5       112   
      SVP - PATT       4       -       4   
      +Europa       2       1       3   
      Civica Popolare       2       0       2   
      Italia Europa Insieme       1       -       1   
      Union Valdôtaine       0       -       0   
   Liberi e Uguali       14       0       14   
   Movimento Associativo Italiani all'Estero       -       1       1   
   Unione Sudamericana Emigrati Italiani       -       1       1   
   Total       618       12       630   

Meanwhile, the party composition of the Italian Senate following the March 2018 election was as follows:

   Ticket       Italy
Seats
      Overseas
Seats
      Total
Seats
  
   Forza Italia, Lega, Fratelli d'Italia, UDC       135       2       137   
      Forza Italia       59       2       61   
      Lega       58       0       58   
      Fratelli d'Italia       18       0       18   
      Noi con l'Italia - UDC       0       0       0   
   Movimento 5 Stelle       111       0       111   
   PD, +Europa, SVP-PATT, Civica Popolare, Italia Europa Insieme       58       2       60   
      Partito Democratico       51       2       53   
      SVP - PATT       3       -       3   
      +Europa       1       0       1   
      Italia Europa Insieme       1       -       1   
      Civica Popolare       1       0       1   
      Union Valdôtaine       1       -       1   
   Liberi e Uguali       4       0       4   
   Movimento Associativo Italiani all'Estero       -       1       1   
   Unione Sudamericana Emigrati Italiani       -       1       1   
   Total       308       6       314   

Finally, it should be noted that the Senate currently has six lifetime members, bringing its total membership to 320; a list seat allocated to the Five Star Movement in Sicily remains vacant because the party ran out of candidates in that region.


posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 06/05/2018 19:36 | permanent link

United States 2016 House of Representatives Election Results
Federal and state-level results of the November 8, 2016 U.S. House of Representatives election, aggregated from figures published by the Federal Election Commission, are presented in the following table:

    State      Democratic      Republican      Other      Total    




Votes % Seats % Votes % Seats % Votes % Seats % Votes Seats
    Alabama      621,911   32.9   1   14.3      1,222,018   64.7   6   85.7      45,756   2.4   0   0.0      1,889,685   7    
    Alaska      111,019   36.0   0   0.0      155,088   50.3   1   100.0      42,091   13.7   0   0.0      308,198   1    
    Arizona      1,034,687   42.9   4   44.4      1,264,378   52.4   5   55.6      112,999   4.7   0   0.0      2,412,064   9    
    Arkansas      111,347   10.4   0   0.0      760,415   71.2   4   100.0      196,815   18.4   0   0.0      1,068,577   4    
    California      8,624,432   64.3   39   73.6      4,682,033   34.9   14   26.4      107,553   0.8   0   0.0      13,414,018   53    
    Colorado      1,263,791   46.8   3   42.9      1,288,618   47.7   4   57.1      149,152   5.5   0   0.0      2,701,561   7    
    Connecticut      990,139   62.9   5   100.0      568,134   36.1   0   0.0      16,910   1.1   0   0.0      1,575,183   5    
    Delaware      233,554   55.5   1   100.0      172,301   41.0   0   0.0      14,785   3.5   0   0.0      420,640   1    
    Florida      3,985,050   45.1   11   40.7      4,733,630   53.6   16   59.3      118,746   1.3   0   0.0      8,837,426   27    
    Georgia      1,498,437   39.7   4   28.6      2,272,460   60.2   10   71.4      1,965   0.1   0   0.0      3,772,862   14    
    Hawaii      316,265   76.6   2   100.0      85,626   20.7   0   0.0      10,982   2.7   0   0.0      412,873   2    
    Idaho      208,992   30.7   0   0.0      447,544   65.7   2   100.0      25,058   3.7   0   0.0      681,594   2    
    Illinois      2,810,536   53.6   11   61.1      2,397,436   45.7   7   38.9      33,795   0.6   0   0.0      5,241,767   18    
    Indiana      1,052,901   39.6   2   22.2      1,442,989   54.3   7   77.8      162,477   6.1   0   0.0      2,658,367   9    
    Iowa      673,969   44.5   1   25.0      813,153   53.7   3   75.0      28,433   1.9   0   0.0      1,515,555   4    
    Kansas      317,635   27.1   0   0.0      694,240   59.1   4   100.0      161,861   13.8   0   0.0      1,173,736   4    
    Kentucky      516,904   29.3   1   16.7      1,248,140   70.7   5   83.3      332   0.0   0   0.0      1,765,376   6    
    Louisiana      564,064   31.3   1   16.7      1,198,764   66.4   5   83.3      41,428   2.3   0   0.0      1,804,256   6    
    Maine      386,627   51.9   1   50.0      357,447   48.0   1   50.0      500   0.1   0   0.0      744,574   2    
    Maryland      1,636,200   60.4   7   87.5      962,088   35.5   1   12.5      109,457   4.0   0   0.0      2,707,745   8    
    Massachusetts      2,344,518   79.7   9   100.0      451,121   15.3   0   0.0      145,049   4.9   0   0.0      2,940,688   9    
    Michigan      2,193,980   47.0   5   35.7      2,243,402   48.0   9   64.3      233,523   5.0   0   0.0      4,670,905   14    
    Minnesota      1,434,590   50.2   5   62.5      1,334,686   46.7   3   37.5      91,156   3.2   0   0.0      2,860,432   8    
    Mississippi      449,896   38.1   1   25.0      680,810   57.6   3   75.0      51,567   4.4   0   0.0      1,182,273   4    
    Missouri      1,041,306   37.9   2   25.0      1,600,524   58.2   6   75.0      108,249   3.9   0   0.0      2,750,079   8    
    Montana      205,919   40.5   0   0.0      285,358   56.2   1   100.0      16,554   3.3   0   0.0      507,831   1    
    Nebraska      221,069   28.0   0   0.0      557,557   70.7   3   100.0      9,640   1.2   0   0.0      788,266   3    
    Nevada      508,113   47.1   3   75.0      498,104   46.2   1   25.0      72,280   6.7   0   0.0      1,078,497   4    
    New Hampshire      336,575   47.0   2   100.0      316,149   44.1   0   0.0      64,053   8.9   0   0.0      716,777   2    
    New Jersey      1,821,620   52.6   7   58.3      1,541,631   44.5   5   41.7      100,060   2.9   0   0.0      3,463,311   12    
    New Mexico      436,932   56.0   2   66.7      343,124   44.0   1   33.3      70   0.0   0   0.0      780,126   3    
    New York      4,464,931   62.7   18   66.7      2,530,440   35.6   9   33.3      121,051   1.7   0   0.0      7,116,422   27    
    North Carolina      2,142,661   46.6   3   23.1      2,447,326   53.2   10   76.9      8,471   0.2   0   0.0      4,598,458   13    
    North Dakota      80,377   23.7   0   0.0      233,980   69.1   1   100.0      24,102   7.1   0   0.0      338,459   1    
    Ohio      2,154,523   41.3   4   25.0      2,996,017   57.4   12   75.0      67,815   1.3   0   0.0      5,218,355   16    
    Oklahoma      305,222   26.9   0   0.0      781,691   69.0   5   100.0      46,331   4.1   0   0.0      1,133,244   5    
    Oregon      1,026,851   53.7   4   80.0      809,048   42.3   1   20.0      75,966   4.0   0   0.0      1,911,865   5    
    Pennsylvania      2,625,157   45.6   5   27.8      3,096,576   53.7   13   72.2      40,819   0.7   0   0.0      5,762,552   18    
    Rhode Island      263,648   61.1   2   100.0      141,324   32.7   0   0.0      26,553   6.2   0   0.0      431,525   2    
    South Carolina      800,801   39.3   1   14.3      1,193,711   58.5   6   85.7      44,950   2.2   0   0.0      2,039,462   7    
    South Dakota      132,810   35.9   0   0.0      237,163   64.1   1   100.0      -   -   -   -      369,973   1    
    Tennessee      814,181   34.1   2   22.2      1,493,740   62.5   7   77.8      83,140   3.5   0   0.0      2,391,061   9    
    Texas      3,160,535   37.1   11   30.6      4,877,605   57.2   25   69.4      490,386   5.7   0   0.0      8,528,526   36    
    Utah      356,290   32.0   0   0.0      710,656   63.8   4   100.0      47,224   4.2   0   0.0      1,114,170   4    
    Vermont      264,414   89.5   1   100.0      -   -   -   -      30,920   10.5   0   0.0      295,334   1    
    Virginia      1,859,426   49.2   4   36.4      1,843,010   48.7   7   63.6      79,812   2.1   0   0.0      3,782,248   11    
    Washington      1,736,145   55.3   6   60.0      1,404,890   44.7   4   40.0      -   -   -   -      3,141,035   10    
    West Virginia      224,449   32.7   0   0.0      445,017   64.8   3   100.0      16,883   2.5   0   0.0      686,349   3    
    Wisconsin      1,379,996   49.8   3   37.5      1,270,279   45.8   5   62.5      123,387   4.4   0   0.0      2,773,662   8    
    Wyoming      75,466   30.0   0   0.0      156,176   62.0   1   100.0      20,134   8.0   0   0.0      251,776   1    
    U.S. Total      61,820,861   48.0   194   44.6      63,287,617   49.2   241   55.4      3,621,240   2.8   0   0.0      128,729,718   435    


posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 06/05/2018 15:14 | permanent link

  Mon, Sep 28, 2015
El impacto del sistema electoral en las elecciones al Parlamento de Cataluña de 2015
(This posting is also available in English.)

En las elecciones al Parlamento de Cataluña celebradas ayer, dos candidaturas pro-independencia lograron una mayoría de escaños - 72 of 135 - sobre cuatro grupos "constitucionales" opuestos a que la comunidad autónoma seceda de España. Sin embargo, el total combinado de votos emitidos para éstos últimos - 1,972,057, ó un 48.1% de los votos válidos emitidos - fue ligeramente mayor que la cantidad total conseguida por los primeros (1,957,348, ó 47.7% de los votos).

Como se demostrará a continuación, este peculiar comportamiento del sistema electoral surge de una combinación de dos factores, a saber las disparidades entre cifras de población y reparto de escaños entre las provincias; y la aplicación de la regla D'Hondt para repartir los escaños en cada provincia entre las candidaturas partidistas.

El reparto de escaños parlamentarios entre las cuatro provincias catalanas - que no ha sufrido cambios desde 1979 - favorece claramente a las tres provincias de menos población a expensas de Barcelona, la de mayor población en la región. De hecho, la distribución de escaños por provincia de acuerdo con las cifras del Censo de 2011 quedaría de la siguiente manera:

   Provincia       Escaños   
   Barcelona       99   
   Girona (Gerona)       14   
   Lleida (Lérida)       8   
   Tarragona       14   
   Total       135   



Como tal, Barcelona recibiría catorce escaños adicionales, mientras que Girona perdería tres, Lleida siete y Tarragona cuatro.

Sin embargo, la redistribución de escaños entre las provincias apenas hubiera impactado el reparto de mandatos entre candidaturas, que hubiera quedado de la siguiente manera:

   Candidatura       Escaños   
   JxSí       60   
   C's       26   
   PSC-PSOE       17   
   CatSíqueesPot       11   
   PP       11   
   CUP       10   
   Total       135   



Comparado con el resultado actual, JxSí hubiera perdido solamente dos escaños, mientras que C's y PSC-PSOE hubieran ganado uno cada uno. Entre tanto, los grupos separatistas C(JxSí y CUP) todavía contarían con una mayoría de cinco escaños (70-65).

Ahora bien, si adicionalmente el reparto de mandatos entre candidaturas se llevara a cabo en cada provincia utilizando el método de Sainte-Lagüe (que opera de manera similar a la regla D'Hondt pero utiliza la serie de divisores 1, 3, 5, y así sucesivamente), el resultado sería el siguiente:

   Candidatura       Escaños   
   JxSí       55   
   C's       26   
   PSC-PSOE       18   
   CatSíqueesPot       12   
   PP       12   
   CUP       12   
   Total       135   



En este caso, JxSí perdería siete escaños, mientras que C's, CatSíqueesPot y PP ganarían uno cada uno, y PSC-PSOE y CUP ganarían dos cada uno. Más aún, JxSí y CUP se quedarían un escaño por debajo de la mayoría absoluta.

La razón por la cual los grupos pro-independencia alcanzaron una mayoría de escaños sobre la base de una minoría de los votos obedece al hecho de que en las tres provincias pequeñas JxSí obtuvo el sesenta porciento de los escaños (30 de 50) con el cincuenta porciento de votos. A su vez, esto se debió a que la regla D'Hondt favorece a los partidos principales y en especial al ganador, particularmente a medida que se reduce el tamaño de la circunscripción. Como tal, la redistribución de escaños entre provincias apenas hubiera tenido efecto de por sí en el reparto de escaños entre candidaturas. En cambio, la introducción adicional del método Sainte-Lagüe hubiera resultado en una distribución mucho más equitativa de escaños en las tres provincias pequeñas, que hubiera sido mucho menos favorable a JxSí.

La ironía de todo esto es que pese a su desdén por España, los grupos pro-independencia le deben su mayoría en el Parlamento de Cataluña a una ley española, toda vez que Cataluña no cuenta con ley electoral propia.


posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 09/28/2015 17:35 | permanent link

The impact of the electoral system in the 2015 Catalan Parliament election
(Esta entrada está disponible también en español.)

In yesterday's Catalan Parliament election, two pro-independence tickets attained a majority of seats - 72 of 135 - over four "constitutional" groups opposed to the autonomous community's secession from Spain. However, the combined vote total for the latter - 1,972,057, or 48.1% of valid votes - was slightly larger than the total amount polled by the former (1,957,348, or 47.7% of the vote).

As it shall be shown below, this peculiar behavior of the electoral system stems from a combination of two factors, namely disparities between population figures and allocation of seats among the provinces; and the application of the D'Hondt rule to apportion seats in each province among party tickets.

The allocation of parliamentary seats among the four Catalan provinces - unchanged since 1979 - clearly favors the three least-populated provinces at the expense of Barcelona, the region's most populated province. In fact, the distribution of seats among the provinces according to 2011 Census figures would be as follows:

   Province       Seats   
   Barcelona       99   
   Girona (Gerona)       14   
   Lleida (Lérida)       8   
   Tarragona       14   
   Total       135   



As such, Barcelona would receive fourteen additional seats, while Girona would lose three, Lleida seven, and Tarragona four.

However, the reapportionment of seats among the provinces would have had little impact in the distribution of mandates among party tickets, which would have stood as follows:

   Ticket       Seats   
   JxSí       60   
   C's       26   
   PSC-PSOE       17   
   CatSíqueesPot       11   
   PP       11   
   CUP       10   
   Total       135   



Compared to the actual outcome, JxSí would have lost just two seats, while C's and PSC-PSOE would have picked a seat apiece. Meanwhile, the separatist groups (JxSí and CUP) would still have a five seat (70-65) majority.

Now, if in addition the allocation of mandates were to be carried out in each province using the Sainte-Lagüe method (which operates in a manner similar to the D'Hondt rule but uses instead the series of divisors 1, 3, 5, and so on), the result would be as follows:

   Ticket       Seats   
   JxSí       55   
   C's       26   
   PSC-PSOE       18   
   CatSíqueesPot       12   
   PP       12   
   CUP       12   
   Total       135   



In this case, JxSí would lose seven seats, while C's, CatSíqueesPot and PP would gain one each, and PSC-PSOE and CUP would gain two apiece. Moreover, JxSí and CUP would be one seat short of an overall majority.

The reason why pro-independence groups attained a majority of seats on the basis of a minority of votes was due to the fact that in the three smaller provinces JxSí obtained sixty percent of the seats (30 out of 50) with fifty percent of the vote. In turn, this was due to the fact that the D'Hondt rule favors the larger parties and especially the winner, particularly as the constituency size becomes smaller. As such, the reapportionment of seats among provinces would have had little effect by itself in the allocation of seats among party tickets. On the other hand, the additional introduction of the Sainte-Lagüe method would have resulted in a much more equitable distribution of seats in the three smaller provinces, which would have been far less favorable to JxSí.

The irony of all this is that despite their disdain for Spain, pro-independence groups owe their majority in the Catalan Parliament to a Spanish law, as Catalonia has no electoral law of its own.


posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 09/28/2015 17:35 | permanent link

  Tue, Jan 27, 2015
Allocation of Constituency Seats in the Hellenic Parliament (Vouli)
Since 2007, parliamentary elections in Greece have been carried out under a nationwide bonus-adjusted proportional representation (BAPR) electoral system. Nevertheless, the Greek electoral system provides for the subsequent allocation of 288 of 300 Hellenic Parliament (Vouli) mandates in fifty-six single- and multi-member constituencies, while the remaining twelve seats are apportioned on a nationwide basis, in the manner described below.

The twelve nationwide or state mandates are distributed among qualifying parties (that is, those polling at least three percent of the nationwide vote) by the largest remainder method of PR - the same method used for the nationwide allocation of 250 Vouli seats. These are then deducted from the parties' nationwide PR seat totals to obtain their corresponding constituency mandate totals, leaving 238 seats to be allocated in the fifty-six constituencies, plus fifty seats set aside as a majority bonus for the party with the largest nationwide vote total.

In single-member constituencies, seats are assigned to the qualifying party with the largest number of votes in each constituency, while in each multi-member constituency a Hare quota is calculated by dividing the total number of valid votes cast in the constituency (that is, votes cast for all parties, qualifying or otherwise) by the number of constituency seats. The number of constituency votes won by each qualifying party is then divided by the constituency's Hare quota, and the result, disregarding remainders, is the number of constituency seats initially assigned to the party. Any remaining seats in two- and three-seat constituencies are also distributed to the qualifying parties with the largest remainders, but should a party exceed its overall PR constituency seat allocation, it has to forfeit the excess mandates obtained in three-seat constituencies - and two-seat constituencies should the need arise - with the lowest vote remainders (ranked on the basis of absolute figures).

The qualifying parties are subsequently ranked in ascending order according to their nationwide vote totals, and for each party its corresponding multi-member constituency remainder vote totals are ranked in descending order; the party's largest remainders in constituencies where mandates remain available are assigned one seat each, until the party reaches its PR constituency seat total. In other words, these steps are carried out on a party-by-party basis, starting with the qualifying party with the smallest nationwide vote total, then the second smallest qualifying party, and so on until there are no parties with PR constituency seats to be filled. Finally, the fifty majority bonus seats are allocated to the winning party from the remaining unfilled seats in the multi-member constituencies.

The procedure for allocating Vouli seats among constituencies is probably one of the least understood aspects of Greece's electoral system, in no small measure due to its complexity. However, it must be emphasized that this procedure does not change the overall political party composition of the Hellenic Parliament, which is determined by the allocation of legislative mandates at the national level.

posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 01/27/2015 21:16 | permanent link

  Tue, Nov 04, 2014
United States 2012 House of Representatives Election Results
Federal and state-level results of the November 6, 2012 U.S. House of Representatives election, aggregated from figures published by the Federal Election Commission, are presented in the following table:

    State      Democratic      Republican      Other      Total    




Votes % Seats % Votes % Seats % Votes % Seats % Votes Seats
    Alabama      693,498   35.9   1   14.3      1,233,624   63.8   6   85.7      6,508   0.3   0   0.0      1,933,630   7    
    Alaska      82,927   28.6   0   0.0      185,296   63.9   1   100.0      21,581   7.4   0   0.0      289,804   1    
    Arizona      946,994   43.6   5   55.6      1,131,663   52.1   4   44.4      94,660   4.4   0   0.0      2,173,317   9    
    Arkansas      304,770   29.4   0   0.0      637,591   61.4   4   100.0      95,693   9.2   0   0.0      1,038,054   4    
    California      7,392,703   60.6   38   71.7      4,530,012   37.1   15   28.3      281,642   2.3   0   0.0      12,204,357   53    
    Colorado      1,080,454   44.1   3   42.9      1,143,796   46.7   4   57.1      226,589   9.2   0   0.0      2,450,839   7    
    Connecticut      951,281   64.9   5   100.0      500,290   34.1   0   0.0      14,940   1.0   0   0.0      1,466,511   5    
    Delaware      249,933   64.4   1   100.0      129,757   33.4   0   0.0      8,369   2.2   0   0.0      388,059   1    
    Florida      3,392,402   45.2   10   37.0      3,826,522   50.9   17   63.0      294,610   3.9   0   0.0      7,513,534   27    
    Georgia      1,448,869   40.8   5   35.7      2,104,098   59.2   9   64.3      620   0.0   0   0.0      3,553,587   14    
    Hawaii      285,008   67.5   2   100.0      137,531   32.5   0   0.0      -   -   -   -      422,539   2    
    Idaho      208,297   32.8   0   0.0      406,814   64.0   2   100.0      20,107   3.2   0   0.0      635,218   2    
    Illinois      2,743,702   54.2   12   66.7      2,207,818   43.6   6   33.3      106,613   2.1   0   0.0      5,058,133   18    
    Indiana      1,142,554   44.7   2   22.2      1,351,760   52.9   7   77.8      59,432   2.3   0   0.0      2,553,746   9    
    Iowa      772,387   50.3   2   50.0      726,505   47.3   2   50.0      37,957   2.5   0   0.0      1,536,849   4    
    Kansas      195,505   18.5   0   0.0      740,981   70.1   4   100.0      121,253   11.5   0   0.0      1,057,739   4    
    Kentucky      684,744   39.2   1   16.7      1,027,582   58.9   5   83.3      33,051   1.9   0   0.0      1,745,377   6    
    Louisiana      359,190   21.1   1   16.7      1,143,027   67.0   5   83.3      203,400   11.9   0   0.0      1,705,617   6    
    Maine      427,819   61.7   2   100.0      265,982   38.3   0   0.0      -   -   -   -      693,801   2    
    Maryland      1,626,872   62.9   7   87.5      858,406   33.2   1   12.5      100,236   3.9   0   0.0      2,585,514   8    
    Massachusetts      2,080,594   72.0   9   100.0      697,637   24.1   0   0.0      113,203   3.9   0   0.0      2,891,434   9    
    Michigan      2,327,985   50.9   5   35.7      2,086,804   45.6   9   64.3      159,843   3.5   0   0.0      4,574,632   14    
    Minnesota      1,560,984   55.5   5   62.5      1,210,409   43.0   3   37.5      41,990   1.5   0   0.0      2,813,383   8    
    Mississippi      411,398   34.1   1   25.0      703,635   58.2   3   75.0      93,142   7.7   0   0.0      1,208,175   4    
    Missouri      1,119,554   41.8   2   25.0      1,463,586   54.7   6   75.0      92,760   3.5   0   0.0      2,675,900   8    
    Montana      204,939   42.7   0   0.0      255,468   53.3   1   100.0      19,333   4.0   0   0.0      479,740   1    
    Nebraska      276,239   35.8   0   0.0      496,276   64.2   3   100.0      -   -   -   -      772,515   3    
    Nevada      453,310   46.6   2   50.0      457,239   47.0   2   50.0      63,193   6.5   0   0.0      973,742   4    
    New Hampshire      340,925   50.0   2   100.0      311,636   45.7   0   0.0      29,855   4.4   0   0.0      682,416   2    
    New Jersey      1,794,407   54.7   6   50.0      1,430,386   43.6   6   50.0      57,161   1.7   0   0.0      3,281,954   12    
    New Mexico      422,189   56.6   2   66.7      323,269   43.3   1   33.3      632   0.1   0   0.0      746,090   3    
    New York      4,143,414   64.0   21   77.8      2,241,971   34.7   6   22.2      84,340   1.3   0   0.0      6,469,725   27    
    North Carolina      2,218,357   50.6   4   30.8      2,137,167   48.7   9   69.2      28,588   0.7   0   0.0      4,384,112   13    
    North Dakota      131,869   41.7   0   0.0      173,433   54.9   1   100.0      10,769   3.4   0   0.0      316,071   1    
    Ohio      2,412,451   46.9   4   25.0      2,620,251   51.0   12   75.0      107,619   2.1   0   0.0      5,140,321   16    
    Oklahoma      410,324   30.9   0   0.0      856,872   64.6   5   100.0      58,739   4.4   0   0.0      1,325,935   5    
    Oregon      949,660   55.6   4   80.0      687,839   40.3   1   20.0      70,669   4.1   0   0.0      1,708,168   5    
    Pennsylvania      2,793,538   50.3   5   27.8      2,710,070   48.8   13   72.2      52,722   0.9   0   0.0      5,556,330   18    
    Rhode Island      232,679   54.4   2   100.0      161,926   37.9   0   0.0      33,170   7.8   0   0.0      427,775   2    
    South Carolina      742,805   41.2   1   14.3      1,026,129   56.9   6   85.7      33,800   1.9   0   0.0      1,802,734   7    
    South Dakota      153,789   42.6   0   0.0      207,640   57.4   1   100.0      -   -   -   -      361,429   1    
    Tennessee      796,513   34.9   2   22.2      1,369,562   60.0   7   77.8      117,652   5.2   0   0.0      2,283,727   9    
    Texas      2,949,900   38.5   12   33.3      4,429,270   57.8   24   66.7      285,038   3.7   0   0.0      7,664,208   36    
    Utah      324,309   32.5   1   25.0      647,873   64.9   3   75.0      26,715   2.7   0   0.0      998,897   4    
    Vermont      208,600   71.9   1   100.0      67,543   23.3   0   0.0      13,788   4.8   0   0.0      289,931   1    
    Virginia      1,806,025   48.3   3   27.3      1,876,761   50.2   8   72.7      57,669   1.5   0   0.0      3,740,455   11    
    Washington      1,636,726   54.4   6   60.0      1,369,540   45.6   4   40.0      -   -   -   -      3,006,266   10    
    West Virginia      257,101   40.1   1   33.3      384,253   59.9   2   66.7      -   -   -   -      641,354   3    
    Wisconsin      1,445,015   50.4   3   37.5      1,401,995   48.9   5   62.5      19,040   0.7   0   0.0      2,866,050   8    
    Wyoming      57,573   23.8   0   0.0      166,452   68.9   1   100.0      17,596   7.3   0   0.0      241,621   1    
    U.S. Total      59,653,081   49.2   201   46.2      58,261,947   48.0   234   53.8      3,416,287   2.8   0   0.0      121,331,315   435    


The 2012 U.S. House election was notable for the fact that while Democratic candidates won a plurality of votes, Republicans nonetheless retained a clear majority of seats. Fruits and Votes has a discussion of the various factors behind this plurality reversal here.

posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 11/04/2014 00:20 | permanent link

  Sun, Sep 14, 2014
Sweden General Election 2014: Live Results
Sweden's Election Authority will be broadcasting over the Internet live results of today's general election.

The presentation is available only in Swedish. English-language party names are as follows:

Moderata Samlingspartiet (M) - Moderate Party (conservative)
Centerpartiet (C) - Center Party
Folkpartiet liberalerna (FP) - People's Party Liberals
Kristdemokraterna (KD) - Christian Democrats
Arbetarepartiet-Socialdemokraterna (S) - Social Democratic Party
Vänsterpartiet (V) - Left Party (ex-communist)
Miljöpartiet de gröna (MP) - Green Party
Sverigedemokraterna (SD) - Sweden Democrats
Feministiskt initiativ (FI) - Feminist Initiative
Övriga partier (ÖVR) - Other parties

Parliamentary election results appear under the "Riksdag" tab, while county council results are under "Landsting", and municipal council results under "Kommun".

Update

Complete, preliminary national- and constituency-level results of Sweden's 2014 general election are now available in Elections to the Swedish Riksdag.

posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 09/14/2014 23:57 | permanent link

State Elections in Brandenburg and Thuringia


The German states of Brandenburg and Thuringia also held elections today, and results are now available in their respective official websites, listed on this site's links directory.

Both elections were notable for the success of the anti-euro (but not anti-EU) Alternative for Germany (AfD), which polled strongly and secured legislative representantion in both state parliaments. However, for the liberal Free Democratic Party (F.D.P.) today's polls were yet another round of unmitigated disaster, as the party fell well below the five percent threshold and lost all its seats in both states. In fact, since losing all its Bundestag seats in last year's general election, F.D.P. has finished below five percent in every legislative contest held in Germany this year, including last May's European Parliament election (in which the liberal party nonetheless managed to elect three MEPs as no threshold was in place for that vote), and the state election in Saxony last month. That said, the results for these two parties should not be entirely surprising, given that last year AfD had its best results in the states of the former East Germany, while conversely F.D.P. fared poorly there. Meanwhile, today's results for the other parties were not significantly out of the ordinary, with the exception of the distinctly poor showing of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in Thuringia - where it had its worst election result ever and finished a distant third, barely ahead of AfD - and the sharp drop of the Left Party in Brandenburg, where the post-communist party polled its lowest share of the vote in two decades.

posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 09/14/2014 19:52 | permanent link

  Thu, Jun 05, 2014
Belgium 2014 EP election map - cantonal majorities
Yesterday I published on Federal Elections in Belgium - Elections to the Senate and the Chamber of Representatives a cantonal-level election map of the parliamentary election held in the Western European country last May 25. However, on that same day Belgian voters also elected their members of the European Parliament, and here is the corresponding election map for the European vote in Belgium.

May 25, 2014 European Parliament Election Map: Majority Party by Canton

Antwerp Antwerp Brussels-Capital East Flanders Hainaut Hainaut Flemish Brabant Liège Limburg Limburg Luxembourg Namur Walloon Brabant West Flanders West Flanders Brussels-Capital

The outcome of the European Parliament election in Belgium was broadly similar to that of the Chamber of Representatives vote held on the same day, but by no means identical. To be certain, the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) topped the poll in both races, but its lead was considerably smaller in the European vote: it actually finished behind Open VLD - the Flemish Liberals - in Flemish Brabant, and faced strong competition from the Flemish Christian Democrats (CD&V) and the Liberals in West and East Flanders, respectively; N-VA prevailed in both constituencies, but just barely. In all, the New Flemish Alliance carried 53 of the 104 Flemish cantons in the European vote, down from 87 in the Chamber election.

Meanwhile, in Wallonia the Humanist Democratic Center (CDH) had a weaker showing in the European election, and lost Luxembourg province to the Reform Movement (MR). However, in the two cantons of Belgium's German-speaking Community, the Christian Social Party (CSP) emerged as the largest party, outperforming CDH - its Francophone counterpart - in the Chamber vote.


posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 06/05/2014 10:37 | permanent link

  Sat, Sep 28, 2013
One week after Bundestag election, Germany inches towards a grand coalition government
The leaders of Germany's main opposition party, the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) agreed yesterday to begin talks on forming a coalition government with Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling right-of-center Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian counterpart, the Christian Social Union (CSU). However, any agreement between the Union parties and the Social Democrats will have to be approved by SPD's 472,000 members in a binding vote.

In last Sunday's election to the Bundestag - the lower chamber of Germany's bicameral Parliament - CDU/CSU won a clear victory over SPD, which scored minor gains but still polled its second-worst result in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. However, CDU/CSU's coalition partner, the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) fell just below the five percent threshold needed to secure parliamentary representation, and lost all its seats in the Bundestag for the first time ever; in turn, this left Chancellor Merkel without an overall legislative majority. While the exclusion of both FDP and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) - a new Euro-sceptic party that polled strongly, but also fell short of the five percent hurdle - allowed the country's three main left-wing parties - SPD, the environmentalist Greens and the post-Communist Left - to win a small combined majority in the Bundestag, SPD leaders have repeatedly made it clear they will not join forces with The Left, which remains widely reviled in western Germany as the successor of East Germany's defunct Communist Party.

Nevertheless, the Social Democrats had been reluctant to join CDU/CSU in a coalition government, not least because the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats - Germany's two major parties since 1949 - have been traditional adversaries. Just as important, Merkel's successive coalition partners - SPD itself in 2005-2009 and FDP from 2009 to 2013 - went on to suffer heavy losses at the polls, and many SPD members fear history could repeat itself if the party agrees once more to form a coalition government with Merkel. However, at this juncture the only other alternatives would be a coalition between the Union parties and the Greens - generally regarded as highly unlikely - or a minority CDU/CSU government, which Merkel has already ruled out. Moreover, post-election polls indicate a large majority of German voters want the Chancellor to form a coalition government with the Social Democrats.

Although both the Greens and The Left lost ground in last Sunday's election, the latter became Germany's third largest party for the first time ever. However, differences in voting patterns persist on both sides of the now-defunct Iron Curtain, twenty-three years after reunification: while The Left finished a poor fifth in the "old Länder" of the former West Germany, it remains the second largest party in the "new Länder" of the former German Democratic Republic. On the other hand, FDP managed to finish just above the five percent threshold in western Germany, but the party's disastrous result in eastern Germany dragged its share of the vote below the critical hurdle. That said, CDU topped the poll in every Länder it ran except Hamburg and Bremen (both carried by SPD), while CSU swept in Bavaria.

Elections to the German Bundestag has detailed results of every Bundestag election since 1949, including last Sunday's vote, which was held under a reformed electoral system intended to guarantee a fully proportional distribution of Bundestag seats among qualifying parties. Ironically, the exclusion of FDP, AfD and a host of smaller parties - most notably among them the digital privacy/rights-oriented Pirate Party, which scored modest gains compared to its previous showing four years ago - led to an unusually disproportionate election outcome, as a record 15.7% of the votes cast for party lists were "wasted" on parties that failed to make it to the Bundestag.

posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 09/28/2013 18:03 | permanent link

  Sun, Sep 22, 2013
Germany's ruling coalition could lose majority - exit polls (updated)
Exit polls from German broadcasters ARD and ZDF suggest that Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling CDU/CSU-FDP coalition could lose its Bundestag majority in today's federal election.

While both the ARD and ZDF exit polls place Merkel's CDU and CSU - the CDU's counterpart in Bavaria - sixteen percentage points ahead of SPD, the main opposition party, both polls have the liberal FDP falling just short of the five percent threshold needed to secure Bundestag representation. Moreover, CDU/CSU alone would fall short of an overall parliamentary majority, with SPD, the Left Party and the environmentalist Greens attaining a slender joint lead over the Union parties.

Meanwhile, the Euro-sceptic Alternative for Germany (AfD), while polling strongly for a new party, would also fall short of the five percent threshold, although just barely.

Update

ARD and ZDF have both made small adjustments to their forecasts, which point to a very small CDU/CSU absolute majority over the left-wing parties. However, AfD is now just one-tenth of a point below the five percent threshold in both exit poll forecasts; if it were to cross the threshold, CDU/CSU would then end up well short of a Bundestag majority.

Update-on-the-update

The Federal Returning Officer is now publishing live 2013 Bundestag election results in German and English. Meanwhile, exit poll numbers have been dancing back and forth on the prospect of a CDU/CSU absolute majority in the Bundestag.

I'm also commenting on today's vote in Germany over at the Fruits and Votes blog.

Elections to the German Bundestag now has detailed federal- and state-level preliminary results of today's vote in Germany.

posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 09/22/2013 20:47 | permanent link