![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Italy_Trentino_Alto_Adige_Regional_Council_2013.svg/220px-Italy_Trentino_Alto_Adige_Regional_Council_2013.svg.png)
An election apportionment diagram is the graphic representation of election results and the seats in a plenary or legislative body. The chart can also be used to represent data in easy to understand terms, for example by grouping allied parties together.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/3Views:193 5488 43559 960
-
Voting Theory: Plurality Method and Condorcet Criterion
-
Introduction to Voting Theory and Preference Tables
-
Survey: Pairwise Comparison Method of Voting
Transcription
- WELCOME TO A LESSON ON THE PLURALITY VOTING METHOD. IN THIS LESSON WE'LL DEFINE THE PLURALITY VOTING METHOD, DETERMINE WINNERS OF ELECTIONS USING THE PLURALITY METHOD, DEFINE THE CONDORCET FAIRNESS CRITERION AND ALSO FIND A CONDORCET WINNER. THE PLURALITY VOTING METHOD IS PROBABLY THE METHOD YOU'RE MOST FAMILIAR WITH, WHERE THE CHOICE WITH THE MOST FIRST PREFERENCE VOTES IS DECLARED THE WINNER. TIES ARE POSSIBLE AND WOULD HAVE TO BE SETTLED THROUGH SOME SORT OF RUN OFF. THIS METHOD IS SOMETIMES MISTAKENLY CALLED THE MAJORITY METHOD, OR MAJORITY RULES, BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A CHOICE TO HAVE GAINED A MAJORITY OF VOTES TO WIN, WHERE A MAJORITY IS OVER 50% OF THE VOTES. SO IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A WINNER TO HAVE A PLURALITY WITHOUT HAVING A MAJORITY. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES. THE SURVEY ASKED TO RANK WHICH WEST COAST STATES PEOPLE PREFER TO LIVE. THE RESULTS ARE BELOW. USE THE PLURALITY METHOD TO SELECT THE WINNER. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PREFERENCE TABLE HERE, C = CALIFORNIA, O = OREGON, AND W = WASHINGTON. NOTICE THAT WE FIND THE SUM OF THESE VALUES HERE, WE CAN DETERMINE THE TOTAL VOTES IS 300. TO DETERMINE THE PLURALITY WINNER WE'LL DETERMINE HOW MANY FIRST CHOICE VOTES CALIFORNIA RECEIVED, THEN HOW MANY FIRST CHOICE VOTES OREGON RECEIVED, AND THEN HOW MANY FIRST CHOICE VOTES WASHINGTON RECEIVED. WELL, CALIFORNIA RECEIVED 75 + 94 FIRST CHOICE VOTES, WHERE 75 + 94 = 169. OREGON RECEIVED 51 + 12 FIRST CHOICE VOTES, WHICH IS 63 FIRST CHOICE VOTES. AND FINALLY, WASHINGTON RECEIVED 43 + 25 OR 68 FIRST CHOICE VOTES. SO IN THIS CASE, NOTICE THAT CALIFORNIA RECEIVED THE MOST FIRST CHOICE VOTES. AND THEREFORE, CALIFORNIA IS THE PLURALITY WINNER. NOTICE HOW IN THIS CASE CALIFORNIA RECEIVED 169 FIRST CHOICE VOTES OUT OF 300, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 56.3%, WHICH IS MORE THAN 50%. AND THEREFORE, CALIFORNIA WOULD ALSO BE THE MAJORITY WINNER. REMEMBER, A WINNER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A MAJORITY WINNER TO BE THE PLURALITY WINNER. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT A SECOND EXAMPLE, WHERE HERE A SMALL GROUP OF COLLEGE STUDENTS RANK THE BEST DESTINATION FOR SPRING BREAK WHERE S = SAN DIEGO, L = LAKE HAVASU, AND R = ROCKY POINT. AGAIN, BY FINDING THE SUM OF THESE VALUES HERE WE CAN DETERMINE THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 17 VOTES. NOTICE, SAN DIEGO RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 4 + 4, OR 8, FIRST PLACE VOTES. LAKE HAVASU RECEIVED A TOTAL OF TWO FIRST PLACE VOTES. AND ROCKY POINT RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 5 + 2, OR 7, FIRST PLACE VOTES. AND SINCE SAN DIEGO RECEIVED THE MOST FIRST CHOICE VOTES, OR FIRST PLACE VOTES, SAN DIEGO IS THE WINNER. NOTICE IN THIS CASE, SAN DIEGO RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 8 FIRST PLACE VOTES OUT OF 17, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 47.1%. SO NOTICE HOW HERE EVEN THOUGH SAN DIEGO IS NOT THE MAJORITY WINNER, IT STILL IS THE WINNER USING THE PLURALITY METHOD. THIS LEADS US TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT CAN BE WRONG ABOUT THE PLURALITY VOTING METHOD. IF THERE ARE THREE OR MORE CHOICES IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A CHOICE COULD LOSE, BUT WHEN COMPARED IN A ONE TO ONE COMPARISON IT COULD BE PREFERRED OVER THE PLURALITY WINNER. AND THIS VIOLATES WHAT'S CALLED A FAIRNESS CRITERION WHERE THE FAIRNESS CRITERIA ARE STATEMENTS THAT SEEM LIKE THEY SHOULD BE TRUE IN A FAIR ELECTION. THE FIRST FAIRNESS CRITERION WE'LL CONSIDER IS CALLED THE CONDORCET CRITERION WHERE IF THERE IS A CHOICE, IT IS PREFERRED IN EVERY ONE TO ONE COMPARISON WITH THE OTHER CHOICES. THAT CHOICE SHOULD BE THE WINNER AND WE CALL THIS WINNER THE CONDORCET WINNER OR CONDORCET CANDIDATE. LET'S LOOK AT TWO MORE EXAMPLES. THIS IS THE EXAMPLE THAT WE SAW BEFORE WHERE WE KNOW THE PLURALITY WINNER WAS SAN DIEGO WITH A TOTAL OF 8 VOTES, BUT NOW WE WANT TO FIND THE CONDORCET WINNER. SO TO FIND THE CONDORCET WINNER WE'LL DO A ONE TO ONE COMPARISON WITH OUR THREE OPTIONS. SO WE'LL COMPARE SAN DIEGO VERSUS LAKE HAVASU. WE'LL COMPARE SAN DIEGO VERSUS ROCKY POINT. AND WE'LL COMPARE LAKE HAVASU VERSUS ROCKY POINT. TO DO THE ONE TO ONE COMPARISON WITH SAN DIEGO AND LAKE HAVASU WE WOULD IGNORE ROCKY POINT. SO WE'LL IGNORE ROCKY POINT HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, AND HERE. REMEMBER, WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 17 VOTES. SO OF THE 17, SAN DIEGO IS PREFERRED OVER LAKE HAVASU 4 + 4 + 5 TIMES, SO THAT WOULD BE 8 + 5 = 13. SO SAN DIEGO WINS OVER LAKE HAVASU 13 TO 4. NOW WE'LL COMPARE SAN DIEGO TO ROCKY POINT SO WE'LL IGNORE LAKE HAVASU. SO NOTICE SAN DIEGO BEATS ROCKY POINT HERE AND HERE, BUT NOTICE HOW ROCKY POINT WINS HERE, HERE, AND HERE. AND THEREFORE, FOR SAN DIEGO VERSUS ROCKY POINT THE VOTE IS 8 TO 9. NOTICE IN THIS ONE TO ONE COMPARISON ROCKY POINT WINS. AND THEN FINALLY, WE WANT TO CONSIDER LAKE HAVASU VERSUS ROCKY POINT. SO NOW WE'LL IGNORE SAN DIEGO. SO LAKE HAVASU'S PREFERRED OVER ROCKY POINT HERE AND HERE AND THEREFORE, LAKE HAVASU VERSUS ROCKY POINT WOULD BE 6 TO 11. NOW, LOOKING AT THESE ONE TO ONE COMPARISONS NOTICE HOW ROCKY POINT BEATS LAKE HAVASU HERE AND ROCKY POINT ALSO BEATS SAN DIEGO HERE. THEREFORE ROCKY POINT ALWAYS WINS IN A ONE TO ONE COMPARISON. AND THEREFORE, ROCKY POINT IS THE CONDORCET WINNER. SO EVEN THOUGH SAN DIEGO WAS THE PLURALITY WINNER, UNDER THE CONDORCET FAIRNESS CRITERION ROCKY POINT SHOULD BE THE WINNER. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT ONE MORE EXAMPLE. WE WANT TO FIND THE CONDORCET WINNER, OR CONDORCET CANDIDATE, IF THERE IS ONE. SO THE CANDIDATES ARE "A," B, AND C SO WE'LL DO A ONE TO ONE COMPARISON. WE'LL HAVE "A" VERSUS B, "A" VERSUS C, AND B VERSUS C. NOTICE THE PLURALITY WINNER WOULD BE C WITH A TOTAL OF 16 FIRST CHOICE VOTES. SO FOR "A" VERSUS B WE'LL IGNORE C. SO "A" WOULD WIN OVER B HERE AND HERE. SO "A" VERSUS B WOULD BE 31 TO 10. NEXT, FOR "A" VERSUS C WE'LL IGNORE B. NOTICE, "A" WINS ONLY HERE SO "A" VERSUS C WOULD BE 15 TO 26. AND THEN FOR B VERSUS C WE'LL IGNORE "A". NOTICE HOW B WINS HERE AND C WINS HERE AND HERE. SO B VERSUS C WOULD BE 10 TO 31. SO AGAIN, LOOKING AT THESE TWO HERE NOTICE C WINS OVER B AND HERE C ALSO WINS OVER "A" AND THEREFORE CANDIDATE C IS THE CONDORCET WINNER, BUT NOTICE HOW C IS ALSO THE PLURALITY WINNER HERE. I HOPE YOU FOUND THIS HELPFUL.
Background
Votes in an election are often represented using bar charts or pie charts, often labeled with the corresponding percentage or number of votes.[1] The apportionment of seats between the parties in a legislative body has a defined set of rules, unique to each body. As an example, the Senate of Virginia says,
The Clerk of the Senate, after the election of Senators, shall assign desks to the individual Senators with the Senators elected as members of the majority party in the Senate in the chamber area beginning at the north side of the chamber until all such desks have been assigned, and then the Senators elected as members of the minority party in the Senate, and then any Senator not elected as a member of the two major political parties.[2]
![](/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/BTW05_VAE_CDU_CSU.jpg/220px-BTW05_VAE_CDU_CSU.jpg)
Instead of using a bar or pie chart, the apportionment of seats between the parties in a legislative body such as a parliament can be represented more clearly by displaying the individual representatives of each party as dots in a pattern, because the number of representatives is also significant, and is easily understood visually. The dots are typically coded according to the political color of the respective parties.[3] This was traditionally presented as a seating chart of a plenary hall, but can also be represented in a more abstract fashion which more loosely corresponds to the seating arrangement in a legislature, for example a form of half-donut chart as an abstract representation of a hemicycle, or a stylized representation of the Westminster Parliament, showing government, opposition, speaker and crossbenchers. In Germany, the order of the bars usually corresponds from left to right to the placement of the parties in the previous election and is thus based on the order given on the ballot, which is regulated in Section 30 of the Federal Electoral Act .[4]
These charts can also be used to represent data in easy to understand terms.[5] An example of this is politicians’ responses to the Orlando shootings.[6]
Gallery
-
Schematic diagram of the House of Lords, showing government, opposition, cross-bench and speaker, without being an accurate representation of the seating layout
-
Stylised U-shaped diagram meant to depict the layout of the Northern Ireland Assembly
-
An election apportionment diagram closely mirroring the actual seating layout of the Bundestag
See also
References
- ^ An example of this can be seen in the BBC Coverage of the 2019 parliamentary election (Dunford, Daniel; et al. (December 13, 2019). "Election results 2019: Analysis in maps and charts". News. BBC.)
- ^ "Seating Chart". Senate of Virginia. 2020. Retrieved April 13, 2020.
- ^ Drum, Kevin (November 14, 2004). "Red States and Blue States ... Explained!". The Washington Monthly. Archived from the original on June 4, 2016. Retrieved November 4, 2010.
- ^ "Reihenfolge der Wahlvorschläge auf dem Stimmzettel – Der Bundeswahlleiter" [Order of nominations on the voting slip]. Der Bundeswahlleiter (in German). November 4, 2018.
- ^ Pandey, Rajeev (September 2, 2019). "Parliament chart in Tableau". Vizart Pandey. Retrieved August 18, 2020.
- ^ shivaraj (July 12, 2016). "Orlando Killings: Democrats vs. Republicans". Tableau Public.
Further reading
- Bradberry, Brent A. (February 1992). "A Geometric View of Some Apportionment Paradoxes" (PDF). Mathematics Magazine. 65 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1080/0025570X.1992.11995970. JSTOR 2691355.
- Tsai, Yun-Da (October 8, 2018). "Latvia Parliamentary Elections Deliver Pro-Russia, Anti-Establishment Parties Victory". IR Insider. International Relations Society at NYU. Archived from the original on July 25, 2022. Retrieved October 10, 2020.
External links
Media related to Election apportionment diagrams at Wikimedia Commons
- Parliament diagram creation tool
- THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND ITS MEMBERS
- House seating plan
![](/s/i/modif.png)