Up: Issue 12
Previous: Paper 4
Next: Paper 6
Voting matters - Issue 12, November 2000
A Comparison of Electoral Systems using Decision Analysis
H G Jones
Bob Jones is a retired mathematician and former secretary
Derbyshire Electoral Reform Group (DERG).
Introduction
Decision Analysis is a method by which comparisons between different courses
of action may be evaluated in order to obtain a desired end product. In the
field of electoral reform the end product is the best electoral system, and
the means of evaluating different systems is by comparing how well they
measure up to desirable features of such systems.
The idea of applying Decision Analysis to electoral systems was first
suggested by Tony Cooper, chairman of DERG,in the late 1980s and initially
the performance of a system against each feature was evaluated as
excellent, good, fairly good and poor. More
recently the evaluation has been carried out numerically with scores being
given up to a maximum of 10.
As well as this scoring procedure, it was realised that certain features
were of greater importance than others, and weighting factors (WF) were
therefore applied to each feature. For example, proportionality is
considered to be very important and is thus given a WF of 3 , the relevant
feature score being multiplied by WF. On the other hand ease of counting is
not of great importance as the returning officer and his or her staff will
have been trained to deal with the relevant system. In this case the
weighting factor (WF) is taken as 1.
Notation for systems
1. Single Member Constituencies
FPTP(SM): First-past-the-post.
AV(SM): Alternative Vote.
2. Multi-Member Constituencies
PL(MM): Party List based on the whole country (as in Israel).
PLRC(MM): Party List based upon regions using a closed list.
PLRO(MM): Party List based on regions with an open
list.
STV(MM): Single Transferable Vote.
3. Hybrid Systems
AMS(HY): Additional Member System as used in Germany and in differing forms
for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
AV+(HY): AV(SM) with a top-up as proposed by Lord Jenkins for
Westminster.
AV+50(HY): Similar to AV+(HY) but having equal numbers of local and regional
members.
Notation for Features
PRO-R: How proportional is the result within a region? (A region is
visualised as, say, ten adjacent single-member constituencies).
PRO-N: How proportional is the total election result? CHO-P: Is there a
choice within a party as well as across party lines?
ONECM: Is there one class of elected members?
EASV: How easy is the system for the voter?
EASC: How easy is it to conduct the count?
EASBC: Does the system ease the task of determining constituency
boundaries?
EW&E: Does the system encourage women and persons of ethnic minorities
to stand for election?
LOC: How closely is the elected member linked to his or her
constituency?
PLOC: How easily can a voter contact an elected member of their own
political persuasion?
My Decision Table
1. Weighting factors
The weighting factors I have chosen for the features above
are:
WF=3 for PRO-R, PRO-N, EW&E, LOC.
WF=2 for ONECM, EASV, PLOC, CHO-P.
WF=1 for EASC, EASBC.
2. Decision Table
The figures in parentheses are obtained by multiplying the score (out of 10)
by the weighting factor WF, thus obtaining a weighted score. The total
(weighted) score is the sum of the weighted scores for each feature of a
system. The figures presented in the table gives my own judgement of the
features for each system.
Conclusions
On this basis STV appears to be the best system. This, however, is something
I have believed for the last 20 years or so. Maybe I have been
subconsciously biased!
The scoring and weighting reflects my personal opinions and feelings. Small
differences in scoring and, particularly in WFs, can easily change the above
conclusions and I would be grateful for other opinions.
Up: Issue 12
Previous: Paper 4
Next: Paper 6