Backdated - Puerto Rico - the 51st state?

I recently had the great pleasure of discussing with more than one of my closest friends the Puerto Rico referendum held in conjunction with the US elections. You know who you are, and I'm not going to embarrass you as terrible nerds by naming you.

Suffice to say, I am not the only person I know who discusses foreign voting beyond the presidential election.

I was not personally following the referendum. My understanding is that my friends weren't either, they just heard it on the news... (Sure, guys. Whatever you say.)

As I pointed out at the time, several referendums to this effect have been held, so I did not expect too much to come out of this. However, this is not entirely fair of me, on further examination.

• The 1967 referendum saw over 60% support Puerto Rico remaining a commonwealth under the U.S.
• The 1993 referendum saw a closer result, with 48.6% for remaining a commonwealth and 46.3% for statehood. In both referendums, independence received significantly less than 10% of the vote.
• The 1998 referendum independence received 2.6% of the vote, with free association with the U.S. and remaining a commonwealth dropping below 0.5% - when combined! I don't know what caused this shift in 5 years, but it was dramatic. Statehood received 46.6% of the vote, but 'none of the above' got over 50%, and no progress was made.

in 2012, independence is still well under 10%, but entering a free association leapt to around a quarter of the total vote, and a third of all valid votes. The question of remaining a commonwealth was treated separately, and 'none of the above' was not included. All of this seems to me to be playing with statistics so the driving force behind the referendum get the results it wants.

By spiting the question in two, it unites everyone against remaining a commonwealth to outnumber those who favour it, giving a ~150,000 vote lead to those who want change. If this was treated as one question, the 817,241 voters who favour remaining a commonwealth (Q.1) would rival the 824,238 in favour of statehood (Q.2.), and possibly out-rank them if 'none of the above' or another option was given. I think the numbers were close, so the question was split to get the desired result.

Even so, statehood received less than 45% of the total vote, and only exceeded 60% due to many invalid votes (incorrectly filled in ballots, not filled in ballots, etc.). How many of those would have opted for an alternative, valid option if remaining a commonwealth had been an option in Q.2.?

Still, technically Puerto Rico has voted for statehood. The ball is now in the U.S. court (or rather, the U.S. government, as the judiciary is separate to the legislature and executive (government puns!)) but I'd expect fast(ish) movement. The U.S. will probably take this as an ego boost: look, another example of countries that envy us and want to join us.

(An interesting contrast can be seen in Stephen Fry in America (I think it was SFiA, anyway) where people patrol the Canadian border because "a lot of people would love to enter this country, where we have democracy" (paraphrased). P.S. for the U.S.: Canada is a democracy too, even if it does have socialised health care!)

Futhermore, many past and present presidents (well, technically only one present president) have been pushing Puerto Rico to join the union - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_statehood_movement#Historical_support_in_American_politics

So, I'll finish with (a) an observation by my referenda-aware friends, and (b) a few other statistics from wikipedia:

(a) Puerto Rico, as the 51st state, would be entitled to 5 seats in the House of Reps (assuming the 435 seats are not added to), which with 2 new senate seats would make 7 seats on the electoral college.

(b) Puerto Rico would be the 29th largest state by population, just ahead of Connecticut, and 49th largest state by area, ahead of Delaware and Rhode Island. It would be the only state to have been visited by Columbus, and have both the oldest state capital and the oldest U.S. city with continuous inhabitation by Europeans. It would be the eastmost and southmost state, replacing Maine and Hawaii respectively, and add another timezone (AST: Atlantic Standard Time) to the many in use across the U.S.

Backdated - Election review - what I got wrong.

Okay, I'm back after a busy week to break down the election results. And by “break down the election results” I really mean discuss the accuracy of my predictions.

This is not just a chance for me to brag about being right – it is about me learning what I failed to account for to ensure more accurate predictions in the future; it is about explaining my mistakes to you, the hypothetical reader, rather than just shrugging them off; it is about transparency, and validity, and all those things; and it is also a chance for me to brag about being right.

So, let's start at the top:

Presidential Elections

Okay, we all know Obama won. Now I called it while official news sources were still saying it was 50-50, but I also said it would be close, and basically, it wasn't. Not even close to close. So I was righter than the mainstream media but wronger than I would like. Why?

Well, I - like many other sources - was looking at nation-wide polling. And on the nation-wide vote I would have been right, with Obama beating Romney by a margin of less than 3%. However I, and many others, failed to take the electoral college system into account. If you didn't hear about the EC during the coverage, it basically works like this: the 50 states get a certain number of votes on the EC. This number is their senate seats (2 per state) plus their house seats (between 1 and 53 depending on population). D.C. Is also counted as a state, getting 3 votes (2 for it's imaginary senators and 1 for its illusory house member determined by its real, but puny, population). This makes 539 votes all up, so a candidate needs 270 to win a majority and take the throne. In most states the winner takes all the votes, thus California gave 55 votes to Obama. The exceptions are Maine (4 votes) and Nebraska (5 votes) who divide their votes; if Barak Obama got 40% of Nebraskan votes and Mitt Romney got 60%, for example, Nebraska would give 2 votes to 'The Big O' and 3 to 'Mittens'. (Side note: I love that our federal elections are organised, you know, FEDERALLY! None of this state-by-state interpretation of electoral codes that mean you cannot vote outside your hometown.)

So while the popular vote was pretty evenly split, Obama was a fraction ahead in the key 'swing states', and most of them fell to him giving a landslide of votes on a tiny margin as preferred POTUS.

Senate Elections

I predicted no net change, giving the final result as Democrat 51, Republican 47, Independent 2. In actual fact there was a 2-seat swing to Dem (53, Rep 45, Ind 2).

What went wrong here is pretty straight forward: all of the safe and predicted seats fell as I expected, including the independents in Maine and Vermont (Go Bernie Sanders!). The flaw was my ego in playing guesswork with the seats I considered tossups. In the mid-terms my senate predictions were equally accurate, and the tossups fell 50-50. I noted prior to this election that tossups could just as easily go all one way as split down the middle, but without thinking I called the 7 tossups 4-3 to the Democrats. There was no real logic behind this, and it didn't influence the predictions for the balance of power. In the real world, the tossups went 5-2, and that is the 2 seat swing (from a 1 seat gap in the tossup predictions to a 3 seat gap).

In my defence I did back the tossups favouring the Democrats. I was also only out by one seat, if that gives you any confidence in my predictions. But this is where transparency is important. Tossups are tossups, and if I even call their split in the future I certainly should not be factoring it into the final predictions.

House Elections

Two years on, I haven't reviewed my midterm predictions for the house. Don't hold your breath either. It will probably never happen. I am reviewing the 2012 predictions now:

Puerto Rico R.C. – I predicted a Democrat other than Pedro R. Pierluisi Urrutia, favouring Rafael Cox Alomar. Alomar came second, but Pedro R. Pierluisi Urrutia held the seat. Right party, wrong member. This was just a lack of research and a reliance on trends which I said at the time were inaccurate. Basically, I was just plain wrong. I don't plan to correct this in the future because mistakes happen and not even I have time to fully research and cover Puerto Rico every two years.

American Samoa Delegate – I called this a safe Democrat seat. It is a safe Democrat seat. Eni Faleomavaega returns, as he has for over two decades.

D.C. Delegate – As with American Samoa. Always was Democrat, still no change in 2012. Eleanor Holmes Norton is returned.

Guam Delegate – Although one of the closer non-voting seats, it was pretty clearly Democrat. I was correct in my predictions that Madeleine Bordallo would return.

Mariana Islands Delegate – Another close seat, another Democrat win, another correct prediction. Gregorio Sablan returned.

U.S. Virgin Islands – Democrat seat is Democrat. Donna Christian-Christensen is returned as predicted.

So, 5 out of 6 right on a candidate level, and 6 out of 6 on a party level. That sound's alright, and I'm happy with that, but that was the easy part. Now, the voting seats:

Firstly, NC7 has not been called. I don't know why, but it hasn't. Secondly LA3 has decided it's Republican, as predicted. It just hasn't decided which Republican. Charles Boustany and Jeff Landry will be fighting it out on December 8.

As far as settled seats are concerned, there were some errors made. Five seats called for the Democrats turned Republican (NE1, NE2, NE3, KY6, MI1), while nine called Republican were in fact Democrat (CA36, FL14, FL18, GA12, MA6, MI11, NH1, NY18, TX23). Of some concern, I had some of these down as safe.

Reassessing the data I used for NE2 – the only data I can find in the post-election deluge of actual results – I should have ruled NE2 Republican, not Democrat. I suspect NE1, NE2 and NE3 (that is, the entire state of Nebraska) should have been called Republican, and I pasted it in the wrong column. I will spend some time tracking down the other data and working out if this is all the result of my clerical errors, or if I made some bad calls. I expect a mix, but hopefully none of my predicted “Safe” seats changed.

On the up said, I got 411 of 425 right (plus ten tossups which I called a 7 to 3 split in favour of the Republicans, but wisely didn't factor into the final results. In fact it was a 6 to 4 split to the Republicans) so that makes 96.7% accuracy. Many of those were predictable, but I'm not unhappy with that result.

Gubernatorial Elections

I could list each governorship individually, but there is only one I want to pay detailed attention to; Montana was the only one I got wrong. I had Montana as a predicted Republican win, but it went all Democrat on me.

A predicted win, as opposed to a safe win, means there was some room for doubt when I called it, but I was confident enough to label it and move on. A predicted win means a closer election than a safe win, but this election was very close. The designation Tossup would have been more appropriate, and looking back on my meandering dialogue I wonder if I even considered Tossup as a possibility of gubernatorial elections. I will definitely remedy this next election.

So, how close was the election? 8,674 votes close. The relatively minor Libertarian Party got 17,364 votes, but as these parties rarely (if ever) win governorships I ignored them. I don't intend to change this, as minor parties just bog down the number crunching with no predictable value in the outcome. However, in a two-horse Dem vs Rep race, these 17,364 votes could have put the Republicans ahead.

Did people voting for the Libertarian Party throw my results? Possibly. In terms of it's political position it is pretty well in the centre of the major parties, so it's difficult to guess where the votes would have landed otherwise (or, indeed, whether those voters would have turned up). On the one hand the Libertarian Party is in favour of small government and less financial regulation – strong Republican platforms – while also supporting same-sex marriage and open immigration which are far closer to Democrat positions.

I guess, all in all, getting one predicted position wrong is par for the course. After all, if we could predict results with 100% certainty, we wouldn't need to vote.

Summary

• Presidential prediction was accurate in terms of outcome, but well off as far as vote numbers. Next election, closer attention should be placed on electoral college divisions of votes. 100%.
  
• Senate predictions were spot on. The tossups did not fall evenly, and this should not be assumed in future predictions. 100%, excluding tossups.
  
• House numbers were generally accurate. How much of the inaccuracy stems from clerical error rather than poor prediction is under investigation. 96.7%, excluding tossups.
  
• Gubernatorial elections largely as predicted. One error in a very close seat. Tossups should be considered next election. 90.9%
  

Backdated - Short look at Gubernatorial Elections, and a summary of my predictions

Okay, US voting starts tomorrow (although due to time delays, it will finish on Wednesday), so this will be my last post.

There is no need to look so relieved about it.

Okay, so finally Gubernatorial elections. Unlike the previous mid-term elections, the gubernatorial elections will not be a big deal for us outside the affected states this time (search Gerrymandering in my 2010 coverage for why it mattered last time). Also, Governors really aren't that powerful on the international stage. However, I am covering them anyway for three reasons:

1. Least important of all, I have one last day to bore you with this information
   
2. Of medium importance, this is one arena where the Status Quo is not predicted to be retained
   
3. Most importantly, Gubernatorial is still my favourite word. Gubernatorial!
   

TO BUSINESS:

Most states have their governors serve 4 years, and most set their gubernatorial elections in the Midterms so their campaigning isn't drowned out by the presidential race. However, 11 states have taken pity on us poor recreational psephologists and given us a little something to talk about.

A big thank you to:

1.  Delaware – currently Democrat
2. Indiana – currently Republican (term limited)
3. Missouri – currently Democrat
4. Montana – currently Democrat (term limited)
5. New Hampshire – currently Democrat (retiring)
6. North Carolina – currently Democrat (retiring)
7. North Dakota – currently Republican
8. Utah – currently Republican
9. Vermont – currently Democrat
10. Washington – currently Democrat (retiring)
11. West Virginia – currently Democrat

Retiring means the current Governor (a.k.a. the incumbent) is retiring and will not run in this election, possibly severing long-term loyalties and/or hatreds. Term limited means the incumbent has served the maximum legal number of terms and is required by law not to run. (The same thing happened to Queen Amidala in Star Wars episode II, if that helps).

PREDICTIONS

In the words of Friar Lawrence (Romeo and Juliet, Act 5:Scene III) I will be brief.

1.  Delaware – Safe Democrat
2. Indiana – Safe Republican
3. Missouri – Safe Democrat
4. Montana – Predicted Republican
5. New Hampshire – Predicted Democrat
6. North Carolina – Safe Republican
7. North Dakota – Safe Republican
8. Utah – Safe Republican
9. Vermont – Safe Democrat
10. Washington – Safe Democrat (although I differ from Larry Sabato's call of “tossup” at my peril)
11. West Virginia – Safe Democrat

So, two governorships move to the right. A slight change, but a change none the less. Added to the 12 Democrats, 26 Republicans and an independent not up for election, this makes 18 Democrats, 31 Republicans and an independent. In a hypothetical House of Governors, the Republicans have the majority, but that's no real achievement when their carry-over incumbents not up for election already have 26 of the 50 states and start with the majority before the first governorship is won.

There is, of course, no camera of government composed of Governors, however if a nation wide issue is legally decided on a state-by-state basis (e.g. gay marriage) this can be a useful way of analysing the layout.

CONCLUSION

Okay, that's it. No more updates until the votes are in. Thanks if you did actually read any of this. If you didn't you wont benefit from anything I write here, but here's a summary anyway:

• Obama for President, Status Quo maintained - although with a much smaller majority than in 2008.
• Senate maintains Status Quo, right down to the number of independent seats. (Democrats 21 seats, Republicans 10, Independents 2 - both siding with Dems.)
• The House, too, maintains a similar distribution to before. (Democrats 197, Republicans 238), with a very minor swing to the left (net change of 3 seats.) Effectively Status Quo.
• 3 of the 11 governorships up for election shift go to the GOP, with the majority of the national total in Republican hands before the first vote is counted. (Democrats 6, Republicans 5 for a national total of Democrats 12, Republicans 26, Independents 1.)

Enjoy your 6th of November everyone!

Backdated - US Senate (Upper House) Elections

Who loves Senate elections? The PsephologyKid loves Senate elections.

The great thing about Senate elections is that two-thirds of the seats carry over. Senate elections occur every two years, and a term lasts 6 years. This means, even if some extra seats are up for re-election due to retirement, deaths or other factors, you can normally bank on at least 50% of seats being known with 100% certainty before you even start. In other words, you have to look at current polling data and a seat's history as usual and then factor that into a known, but constantly changing base of Senators. If party A is guaranteed to win 100% of the seats this year, they may still not dominate the Senate if party B has more than fifty seats already. In more probable situations, either party (though rarely, if ever, a third party in the US) can take the majority, but one side has an advantage – a bias to add into the calculations.

Look, it's fun for me, Okay?

Okay. So, there are 100 seats – two per state – and one third are up for re-election. Now I don't need to tell you that 100 is not divisible by three. I simply choose to tell you 100 is not divisible by three. So this year, 33 seats are up for re-election. Basically, the system relies on one person dying, retiring or otherwise losing a seat every six years. With an average age of over 60 years* after the midterm elections, this is far from impossible but not something I'd want to bank on. Why not elect half of the Senators at the midterms and half at the full-term election, America?

Sometimes more than 33 seats are up for re-election, though, so you never get the civil servants knocking on senator's doors saying “constitutionally, we need a 1% mortality rate over 6 years. You're it.”

Now, obviously, you need more than 50 of these aged senators to hold the majority in the Senate (referred to as Fifty Seats of Grey)(okay, it's not called Fifty Seats of Grey, but it could be)(although, technically, I called if Fifty Seats of Grey, so it has been referred to as such).

WHO GETS VOTED OFF THE ISLAND?

21 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 2 Independents will have their seats subject to an election. Not all of these will be running for re-election.

No state has two seats up for election this year, meaning that I can abbreviate the seat names to their respective states:

• Arizona (currently Republican)
• California (currently Democrat)
• Connecticut (currently Independent)
• Delaware (currently Democrat)
• Florida (currently Democrat)
• Hawaii (currently Democrat)
• Indiana (currently Republican)
• Maine (currently Republican)
• Maryland (currently Democrat)
• Massachusetts (currently Republican)
• Michigan (currently Democrat)
• Minnesota (currently Democrat)
• Mississippi (currently Republican)
• Missouri (currently Democrat)
• Montana (currently Democrat)
• Nebraska (currently Democrat)
• Nevada (currently Republican)
• New Jersey (currently Democrat)
• New Mexico (currently Democrat)
• New York (currently Democrat)
• North Dakota (currently Democrat)
• Ohio (currently Democrat)
• Pennsylvania (currently Democrat)
• Rhode Island (currently Democrat)
• Tennessee (currently Republican)
• Texas (currently Republican)
• Utah (currently Republican)
• Vermont (currently Independent)
• Virginia (currently Democrat)
• Washington (currently Democrat)
• West Virginia (currently Democrat)
• Wisconsin (currently Democrat)
• Wyoming (currently Republican)

This means the carry over from the currently Democrat-led Senate is Democrats, 30 seats, Republicans 37.

WHEN IS THE STATUS QUO NOT THE STATUS QUO?

Unlike Congress, we cannot simply say that we expect a similar result to the midterms because different states are due for senate elections. However, even if we did see the same result, this would – ironically – change the Senate entirely. The midterms, as predicted, saw a strong Republican swing but the Democrats hold power due to their large carry-over majority. The midterms and seats in contest this time have eroded that majority, giving the GOP a 37 seat head-start. A similar swing will result in a landslide Republican majority.

So unlike the other races, it won't exhibit a similar swing to the GOP. Even if it did this would result, unlike the other races, in a vastly different scenario. But you know what's really funny? The general prediction for the Senate is... no change!** Status Quo again!

Republican wins

I usually start with the Dems because I follow alphabetical order whenever I want to avoid statistical misdirection. Today, I feel like starting with the GOP (because all Republican wins are safe by my calculation), so here is a disclaimer: this order implies nothing more than a personal whim.

Mississippi (Safe Republican)
Nebraska (Safe Republican)
Tennessee (Safe Republican)
Texas (Safe Republican)
Utah (Safe Republican)
Wyoming (Safe Republican)

Why are their no likely Republican seats? Why is it safe or nothing? I don't know. Something weird's going on.

Democrat wins

Connecticut (Predicted Democrat)
California (Safe Democrat)
Delaware (Safe Democrat)
Florida (Predicted Democrat)
Hawaii (Predicted Democrat)
Maryland (Safe Democrat)
Michigan (Safe Democrat)
Minnesota (Safe Democrat)
Missouri (Predicted Democrat)
New Jersey (Safe Democrat)
New Mexico (Predicted Democrat)
New York (Safe Democrat)
Ohio (Predicted Democrat)
Pennsylvania (Predicted Democrat)
Rhode Island (Safe Democrat)
Washington (Safe Democrat)
West Virginia (Safe Democrat)
Wisconsin (Predicted Democrat)

This seems like a massive win for the Democrats. There are 10 safe seats and 8 Predicted. Predicted seats are the ones I'm most likely to get wrong. In the midterms I got 100% accuracy***, but that's no guarantee this time round. I'm not even sure I used the same sources and formulae to aggregate predictions.

This is not, however, a swing to the Democrats, since the midterm Senators were mostly elected in different states. This years senate race includes several long-standing safe Democrat seats.

Also, remember that the GOP starts off with a 7-seat lead. With six safe seats, this means the Democrat's predicted margin of victory is only 5 seats. And there are more than that unaccounted for:

Tossups

Arizona
Indiana
Massachusetts
Montana
Nevada
North Dakota
Virginia

If all seven of these went to the Republicans, the Democrats would be behind by two seats. There are still two seats I have'nt covered, so adding these to the Democrat count (see below for why these are Dems) would create a tie. Now, being true tossups, it's unlikely they will all be Republican. In the midterms *** my tossups fell 50-50. So the Dems should probably win three or four of these, and winning just one will probably be enough to ensure victory.

Other

So, that leaves Maine and Vermont. Not predicted Democrat. Not predicted Republican. Not too hard to call, either. Heck, these don't even go to minor parties. These are my favourites: safe independent seats.

MAINE

Senator Olympia Snow (Republican) will not be running for re-election, fed up with the ultra-partisan nut-house that is the US Senate. Independent Angus King is the favourite at the moment. No-one knows for sure who he'll side with, possibly hoping to pull a Peter Lewis and hold the balance of power. General consensus, though, is that he'll play Democrat.

VERMONT

Bernie Sanders is running for re-election and is the firm favourite. In the current Senate he caucuses with the Democrats, and can be counted as such. It is no secret that I love independents, firstly as they are not bound by party loyalties or united fronts and can vote on their consciences, and secondly because you have to love an underdog fighting against the multi-million spending parties. However, reading Bernie Sanders's policies has made him my favourite politician at the moment. He's a smart, progressive activist stuck in the body of a crotchety old senator.

SUMMARY

So most seats are remaining the same, with most changes occurring in cases where the incumbent is not running. These seats tend to be tossups or lowest probability Predicted seats. Two independents side with the Democrats in the current Senate. This pattern is predicted to continue with Connecticut replaced by Maine and Vermont continuing as before.

I'll take a guess on the tossups falling 3 to the Dems, 4 to the GOP. This will give the Dems 21 seats (23 including the independents) and the Republicans 10. Since the seats up for re-election are 21 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 2 independents, this is no change in the over-all makeup of the Senate. Status Quo to the extreme.

EXTREME!!!

*http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=average+age%2C+us+senate&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.senate.gov%2Freference%2Fresources%2Fpdf%2FR41647.pdf&ei=uDaTUN3TJcqgigeNhIDQDg&usg=AFQjCNFzhf4A_jz6IHry0Sj8bzjB86YJ1w&cad=rja
** e.g. http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/senate12.php
*** http://psephologyplus.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/backdated-us-midterm-summary-senate.html

Backdated - US Congress (Lower House) Elections

US House of Representatives.

WHAT YOU NEED* TO KNOW:

435 seats. Yesss! A nice big slice of statistical data pie for me, I think. Those of you following my long-term coverage (a hypothetical but loyal group) might be thinking 'Didn't we do this 2 years ago?'

Yes. Yes we did. 435 seats, elected every 2 years. That's 2175 seats a decade. I am a happy, happy man. 218 seats are needed for a majority. There are 6 additional seats up for election, but these members cannot vote and are mainly there to talk. In theory, they could sway the house's opinion with stunning rhetoric, but once again we see a system that assumes politicians are honest, hard-working people who want what is best for their country and will listen to more than just their own voice. These 6 members can also serve on congressional committees and the like.

These 6 (arguably redundant) seats are:

• American Samoa's delegate to congress
• Guam's delegate to congress
• Northern Mariana Islands' delegate to congress
• Puerto Rico's resident commissioner
• The US Virgin Islands' delegate to congress

and

• D.C.'s delegate to congress

Puerto Rico's resident commissioner is elected every four years, the rest serving two-year terms like the rest of the house.

Let's start with these guys:

NON-VOTING SEATS

Puerto Rico has never taken the option to re-elect a resident commissioner. Despite this, the resident commissioner has been a federal Republican only twice since the end of World War Two. (These kind of statistics are, however, flawed**) Federal party affiliation does not equate to party affiliation within Puerto Rico, though, and I am struggling to work out who is red and who is blue. My prediction will be a federally Democratic member other than Pedro R. Pierluisi Urrutia, (possibly Rafael Cox Alomar?)

American Samoa is quite easy to predict. American Samoa first elected a delegate in 1970, but it was not until 1981 that the first delegate took a seat in the house. This was Fofó Iosefa Fiti Sunia, a Democrat who held the seat until he retired in 1989. The seat was then given to Eni Faleomavaega, another Democrat, who held it until... well, today, basically. The seat has only had two holders, both Democrats, changing hands only after a resignation. This is as safely Democrat as conceivably possible.

Interestingly, Eni Faleomavaega is the most senior non-voting member in terms of the line of succession. If the president, vice president, every senator and every voting member of the house died, Eni Faleomavaega would become acting President of the United States, one place behind Ron Barber, the last-in-line of voting members.

D.C. another seat only held by two people since being founded, this time in 1971. (I am ignoring the 1871-1875 seat of the same name, held by Republican Norton Chipman.) Both holders were Democrats. Another safe Democrat win.

Virgin Islands are a little less predictable. Founded in 1973, it was Democrat for three terms, Republican for one, returned to the previous Democrat until 1995, became independent for a term and then passed to current Democrat Donna Christian-Christensen. Turbulent (by non-voting seat standards, anyway), but with long periods under the blue flag. Pretty safe Democrat win.

Guam has had four delegates. Three were Democrats, the other a Republican from 1985 to1993. Although this is the most likely seat to go to the Repubicans so far, it is still a pretty safe Democrat win.

Northern Mariana Islands, however, trump Guam, with a more pro-Republican history. From it's founding as a resident representative seat in 1978 it had two Democratic delegates, of 6 years each, then two Republicans with twelve- and seven-year terms. Upon becoming a non-voting delegate in 2009. Gregorio Sablan won the seat for the Democrats, and has now held it for two terms. Given the seat's Republican-dominated past, you may expect this seat to be volatile. It is certainly the most likely to change and most likely to vote Republican of all non-voting seats, however the main theme in my opinion is stable, re-elected representatives (contrast: Puerto Rico) and I will be tipping a Democratic win here too.

As mentioned before, Hurricane Sandy mean East-Coast Americans (including D.C.) and Caribbean islands (Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands) may have higher priorities than voting. Guam, Mariana Islands and Samoa are all in the (currently aptly-named) Pacific, closer to us than U.S. (see what I did there?) and should be fine as far as that particular storm is concerned.

VOTING SEATS

AKA seats with real power. After the mid-terms the Republicans held 242 seats. It takes 218 for a majority, and most people (including me) are predicting a similar seat distribution this time around. The largely Republican swing in the Midterms have given the Republicans a good opportunity for Gerrymandering for the 2010-2020 census period, as I predicted (and more importantly, explained) in detail two years ago.*** In that post, I outlined which states I thought would be most important in this process. My top six seats to watch were Florida, Ohio, Virginia based on marginality and California, Texas and New York based on population. Democrats won California and New York, while Republicans won Florida, Ohio, Texas, Virginia

Republicans won 29 of the 50 governorships, and this may well suggest a slight Republican bias in Congress for the next decade. I am not suggesting that all of the governors made district boundary modification their top priority, but boundary modification was mandatory after the 2010 census, and few would be foolish enough to leave boundaries such that they advantaged their opponent's parties. 12 new seats have been created (Arizona 9, Florida 26, Florida 27, Georgia 14, Nevada 4, South Carolina 7, Texas 33, Texas 34, Texas 35, Texas 36, Utah 4 and Washington 10), and thus 12 have been dissolved (Illinois 19, Iowa 5, Louisiana 7, Massachusetts 10, Michigan 15, Missouri 9, New Jersey 13, New York 29, New York 28, Ohio 18, Ohio 17 and Pennsylvania 19).

Interestingly, although only 18 of the 50 states (36%) require these most radical boundary adjustments, they include four of my top six states with high Gerrymandering potential. (Texas (with a Republican governor) gains 4 seats, Florida (Republican) gains 2 seats, New York (Democrat) and Ohio (Republican) lose 2 each). This is a coincidence, as these new seats are determined by national population distribution, but it means radical boundary modifications were required in these states, and any politician with an ounce of sense will place these new divisions to legally assist his or her party. If you don't believe this is a wide spread practice, look at any any professional district-by-district predictions for Congress, such as Sabato's 'Crystal Ball' or the 'Roll Call'. With in any populous state (Texas and California are excellent examples) there will be a stack of safe Democrat seats, a stack of safe Republican seats and few in between. Such accurate polling is only possible because like minded people are either carefully segregated or so thoroughly merged that one opinion is vastly dominant, offering safe bets. For a discussion on the mechanics of Gerrymandering, see my previous post.***

This Gerrymandering, coupled with similar factors that are leading to a slight pro-Republican swing in the Presidential race, should see Congress retain at least roughly as many Republican seats as at present. Most predictions suggest a similar proportion of ~240 Republican seats. There is a general trend of a swing against the president in midterms and for re-election in full term elections, so one can view this result as a strengthening of the Republican vote cancelling out this return swing. Expect a solid pro-Republican midterm swing in 2014.

SEAT RUNDOWN

The Pokérap of electoral predictions, I'm going to do a rapid-fire run through of all 435 seats (which would nowadays be quicker than a complete Pokérap. Stupid Generations 3 and beyond...)

Democrat (Safe)

AL7, AZ3, AZ7, CA2, CA3, CA5, CA6, CA11, CA12, CA13, CA14, CA15, CA16, CA17, CA18, CA19, CA20, CA27, CA28, CA29, CA30, CA32, CA33, CA34, CA35, CA37, CA38, CA40, CA43, CA44, CA46, CA47, CA51, CA53, CO1, CO2, CO7, CT1, CT2, CT3, CT4, DE, FL5, FL9, FL20, FL21, FL23, FL24, GA2, GA4, GA5, GA13, HI1, HI2, IL1, IL2, IL3, IL4, IL5, IL7, IL9, IL18, IN1, IN7, IA1, IA2, KY3, LA2, ME1, ME2, MD2, MD3, MD4, MD5, MD7, MD8, MA1, MA2, MA3, MA4, MA5, MA7, MA8, MA9, MI5, MI9, MI12, MI13, MI14, MN1, MN4, MN5, MN7, MS2, MO1, MO5, NE1, NE2, NE3, NV1, NJ1, NJ6, NJ8, NJ9, NJ10, NJ12, NM1, NM3, NY3, NY4, NY5, NY6, NY7, NY8, NY9, NY10, NY12, NY13, NY14, NY15, NY16, NY17, NY20, NY26, NC1, NC4, NC12, OH3, OH9, OH11, OH13, OR1, OR3, OR4, OR5, PA1, PA2, PA13, PA14, PA17, RI2, SC6, TN5, TN9, TX9, TX15, TX16, TX18, TX20, TX28, TX29, TX30, TX33, TX34, TX35, VT, VA3, VA8, VA11, WA2, WA6, WA7, WA9, WA10, WV3, WI2, WI3, WI4 (168 seats)

Democrat (Predicted)

AZ1, AZ2, AZ9, CA9, CA24, CA26, CA41, CT5, FL22, FL26, IL8, IL10, IL11, IL17, KY6, MD6, MI1, NV4, NH2, NY1, NY21, NY24, NY25, NC7, RI1, WA1 (26 seats)

Republican (Safe)

AL1, AL2, AL3, AL4, AL5, AL6, AK, AZ4, AZ5, AZ6, AZ8, AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4, CA1, CA4, CA8, CA21, CA22, CA23, CA25, CA31, CA39, CA42, CA45, CA48, CA49, CA50, CO4, CO5, FL1, FL2, FL3, FL4, FL6, FL7, FL8, FL11, FL12, FL13, FL15, FL17, FL19, FL25, FL27, GA1, GA3, GA6, GA7, GA8, GA9, GA10, GA11, GA14, ID1, ID2, IL6, IL14, IL15, IL16, IN3, IN4, IN5, IN6, IN9, KS1, KS2, KS3, KS4, KY1, KY2, KY4, KY5, LA1, LA3, LA4, LA5, LA6, MD1, MI2, MI3, MI4, MI6, MI7, MI8, MI10, MN2, MN3, MS1, MS3, MS4, MO2, MO3, MO4, MO6, MO7, MO8, MT, NV2, NJ2, NJ4, NJ5, NJ7, NJ11, NM2, NY2, NY22, NY23, NC2, NC3, NC5, NC6, NC9, NC10, NC11, NC13, ND, OH1, OH2, OH4, OH5, OH7, OH8, OH10, OH12, OH14, OH15, OK1, OK2, OK3, OK4, OK5, OR2, PA3, PA4, PA5, PA6, PA7, PA9, PA10, PA11, PA15, PA16, PA18, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, SC7, SD, TN1, TN2, TN3, TN4, TN6, TN7, TN8, TX1, TX2, TX3, TX4, TX5, TX6, TX7, TX8, TX10, TX11, TX12, TX13, TX14, TX17, TX19, TX21, TX22, TX24, TX25, TX26, TX27, TX31, TX32, TX36, UT1, UT2, UT3, VA1, VA4, VA5, VA6, VA7, VA9, VA10, WA3, WA4, WA5, WA8, WV1, WV2, WI1, WI5, WI6, WI8, WY (204 seats)

Republican (Predicted)

CA36, CO3, CO6, FL10, FL14, FL16, FL18, GA12, IN2,**** IN8, IA3, IA4, MA6, MI11, MN6, NV3, NH1, NJ3, NY11, NY18, NY19, NC8, OH6, PA8, TX23, VA2, WI7 (27 seats)

Tossup

CA7, CA10, CA52, IL12, IL13, MN8, NY27, OH16, PA12, UT4 (10 seats).

SUMMARY

Ignoring the ten tossup seats, this is 231 Republican, 194 Democrat – a clear Republican victory. In all probability, about 7 of these tossups will probably go Republican, but even if they all went to the Democrats there would still be a 27 seat margin. Expect a Republican-dominated Congress again, which may hamper Obama (if he gets in). This, combined with the traditional anti-president mid-term swing, should see a firm Republican Congress in 2014.

IN MY DEFENCE

My predictions are based on second- or third-hand information, especially where direct, English language copies of information are unavailable. I do not expect all of my predictions to prove 100% accurate. This is just a hobby.

However, if you think I have too much spare time and an unhealthy fascination with electoral politics (both of which are undoubtedly true; elections are my sport of choice) then you should look at Randall Munroe's recent XKCD update at http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/congress.png

That's right. Two XKCD links in one electoral post. This is because XKCD strives for statistical accuracy in every update: the comic for people who prefer physics cartoons to cartoon physics.

*This information may not prove to be vital at any point. I cannot take responsibility for any time wasted memorising this information.
**http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/electoral_precedent.png
***http://psephologyplus.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/backdated-us-gubernatorial-elections.html
****This contrasts with The New York Times, who according to Wikipedia label Indiana's Second Congressional District as Safe Democrat. I'm assuming there was a typo somewhere along the line, because there is no way IN2 is Safe Dem. No. Hecking. Way.

Backdated - US Presidential Election

So, today is tomorrow from the point of view of yesterday's today. And we all know what that means?

We're tired of playing guessing games?

Heck no! It means it is Wednesday! Guessing games are the best part of election predictions. They are also the only part of election predictions. So, here is my US presidential guessing game for 2012. But first:

What happened in Vanuatu?

No-one knows. Yet.

Remember that this is a small nation, which needs to take care to ensure free and democratic elections. Quite rightly, the counting process is conducted in a careful manner with checks and balances along the way. Also, with just under 200,000 registered voters, this is a much bigger election than previously, and their may be some stressing out going on among the vote counters.

ABC radio is, however, releasing the results as they come*, and so far it looks like there's going to be a shake up. The only available early results are Torres and Banks, both exhibiting a change in members.

As predicted, the new Land and Justice Party is doing well. In the capital, at least. So is former PM Edward Natapei.

U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A.

Now to the United States of America, land of many, many things not worth discussing here. Firstly, why do we care?

Why do we care?

Well, I enjoy electoral predictions, but this election will probably affect all of us, and here's how. Currently, the Australian Dollar is high. This is great if you want to buy things from overseas or go on holiday. Unfortunately, there is not much profit to be made in spending money or travel.

Now, broadly speaking, the economy is divided into four parts, or sectors: primary (raw resources like mining, logging etc.), secondary (manufacture and retail), tertiary (services) and quaternary (finance, investment, research, education and anything else information based). There is a fifth, sometimes argued sector, the quinary sector (medicine) which is normally treated as part of the tertiary sector.

With the high Australian Dollar, retail is suffering as more people shop online for cheaper (foreign) items. This flows back to the manufacturers, in extreme cases crippling the secondary sector. This also occurs, to a lesser extent, in the tertiary sector where overseas services are a viable alternative (famously, call-centres). The impact to the primary sector has been bouncing around the media lately, but in case you have been living under a non-mining-related-rock, basically it's the reverse of the cheaper-overseas phenomena, where Australian resources are (relatively) more expensive and consumers buy elsewhere. If we now cost 10% more, but lose half our buyers, we are making 55% what we were before. So the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors are all affected. Anyone in the quaternary sector payed from our taxes (e.g. teachers) may also feel the pinch as taxable income decreases. But fortunately the private quaternary sector long ago learnt to deal with bear markets (see: short selling and all the other dirty tricks used by the investment and financial industries to profit in a economic downturn, such that people central to the economy have no interest in whether it succeeds or not). So if you are an investment banker, you'll be fine. You can also unfriend me now. (Just joking. I never befriend investment bankers.)

Now, I said the AUD$ was high. Really, its more a case of other currencies being low. It was a week of “Yay, we survived the GFC!” followed by years of “Aww poo! No-one can afford our goods and services!” (again, see sup-prime mortgages and other dirty tricks as per above). The Euro problems are famous, with everyone using the current currency (heh heh, “current currency”) and having their stronger economies (e.g. Germany) suffering for the errors of weaker economies (e.g. Greece). America's problems are less reported these days, but more insidious. If country A wants to buy goods from country B (assuming they don't share a currency, Euro nations), do they pay in A-wanese dollars or B-tian rubbles? Actually, it's a fair bet they use USD$. Case in point: every nation who buys Australian mineral exports. So, with USD$ around parity for AUD$, our goods are costing more AUD$/tonne than before. So even if our customers weathered the GFC like us (e.g. China) we look more expensive, and probably are more expensive than some other nations.

That's right. Australian goods may not cost Chinese buyers any more than they did, but it looks like they do because of America, who has zero real input in the transaction.

Now, basically, left wing parties tend to be good at improving living conditions, and thus long-term economic stability. Right wing parties tend to be good at restoring economies in the short term and keeping them in surplus. I could rant here about how the economy is only a means to an end, and there's no point having a surplus for an “emergency” if you get it by cutting vital services and creating an emergency, but that would be getting way of point. Basically, Romney will be one step towards a speedy recovery for Australia, and Obama will minimise (though far from eliminate) the dangers of future repetition of the cycle. Which you favour depends on your own political bias, but the result will probably be a major factor in shaping the economic future of Australia.

So, Romney vs Obama.

We are all familiar with the campaign. We know Obama was hammered in debate 1 and recovered in the following debates. We know Romney made some gaffes and may or may not have been joking about opening windows on planes. We know the polls indicate a very close race.

How am I going to pick a favourite?

Many of the US polls overlook one factor that I think may be the decider. A factor not present in Australian voting. Non-compulsorary attendance. Sure, half the public, when asked, will vote for Obama, and half will vote for Romney. But in reality, tens-, even hundreds-of-thousands won't vote at all. Especially if it's raining. I hear there are some pretty bad storms around at the moment**. Sandy will be punishing Delaware, Florida, Maryland, New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont ), New Jersey, New York (State)(also, New York City), North Carolina, Pensylvania Virginia and Washington D.C., with possible floods in the Midwest. These are mostly traditional Democrat states, which could be costly for Obama. The two main Republican states on the East Coast (Georgia and South Carolina) appear to be sheltered by the curve of the coast.

Fortunately, many of these people could have applied for postal-voting, allowing them to vote in advance. The majority of pre-voters are republican, though, so this doesn't help Obama.

What may help Obama is the rest of the country. This constant 50-50 polling means all devoted voters (heh heh, “devoted voters”, I crack myself up) will be sure to turn out. And, frankly, I don't think people are that devoted to Romney. His main platform is “I'm not Obama” and while that may appeal to many people, he hasn't really given the public anything to grab onto as a policy. “I will cut the spending to curb our massive debt” is, of course, a decent starting point, but as far as where the money will come from you need more than “f***ed if I know”. Of course, Romney probably does know where he'll cut the money from, he just won't say.

Obama, however, has many ardent supporters. I predict, therefore, a win for Obama, but with some heavy swings to the Republican, especially in the East.

But wait, there's more:

Presidential elections are about more than electing presidents. More to follow!

*http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-10-31/vanuatu-election-early-results-trickle-in/1038768
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy

Backdated - UNSC, ACT, etc.

It's the last Tuesday in October, which means...

It's almost Halloween?

Yes, but also, next Tuesday is the first Tuesday of November. As in, the Tuesday after the first Monday of November*. And we all know what that means**.

Oh no...

That's right! Dan's doing another*** US election coverage post!

BUT FIRST

What we've missed:

* The first Tuesday in November is not always the day after the first Monday of November.
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_%28United_States%29
*** http://psephologyplus.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/backdated-us-midterm-elections-2010.html

THE UNSC SEAT ELECTIONS

Although the voting is such that we don't know who voted which way, it's a fun little vote to watch, if only for it's global appeal. There are a few of my facebook posts from this vote live, but here's the general summary: there are 5 permanent seats (USA, Britain, France, Russia and China) and 10 non-permanent seats. These non-permanent seats are held for 2 years, with 5 seats up for election each year. These seats are divided among regional blocs to ensure that one continent [cough]Europe[/cough] doesn't hold all the power.

The Candidates:

This time, two seats for the African and Asian block, one for the Latin America and Caribbean block and two for the Western Europe and Others bloc were available. Ideally Africa and Asia are treated as separate, but low nomination rates among poorer countries mean the two are merged in practice. Each nation gets a form for each bloc.

On form A (Africa and Asia) there were four participants: Rwanda (the African vote), South Korea (the annoy North Korea vote), Cambodia (the at-least-you're-trying-to-prosecute-former
-Khmer-war-criminals vote) and Bhutan (the gross-national-happiness-index-is-both-awesome-and-cute vote). Naturally, I favoured Bhutan but traditionally you expect and African (Rwanda) and an Asian seat (South Korea being dominant), which relates back to the Asian and African blocs being theoretically separate.

On form B, nations had a choice of Argentina. That was it, although the results (below) are still interesting.

On form C there were three contenders. Finland, Luxembourg and Australia. Finish and Australian reporters both expected Finland to win in the first round. I have no idea what Luxembourg's reporters were saying.

How it Works:

You (assuming you are the voting nation's representative) get the forms. You write the name of the nation(s) you want to fill the available seat(s) on the relevant forms. You put the forms in a suspiciously shredder-like bin. The votes are counted. You need over two-thirds of the vote to get a seat (not counting invalid votes or abstentions). Now, the mathematically astute may realise that even in a two horse race, 66% may not naturally arise. (Especially when your vote is anonymous so you basically agree to vote for everyone to their face then stab them in the back. I love politics.) Take the 1979 stand-off between Columbia and Cuba. This wasn't settled on the first vote. Or the second. Or the 10th. Or the 100th. After 154 votes, a winner was determined: Mexico. (That's another story.)

So, assuming no abstentions, each seat needs 129 votes out of 193.

The Results:

First, a little sub-Saharan politics note. Rwanda is widely considered to be responsible for warfare, and even war-crimes, against other nations, in particular the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The DRC do not like this very much. Before the vote, one can only interrupt on a procedural matter (i.e. you can only hold the floor to discuss how the vote is being conducted). The DRC did so, except replacing “procedural matter” with “open deceleration against Rwanda's military activities” at the last minute. Unconstitutional outburst? Perhaps. Warranted protest about an international security issue in front of the body responsible for monitoring and reporting on international security issues? Heck yeah!

So, to the results:

Form A (Asia and Africa) – Round 1:
1 abstention, 128 votes to win a seat

Rwanda – 148, seat awarded in round 1 (gosh darn it!)
Republic of Korea – 116, insufficient, continues to round 2
Cambodia – 62, insufficient, continues to round 2
Bhutan – 20, insufficient, excluded (Noooo!)
Tanzania – 3 (Tanzania, you crazy cats! You not on list of contenders!)
DRC – 1 (Protest vote! No kidding who voted DRC!)

Form A (Asia and Africa) – Round 2:
1 invalid vote, 128 votes to win a seat

Republic of Korea – 149, seat awarded
Cambodia – 62, insufficient, excluded

Form B (Latin America and Caribbean) – Round 1:
8 abstentions, 1 invalid vote, 123 votes to win a seat

Argentina – 182, seat awarded (well, duh!)
Barbados – 1 (Barbados? What are you up to?)*
Cuba – 1 (Et tu, Cuba?)*

Form C (Western Europe and Other) – Round 1:
129 votes to win a seat

Australia – 140, seat awarded in round 1 (heck yeah!)
Luxembourg – 128, insufficient, continues to round 2 (but only 1 vote off! Heck, one informal vote and these guys would be in.)
Finland – 108, insufficient, continues to round 2 (but you were meant to be the favourite!)

Form C (Western Europe and Other) – Round 2:
129 votes to win a seat

Luxembourg – 131, seat awarded (Ha, hahaha, ha! Awesome!)
Finland – 62, insufficient, excluded (BUT YOU WERE MEANT TO BE THE FAVOURITE!)

So there you have it: Rwanda, South Korea, Argentina, Australia and Luxembourg join carry-over nations Morocco (Africa), Togo (Africa), Guatemala (Latin America and Caribbean), Pakistan (Asia) and Azerbaijan (Eastern Europe). There must also always be one Arab state on the council, in this case Morocco.

* Technically, there's no proof these were Barbados and Cuba voting for themselves. This could be others nation voting for them so it looks like Barbados and Cuba don't like Argentina. I would so be that nation, just to stir up a little, non-militant discord. (NB: This is why I'm not in international diplomacy.) I personally want to believe Barbados and Cuba agreed to vote for each other so they can truthfully say “I didn't vote for myself” and still not vote for Argentina.



Okay, ACT's pretty simple. Unicameral legislature, so only one vote. No upper-house or lower-house contrasts. No Labor win here and Liberal win there. No two-tier lists with different voting mechanisms or distributions.

One list.

17 seats.

No fun.

Okay, there is some fun, but not much to report. The Canberra Times and National Press both expected Labor to continue to hold power in a minority government, with the Greens holding balance of power in a left-wing coalition (not to be confused the the Coalition). Statu Futuēns Quo (pardon my Latin). Interestingly, ACT uses the Hare-Clark system of voting, perhaps the best proportional representative voting system in use today, but also a slightly complicated system (I said there was some fun!)

Note too that ANY proportional representative voting system (a system where surplus votes overflow as fractions of a vote to other candidates) would have resolved the UNSC voting on form C in one round with exactly the same result (assuming more Finland was the second preference for no more than about 90% of all Australian votes (which round 2 pretty firmly proves)).

It would also most likely have resolved Form C in round 1 with no change in results, making the entire UNSC vote much quicker. Hare-Clark system: 9/10 for efficiency, 2/10 for suspense.

Overview:

Labor, prior to the election, held 7 seats, Liberals held 6 and Greens 4. Interestingly, Greens held the balance of power in the ACT and in Tasmania, which both use the Hare-Clark system. In both cases it worked a lot better than the Federal minority government too.

How it Works:

So, you need 9 seats to hold power. That's basically all you need to know, but I'm going to keep on typing. Skip on down to the results. You know you want to. Heck, just stop reading. I'm amazed anyone read this far! Thanks for the interest though! Make a comment below including the word 'bandanna' if you have read this far, by the way... thought so. No one.

Okay, the Hare-Clark system. Basically, there is a quota. Reach that quota of votes, and you win a seat. The ACT uses the Hare Quota, although the Droop Quota will yield very similar results in most situations. The Hare Quota does technically favour minor parties to a small extent, with hilarious* results in Hong Kong.

Basically, the Hare Quota is what you expect: you need more than V/S votes, where V is the number of valid votes and S is the number of seats. In a 1 seat election, you need 100% of the vote (after, redistribution, I'll explain this soon). With two seats up for grabs, you need 50% of the vote. For three-seater elections you need 33% and so on. (The Droop Quota is basically the “obvious” quota system: over 50% in a 1 seat election, over 33% in a two seater, over 25% in a three seater and so forth.)

Now, once someone reaches the quota, their extra votes flow on to a second preference, and then a third. This is where it get's cool, though anyone who follows Federal or State upper-house statistics (and frankly, who doesn't?) will already know this. Say a candidate has 110 votes – 10 more than needed. Obviously you can't just pick ten votes to flow on, so roughly 91% of each vote stays with that candidate (equal to 100% of the quota) and 9% of each vote flows on. That means a second candidate might get 21% of a vote, giving them a total of, say, 93.21 votes.

So, each person to fill a quota passes on their overflow in this way until all the seats are filled, or no-one has reached the quota (e.g. in a 4 seat election, two candidates have reached 25% of the vote and the other 50% is divided among 5 other candidates, with an average of 10% each.) In this case, the person with the least votes is eliminated and their votes flow on to their second preferences.

Ever wondered why it takes so long to count the votes? Now you know.

The Results:

Labor gained a seat. Liberals gained 2. Greens (obviously) lost three. So, Labor and Liberal each have 8, and the Greens side with Labor. Much as predicted, only closer.

*Hilarious by electoral statistic standards, anyway. Basically, all major parties pretend to be minor parties by listing each candidate as on separate tickets – basically as independents.


Basically, heaps of them happened. I didn't follow them as closely as the others, but SBS world news provides a nice occasional update. Also, their tag line is pretty cool*.

This month alone:

Czech Republic – Senate elections. 1/3 of the senate is elected every 2 years, giving each member a 6-year term.

Czech Republic (again) – It's a crazy carry-over thing when no-one reaches the quota.

Including carry-overs, the leading social-democrat party has increased its lead from 41 to 46 seats out of a possible 81.

Georgia – Georgian Dream, which didn't exist last election, won the majority. Basically, it's a chimera of all the failed past Georgian parties, from left-wing liberals to right-wing racists, and including Zurab Azmaiparashvili, who is currently the worlds 114th best chess player (ELO: 2637)

(85/150 seats, 76 needed to govern)

Lithuania – Social democrats lead here, too, but with only 38 seats of 141 it could well be that the Homeland Union (33 seats) returns if it can form a majority coalition, as it did last time with the National Resurrection Party, Liberal and Centre party and the regular Liberals. This election was coupled with a referendum, which fell against the proposal for a new nuclear power plant. Lithuania relies on foreign energy after closing its Chernobyl-like plant in 2009, thirteen years after Chernobyl failed, and 5 years after agreeing to do so with the EU. Speed, it seems, is not their strong point (but see China, below). Iceland also held a referendum this month on additions to the constitution. Not even I am anal enough to report on Icelandic constitutional changes. Not until after the US elections anyway.

Lithuania (again) – another carry-over thing. (See Czech Republic (again))

Montenegro – Coalition for a European Montenegro lost some ground but still hold the lead with 39 seats out of 79 – one short of a majority.

Ukraine – I think the ambiguously named “Party of Regions” has improved its lead from 175 seats. Sounds like a lot, but it's just over a third of the total 450, and requires another 51 seats. Still, if over 175 seats isn't a good starting point, there's something wrong with the system.

Vanuatu – TODAY! With 52 seats, you need 27 for a majority. Currently, the biggest party has only 11 seats, and the ruling coalition was formed of 8 parties. Now, its ten parties after a few splits. Expect more of the same, with 32 parties and over 300 candidates this time round. There has been some previous problems, with candidates being barred from running (which might help, when you think about it) have been resolved. Personally, I'd suggest watching the Land and Justice Party. It's new, but popular. But then, even if it wins a double-digit number of seats (that's right, more than 9, people!) there's no reason to assume it will be part of a coalition. With this many parties combining into dozens of possible coalitions, how really knows? Not me, that's the heck sure.

Venezuela – Hugo Chavez is still in, with just over 55% of the vote and most of the states. A picture is worth more words that I can write coherently at this hour:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/...

Also China starts voting this month, and finishes in February. Why? Well, as far as I understand, the National People's Congress is elected by a council, which is in turn elected by the Provincial People's Congresses. The Provincial People's Congresses are voted for by another council, voted for by the Prefecture-level People's Congresses, who are voted for by (you guessed it) another council elected by the county-, town- and city-level Peoples Congresses.

Luckily, that is where it ends.

Unless you live in a city divided into districts, of course, in which case the City's People's Congress is elected by a council which is elected by the district Peoples Congresses. The district Peoples Congresses, like the county-, town- and city-not-divided-into-districts-level Peoples Congresses are elected by the people.

Now, if we are honest, the chance of a non-Communist Party member being elected to the lowest level is average at best. The CCP will normally dominate that level, and few non-CCP members will make the council that elects the next level, much less get elected to that next level. Perhaps 1 or two might get through, but then there's another level, and another. So basically, there is no way a non-CCP member will make it to the National People's Congress. Right?

Well, there is some truth to this weeding-out process but actually, there are 888 non-CCP members in the NPC. Sure, they're dwarfed by the 2,099 CCP members, but that's still over 25%. That's enough to win a seat in a 4-seat Hare-Clark election (or a 3-seat droop election)! Turns out China's isn't an entirely corrupt political system. Far from it. Shame on you for thinking such things!

Still, the prediction is … predictable. Significant CCP dominance, with some non-CCP members chilling out on the side. Since at least the 80s, non-CCP members have numerically been in the mid-400s to mid-500s. Only with the last election did the spike to 888 emerge. Is the CCP losing power? Is the country starting to accept the idea of an alternative government? Did the CCP just have a bad year and have now recovered to reduce the non-CCP numbers back to the 500s? I'll let you know in 4 months. If I remember...

*News from home. If you live in the world.