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
November 2018
December 2018
January 2019
February 2019
 
  Sat, Feb 16, 2019
South Tyrol Landtag election results

Provincial election results since 1993 for Bolzano-South Tyrol are now available in Elections to the South Tyrolean Landtag (Provincial Council). I have also included turnout statistics for the 2008 Landtag and Chamber of Deputies elections on The 2018 South Tyrolean provincial election, and updated the election statistics available there to fully account for the single-digit differences between preliminary and definitive 2018 vote totals.

Finally, I have corrected the correlations between voter turnout and percentage of Italian speakers at the municipal level in the 2013 and 2018 provincial elections. These were originally reported as -0.76 and -0.60, respectively, but they were actually stronger, standing at -0.84 and -0.70, respectively; the lower figures were due to the fact that five of South Tyrol's 116 municipalities had not been included in the original analysis. For comparison purposes, the correlation between voter turnout at the municipal level and percentage of Italian speakers in the 2008 Landtag election stood at -0.71 - almost identical to the corresponding figure for 2018.


posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 02/16/2019 19:24 | permanent link

The 2018 South Tyrolean provincial election

Update: South Tyrol provincial election results since 1993 are now available on this website. This piece, originally posted on January 28, 2019, has been updated and corrected, as detailed on South Tyrol Landtag election results.

The province of Bolzano - South Tyrol, which held a provincial election last October 21, stands out from the rest of Italy in many ways. Besides being the country's northernmost province as well as its wealthiest one, South Tyrol is the only Italian province in which a majority of the population speaks the German language. Nevertheless, a substantial minority speaks Italian, and both languages enjoy official status along with Ladin, a Romance language related to Italian but distinct from it. In addition, the province houses a rapidly growing foreign population, which nowadays vastly outnumbers Ladin-speaking South Tyroleans.

Not surprisingly, the language divide has played a crucial role in South Tyrolean party politics, and the province has developed a multi-party system in which Italy's nationwide political forces - primarily supported by Italian speakers - compete with parties backed by German (and Ladin) speakers, most notably among them the South Tyrol People's Party (SVP), which has been the largest party in the province since 1948. In fact, SVP was a key actor in the establishment of devolved government at the provincial level in 1972; the region of Trentino-Alto Adige, formed by the provinces of Bolzano and Trento (Trent), had been granted devolution in 1948, but German-speaking South Tyroleans were not satisfied with this arrangement, primarily because they were (and remain) vastly outnumbered by Italian speakers at the regional level.

However, support for SVP has been gradually but steadily declining in recent years, due to the emergence of other parties within the German-language community, some of which advocate transforming South Tyrol into an independent country, or having the province reincorporated into Austria; the present-day region of Trentino-Alto Adige was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire until 1919. Meanwhile, the environmentalist Greens have developed a not insubstantial following among members of all three linguistic groups. As a result, in 2013 SVP lost the overall majority it had held in South Tyrol's provincial council since 1948.

Although South Tyrol has often been cited as an example of peaceful coexistence between different ethno-linguistic groups, one notable political trend among Italian speakers - particularly in the provincial capital of Bolzano/Bozen, where they constitute a large majority of the population - was the unusually strong showing of the neo-fascist Italian Social Movement (MSI-DN) and its ostensibly post-fascist successor, the National Alliance (AN) between 1985 and 2008. MSI-DN, which remained a small yet not insignificant force in the rest of Italy, turned Bolzano - South Tyrol's largest city - into a party stronghold by exploiting ethnic resentment against the German-speaking population and its allegedly privileged position on account of the system of ethnic proportionality, which provides for the allocation of public goods (such as government jobs and welfare benefits) among the province's linguistic groups in proportion to their numerical strength. However, support for the hard right receded in the years following the National Alliance's participation in and subsequent merger with Silvio Berlusconi's right-of-center People of Freedom (PdL), and in the 2013 provincial election SVP narrowly topped the poll in Bolzano, five votes ahead of the Democratic Party (PD-DP), Italy's main center-left party.

That said, the last five years have brought about dramatic changes in Italy's party system. The emergence of the populist but ideologically ambiguous Five Star Movement (M5S) upset the dominance of the broad center-right and center-left cartels which had alternated in power since 1994, paving the way for a three-way race in 2013, in which the center-left coalition won a large majority in the Chamber of Deputies on a narrow popular vote lead, but fell short of a Senate majority. However, that state of affairs, as well as the subsequent, short-lived dominance of PD under the leadership of Matteo Renzi, turned out to be halfway houses. Much like France's Charles de Gaulle in 1969, Renzi bet his political future on an ill-advised constitutional reform, and just as in France nearly a half-century earlier, the gamble backfired spectacularly when voters rejected the proposal in a 2016 referendum. As a result, Renzi had no choice but to resign as head of government, dealing a heavy blow to the center-left in general and PD in particular.

By the time a general election was held in March 2018 under a new electoral system, the alliance formed by the center-left parties - still struggling to recover from the aftermath of the 2016 referendum - finished third, well behind the center-right coalition and M5S, which became Italy's largest single party. However, the center-right coalition fell short of an overall parliamentary majority in both houses of Parliament, and eventually a coalition government was formed by M5S and the Northern League, which had become the largest party within the center-right alliance, displacing Berlusconi's Forza Italia.

Meanwhile, South Tyrol remained one of the few areas in Italy where the center-left coalition prevailed, by virtue of an alliance with SVP. The latter, while not a leftist party by any stretch of the imagination, has usually aligned itself with Italy's center-left alliances. This is due in no small measure to the historically strained relationship between South Tyrol's German-speaking population and the Italian right, going all the way back to the Fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini: it is no exaggeration to say that to this day, some people in Italy show little if any contrition about the Fascist regime's attempt to forcibly Italianize South Tyrol, which entailed among other things banning the use of the German language in the public sphere, and the large-scale resettlement of Italians from other parts of the country, in order to dilute the numerical superiority of German speakers in the province.

Since the March 2018 general election, opinion polls in Italy have indicated that support for the right-wing Northern League has soared to the point it might become the largest single party should a general election be held in the immediate future. The League's rising electoral fortunes have been largely confirmed by recent regional, provincial and local elections, among them the provincial vote in South Tyrol last October. However, due to the province's unique political environment, the extent of this turn of events is not fully evident from the overall results.

As in previous elections, the official South Tyrol 2018 provincial election website provides aggregated results for the eight municipalities with a majority of Ladin speakers. However, I took that one step further, and aggregated the results for the five municipalities where according to the 2011 census a majority of the population speaks Italian, and for the 103 municipalities where German speakers are in the majority. The aggregated results for the three groups and for the entire province of South Tyrol (the latter including postal ballots), were as follows:

   List       Italian-
speaking
Municipalities
      German-
speaking
Municipalities
      Ladin-
speaking
Municipalities
      Total   
        
     
     
     
  
         Votes       %       Votes       %       Votes       %       Votes       %   
   SVP Südtiroler Volkspartei       10,416       17.53       97,235       47.70       6,751       60.60       119,109       41.89   
   Team Köllensperger       4,178       7.03       36,804       18.06       1,410       12.66       43,315       15.23   
   Lega       17,318       29.15       12,687       6.22       1,182       10.61       31,515       11.08   
   Verdi - Grüne - Verc       5,665       9.54       11,001       5.40       409       3.67       19,392       6.82   
   Die Freiheitlichen       805       1.36       16,043       7.87       558       5.01       17,620       6.20   
   Süd-Tiroler Freiheit       575       0.97       15,572       7.64       261       2.34       16,927       5.95   
   PD Partito Democratico - Demokratische Partei       6,765       11.39       3,620       1.78       63       0.57       10,808       3.80   
   Movimento 5 Stelle       3,837       6.46       2,480       1.22       193       1.73       6,670       2.35   
   L'Alto Adige nel cuore Fratelli d'Italia Uniti       3,317       5.58       1,461       0.72       26       0.23       4,882       1.72   
   BürgerUnion für Südtirol       215       0.36       3,239       1.59       153       1.37       3,665       1.29   
   Noi per l'Alto Adige - Für Südtirol       1,963       3.30       1,369       0.67       47       0.42       3,428       1.21   
   Forza Italia       1,704       2.87       1,004       0.49       44       0.39       2,826       0.99   
   CasaPound Italia       1,937       3.26       475       0.23       19       0.17       2,451       0.86   
   Vereinte Linke Sinistra Unita       714       1.20       848       0.42       25       0.22       1,753       0.62   

Now, it should be noted that these aggregations have the following constraints:

  1. While the Ladin valleys are fairly homogeneous in terms of language, the Italian- and German-speaking municipalities have both significant linguistic minorities, particularly in the case of the former. According to the 1991 census language figures for South Tyrolean municipalities - the last census for which South Tyrol's Provincial Statistics Institute has municipality-level absolute language figures available online (for 2001 and 2011 language statistics at that level are available as percentages only) - the distribution of languages stood as follows:

       Language       Italian-
    speaking
    Municipalities
          German-
    speaking
    Municipalities
          Ladin-
    speaking
    Municipalities
          Valid
    Declarations
      
            
         
         
         
      
             Abs.       %       Abs.       %       Abs.       %       Abs.       %   
       Italian       80,300       71.66       36,093       12.28       521       3.09       116,914       27.65   
       German       30,920       27.59       255,691       86.99       892       5.28       287,503       67.99   
       Ladin       834       0.74       2,133       0.73       15,467       91.63       18,434       4.36   

    Note that the language distribution of South Tyrol's non-foreign population hasn't changed significantly since 1991. According to the 2011 census, the province had 118,120 Italian speakers (26.06%); 314,604 German speakers (69.41%); and 20,548 Ladin speakers (4.53%), for a total of 453,272 valid language declarations. Moreover, available 2011 figures for the Ladin valleys indicate the area remained 90.85% Ladin-speaking at that point in time. It should also be noted that the cited language figures include a small percentage of aggregation declarations made by South Tyroleans who don't consider themselves as belonging to any of the three official linguistic groups, but who are nonetheless required by law to specify the group to which they wish to be aggregated.

  2. In 2011, the percentage of German speakers in the group of German-speaking municipalities ranged from 50.47% in Merano/Meran - South Tyrol's second largest city, where 49.06% of the population spoke Italian - to 100% in Martello/Martell, the only municipality in the province where the entire population spoke a single language; leaving Meran out of this category, the remaining municipalities were 91.28% German-speaking and 7.97% Italian-speaking in 1991.

All the same, the figures show a dramatic contrast between the Italian-speaking municipalities on the one hand, and those with German- and Ladin-speaking majorities on the other one. In the former, the League topped the poll with nearly twice as many votes as SVP, and over thrice as many as PD. In fact, the results were broadly similar to those of the provincial election in neighboring Trento province, which also went to the polls last October 21; although recognized linguistic minorities in the latter constitute just four percent of the population, the province has a significant autonomist party, namely PATT, which is also a frequent ally of SVP at the regional level.

Meanwhile, in the German- and Ladin-speaking municipalities SVP remained by far the largest party, although the new Team Köllensperger (TK) list headed by Paul Köllensperger, a former M5S member, had a strong showing on its electoral debut and arrived second both in those areas and in the entire province. The League emerged as the largest Italian party in both the German and Ladin areas, albeit reduced to single digits and placing a distant fifth in the German-speaking municipalities. That said, no Italian list had managed to poll as much as five percent of the vote on that part of South Tyrol in the provincial elections held between 1998 and 2013. Just as important, the League finished third in the Ladin municipalities with 10.60% - a noteworthy outcome considering that Italian speakers constitute just 4.70% of the population in the Ladin valleys. The remaining Italian lists fared poorly on both German- and Ladin-speaking areas, but the Greens continued to draw support from all three linguistic groups, although their share of the vote was noticeably higher in the Italian-speaking municipalities.

One particularly divisive issue in the recently held provincial election was a proposal by Austria's far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) - currently the junior partner in that country's right-wing coalition government - to grant Austrian passports to German- and Ladin-speaking South Tyroleans, but not to Italian speakers. The proposal has met strong opposition from the Italian government, but was embraced by South Tyrol's separatist parties. However, these parties - particularly Die Freiheitlichen (whose name is sometimes translated to English as "The Libertarians") - incurred in substantial losses. At the municipal level, these losses show a relatively strong inverse correlation (-0.64) with the results obtained by TK, particularly in the 103 German-speaking municipalities (-0.74).

The following table shows vote and percentage gains or losses for selected lists with respect to the 2013 provincial election (with postal ballots taken into account for the provincial totals):

   List       Italian-
speaking
Municipalities
      German-
speaking
Municipalities
      Ladin-
speaking
Municipalities
      Total   
        
     
     
     
  
         Votes       %       Votes       %       Votes       %       Votes       %   
   SVP Südtiroler Volkspartei       -3,097       -6.37       -9,752       -2.77       -39       +0.84       -12,146       -3.85   
   Team Köllensperger       +4,178       +7.03       +36,804       +18.06       +1,410       +12.66       +43,315       +15.23   
   Lega       +12,684       +20.95       +10,333       +5.11       +1,091       +9.81       +24,395       +8.60   
   Verdi - Grüne - Verc       -403       -1.20       -5,668       -2.47       -258       -2.20       -5,678       -1.92   
   Die Freiheitlichen       -1,852       -3.35       -30,682       -14.17       -1,205       -10.51       -33,890       -11.75   
   Süd-Tiroler Freiheit       -578       -1.07       -3,167       -1.20       -149       -1.27       -3,816       -1.27   
   PD Partito Democratico - Demokratische Partei       -5,639       -10.56       -2,744       -1.23       -79       -0.68       -8,402       -2.89   
   Movimento 5 Stelle       -320       -0.90       -136       -0.02       -41       -0.33       -430       -0.13   
   L'Alto Adige nel cuore Fratelli d'Italia Uniti       -862       -1.81       -328       -0.13       -28       -0.24       -1,179       -0.39   
   BürgerUnion für Südtirol       -33       -0.08       -1,337       -0.57       -993       -8.71       -2,400       -0.82   

Interestingly enough, in percentage terms SVP incurred a greater loss in the Italian-speaking municipalities, even though the party is far weaker in them than anywhere else in the province. In fact, it is the exact opposite of the pattern observed between the 2008 and 2013 provincial elections, in which the party's losses came primarily from the German-speaking municipalities. Just as important, SVP no longer commands an absolute majority in that part of the province, where as recently as 1998 its share of the vote stood at 70.18%; this is true as well even when leaving out bilingual Merano/Meran (in which case SVP's share of the vote in the remaining German-speaking municipalities increases to 49.34%, down from 73.94% in 1998). Meanwhile, the League's vote total had a larger growth rate in the German-speaking areas, even though its vote percentage increase was by far bigger in the Italian-speaking municipalities.

While voting patterns in South Tyrol largely follow the province's linguistic distribution, the relationship is not strictly one-to-one. There have been instances in which a majority or nearly a majority of voters on some Italian-speaking municipalities have supported ethnic German lists in provincial elections, while in national elections to the Italian Chamber of Deputies, the combined share of the vote for Italian party lists in the German-speaking municipalities has usually exceeded the reported proportion of Italian speakers in that part of the province by a significant margin. In fact, in some German-speaking municipalities with a substantial Italian-speaking minority, Italian parties have often outpolled ethnic German parties in Chamber elections.

The described electoral behavior could be explained by a number of factors, such as population shifts in the years since the 2011 census; linguistic distribution disparities between the overall and voting-age populations; individuals who indicate a linguistic group affiliation different from their first language (or languages); voters supporting a party outside their linguistic group (or an inter-ethnic list such as the Greens); and voter turnout disparities between linguistic groups. The first three factors are beyond the scope of this posting, but official election statistics confirm the importance of the remaining two.

From 1948 to 1998, voter turnout in provincial as well as national elections in South Tyrol stood at exceptionally high levels, usually above ninety percent. A slight decline in turnout became evident by the end of the century, but as late as 1998 turnout differences between South Tyrol's eight districts remained small, standing at just over five percent. Even so, in the provincial election held that year voter turnout in the district of Bolzano - coextensive with the provincial capital - fell at a noticeably higher rate than in the rest of the province, a trend which rapidly accelerated in subsequent provincial elections. By 2013 the turnout gap between districts exceeded twenty percent, and turnout in the Italian-speaking municipalities was almost sixteen points below the corresponding figure for German-speaking municipalities. Meanwhile, voter turnout rates for Chamber of Deputies elections held during that period showed very little variation between Italian- and German-speaking municipalities, with differences of less than one percent between 2006 and 2013.

However, the 2018 legislative and provincial elections were both characterized by a drastic departure from previously observed patterns. In the Chamber of Deputies vote last March, voter turnout in South Tyrol fell sharply with respect to the preceding 2013 election, but the drop was particularly acute in the German- and Ladin-speaking municipalities; as a result, voter turnout in Italian-speaking municipalities was significantly higher than in German-speaking municipalities; the latter also registered a large increase in the number of invalid ballots. This unusual turn of events appeared to be due to the non-participation of South Tyrol's separatist parties. But in the October provincial election turnout rose slightly in the Italian-speaking municipalities, relative to the 2013 provincial vote, while it fell significantly in German- and Ladin-speaking municipalities. As a result, the turnout gap between districts shrunk to just over fifteen percent, while the difference in turnout between Italian- and German-speaking municipalities came down to less than twelve percent. All the same, voter turnout in South Tyrol has now declined nearly twenty points over the course of four decades, from a record high of 93.21% in 1978 to 73.87% this year (excluding postal ballots). For the Landtag (Provincial Council) and Chamber of Deputies elections of 2008 to 2018, voter turnout in South Tyrol and the three municipality groups stood as follows:

   Event       Italian-
speaking
Municipalities
      German-
speaking
Municipalities
      Ladin-
speaking
Municipalities
      Total   
        
     
     
     
  
         Voters       %       Voters       %       Voters       %       Voters       %   
   Landtag 2008       70,208       73.17       231,107       82.31       12,628       82.84       313,943       80.09   
   Landtag 2013       59,201       65.02       218,864       81.93       11,779       79.33       289,844       77.70   
   Landtag 2018       60,669       65.29       210,707       76.68       11,502       75.41       282,878       73.87   
   Chamber 2008       78,522       84.06       221,211       84.73       12,441       85.40       312,174       84.59   
   Chamber 2013       76,086       81.37       221,775       82.27       12,503       83.15       310,364       82.08   
   Chamber 2018       71,665       75.13       185,246       66.75       11,213       72.51       268,124       69.04   

In the 2013 provincial election there was a fairly high inverse correlation (-0.84) between voter turnout and percentage of Italian speakers at the municipal level. However, by 2018 the correlation had dropped to -0.70, and there was a moderate correlation (0.58) between change in voter turnout and percentage of Italian speakers. At the municipal level, eighteen of the top twenty voter turnout rate decreases (all above seven percent) took place in municipalities which were at least 95% German-speaking, while at the district level, Val Venosta/Vinschgau (97.29% German-speaking) had the largest drop (-7.10%) in turnout. Meanwhile, the turnout rate in Bolzano remained unchanged to two decimal places. These figures suggest that while turnout increased among Italian speakers, it went down among German speakers, quite likely outpacing the rising numbers among the former. As a result, in the Italian-speaking municipalities the increased turnout among Italian speakers was largely but not completely offset by the lower turnout among German speakers, resulting in a minimal overall increase. However, in the German-speaking municipalities the turnout increase among the proportionally much smaller Italian-speaking minority barely dented the falling turnout among German speakers. In terms of Landtag election results, the shifting turnout trends may explain why ethnic German parties outpolled Italian lists in the three smaller Italian-speaking municipalities in 2013, but not in 2018.

Voter turnout also fell noticeably - by an average of more than six percentage points - in all but one of the South Tyrolean municipalities bordering Austria (all of them overwhelmingly German-speaking). The one notable exception to this trend was Brennero/Brenner, named after the Brenner Pass, an Alpine mountain pass and a major transportation link with Austria; SVP substantially increased its share of the vote in the municipality on a turnout rate slightly larger than in 2013.

While the Austrian passports controversy may have played a role in the latest decline in voter turnout, the relationship between both developments is not quite clear. To be certain, the percentage decline of Die Freiheitlichen, when calculated on the basis of the entire electorate (that is, including non-voters and invalid votes), shows a mild correlation (0.42) with the decrease in turnout, but the correlation is strongest (0.84) in the eight municipalities where at least one-third of the population is Italian-speaking.

Although the results polled by the League in 2018 broadly resemble those obtained in 1998 and 2003 by the National Alliance - the last significant Italian hard-right party in South Tyrol until the League's recent breakthrough - the distribution of votes in the three linguistic-based municipality groups, presented below, show a number of differences.

   List       Italian-
speaking
Municipalities
      German-
speaking
Municipalities
      Ladin-
speaking
Municipalities
      Total   
        
     
     
     
  
         Votes       %       Votes       %       Votes       %       Votes       %   
   AN (1998)       19,798       25.28       9,386       4.40       108       0.90       29,292       9.65   
   AN (2003)       17,980       25.09       7,320       3.38       82       0.67       25,382       8.44   
   Lega (2018)       17,318       29.15       12,687       6.22       1,182       10.61       31,515       11.08   

As previously noted, the League's share of the vote in the Ladin Valleys stood substantially above the percentage of Italian speakers in the area, which suggests that a number of Ladin-speaking voters backed the party as well. This appears to have been the case as well in the municipality of Castelrotto/Kastelruth, which is predominantly German-speaking but also has a significant (15.37%) Ladin minority. In fact, the League vote in that municipality is concentrated on its sixth polling section, which in past provincial elections has registered substantially above-average support for Ladin lists. However, support for the National Alliance in South Tyrol's predominantly Ladin-speaking areas was negligible in 1998 and 2003.

Meanwhile, the League's vote in the predominantly German-speaking areas of the province stood slightly above the figures achieved by AN in 1998 and 2003, but the League's share of the vote also exceeded the percentage of Italian speakers in forty-one German-speaking municipalities without a significant Ladin-speaking population. In these municipalities - 1.79% Italian-speaking in 1991 - AN nosedived to just 0.42% and 0.36% in 1998 and 2003, compared to 2.88% secured by the League in 2018. At the district level, the same trend is particularly evident in Val Venosta/Vinschgau, where the League won 2.62% of the vote in 2018, even though only 2.63% of its population was Italian-speaking in 2011 (down from 3.06% in 2001 and 3.41% in 1991). By comparison, AN polled just 0.86% of the district vote in 1998, and 0.67% in 2003. Thus, it would appear that a few German-speaking voters - or at least voters who identify as belonging to the German-speaking group - also backed the League. In fact, in the municipality of Martello/Martell, whose entire population was German-speaking in 2011, the League won 2.14% of the vote. However, the League represents a different brand of hard-right politics, inasmuch as in the recent past it had been a separatist party advocating the independence of northern Italy from the rest of the country, which put it at odds with the National Alliance. Moreover, in the 2014 European Parliament election the League ran in coalition with Die Freiheitlichen.

As a result of the 2018 provincial election, the distribution of seats in the South Tyrolean Landtag, allocated on a provincial basis by the largest remainder method of proportional representation, stood as follows:

   List       Seats   
   SVP Südtiroler Volkspartei       15   
   Team Köllensperger       6   
   Lega       4   
   Verdi - Grüne - Verc       3   
   Die Freiheitlichen       2   
   Süd-Tiroler Freiheit       2   
   PD Partito Democratico - Demokratische Partei       1   
   Movimento 5 Stelle       1   
   L'Alto Adige nel cuore Fratelli d'Italia Uniti       1   

Compared to the 2013 provincial election, SVP lost two seats while PD-DP lost one, and the two parties no longer commanded a Landtag majority. Since the government of South Tyrol must reflect the province's ethno-linguistic composition, SVP had only two choices: either form a coalition cabinet with the League, or include the Greens in the existing coalition with the Democrats. In the end, SVP leaders concluded the former was the least problematic of the two options, and opened negotiations with the League in the weeks following the election, which concluded in the formation of the province's first-ever SVP-League government on January 25, 2019.

However, the lengthy negotiations between SVP and the League were nearly derailed last December by the Italian government's constitutional reform proposal to decrease by one-third the size of both houses of the Italian Parliament. The original proposal called for the number of Senate single-member seats in South Tyrol to be reduced from three to two, but this ran counter to a 1991 law which fixed at three the number of such seats for each of Trentino-Alto Adige's two provinces. Because said law was part of a package of measures favorable to the population of Alto Adige, which led to the settlement of the South Tyrol issue with Austria in 1992, the proposed constitutional reform threatened to re-open a very sensitive issue, not least because under the existing arrangement, two of South Tyrol's three Senate seats are overwhelmingly German-speaking, while one has an Italian-speaking majority, which approximates the province's linguistic makeup. In the end, a compromise was reached whereby autonomous provinces would be guaranteed a minimum of three single-member seats, thus restoring compliance with the existing provisions. Even so, the controversy underscored the fragility of the coalition agreement between SVP and the League. Time will tell if this arrangement will prove to be stable or long-lasting.


posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 02/16/2019 17:08 | permanent link

  Fri, Feb 08, 2019
The Second Preferences in the 2018 Maine CD-2 Election
As I previously noted on The 2018 Ranked Choice Voting Election in Maine's Congressional District No. 2 over at Fruits and Votes, the cast vote record data published by Maine's Secretary of State indicates 140,325 of 289,624 voters casting a valid first preference in the election gave valid rankings to at least two different candidates. However, that data also allows a tally of the second preferences in these ballots, cross-tabulated by first preference in the table below.

    Candidate 
 Names 
   First Preference      Second  
  Preference  
  Total  
  
     
     
        Bond        Golden        Hoar        Poliquin        
    Bond, Tiffany L.      -      53,118      2,621      15,211      70,950    
    DEM Golden, Jared F.      4,835      -      1,203      9,315      15,353    
    Hoar, William R.S.      5,639      18,344      -      19,429      43,412    
    REP Poliquin, Bruce      1,632      8,089      889      -      10,610    
    Total      12,106      79,551      4,713      43,955      140,325    

Interestingly enough, one or other of the two independent candidates emerged as the second choice of all voters who indicated a valid second preference, irrespective of their first preference choice. A plurality of Poliquin and Bond first preference voters chose Hoar, while a majority of voters selecting Golden or Hoar as their first preference went for Bond, who obtained the largest overall second preference total. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the second preferences of Poliquin and Golden voters had no bearing on the election outcome, which was determined by the elimination of independent candidates Bond and Hoar after the first preference count, and the addition of their second preferences to the first preference votes cast for continuing candidates Golden and Poliquin, including 6,615 of the 8,260 ballots with first and second preferences for the two independents plus valid third preferences for Golden or Poliquin.

An overwhelming majority of voters indicating valid preferences for at least two different candidates - 136,895 out of 140,325, or 97.6% - cast valid first and second rankings. Of the remaining 3,430 ballots, a total of 2,604 had valid first rankings, an undervote (that is, blank) second ranking, and a valid third ranking for another candidate. Following Maine's RCV counting rules, single skipped rankings were ignored, and the third ranking was counted as the second preference; the same logic was applied to 259 ballots with an undervote on the first ranking, but valid preferences for different candidates in the second and third rankings (which were counted as first and second preferences).

The statistics presented here were obtained from CSV-format data available in State of Maine 2018 Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) Election Data, which has additional information and links pertaining to the election.


posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 02/08/2019 10:26 | permanent link

  Sun, Dec 23, 2018
United States 2018 House of Representatives Election Results
Federal and state-level preliminary results of the November 6, 2018 U.S. House of Representatives election, aggregated from figures compiled by David Wasserman & Ally Flinn, Cook Political Report (@Redistrict/@CookPolitical), are presented in the following table. Note that the election outcome in one House district in North Carolina has not been certified.

    State      Democratic      Republican      Other      Total    




Votes % Seats % Votes % Seats % Votes % Seats % Votes Seats
    Alabama      678,687   40.9   1   14.3      975,737   58.8   6   85.7      5,471   0.3   0   0.0      1,659,895   7    
    Alaska      131,199   46.5   0   0.0      149,779   53.1   1   100.0      1,188   0.4   0   0.0      282,166   1    
    Arizona      1,179,193   50.4   5   55.6      1,139,552   48.7   4   44.4      22,525   1.0   0   0.0      2,341,270   9    
    Arkansas      312,978   35.2   0   0.0      556,339   62.6   4   100.0      19,981   2.2   0   0.0      889,298   4    
    California      8,010,445   65.7   46   86.8      3,973,396   32.6   7   13.2      200,681   1.6   0   0.0      12,184,522   53    
    Colorado      1,343,211   53.4   4   57.1      1,079,772   43.0   3   42.9      90,924   3.6   0   0.0      2,513,907   7    
    Connecticut      849,341   61.6   5   100.0      520,521   37.7   0   0.0      9,946   0.7   0   0.0      1,379,808   5    
    Delaware      227,353   64.5   1   100.0      125,384   35.5   0   0.0      0   0.0   0   0.0      352,737   1    
    Florida      3,307,228   47.1   13   48.1      3,675,417   52.3   14   51.9      38,831   0.6   0   0.0      7,021,476   27    
    Georgia      1,814,468   47.7   5   35.7      1,987,204   52.3   9   64.3      683   0.0   0   0.0      3,802,355   14    
    Hawaii      287,921   75.3   2   100.0      87,348   22.8   0   0.0      7,063   1.8   0   0.0      382,332   2    
    Idaho      207,303   34.8   0   0.0      367,993   61.8   2   100.0      20,428   3.4   0   0.0      595,724   2    
    Illinois      2,757,540   60.7   13   72.2      1,754,449   38.6   5   27.8      27,715   0.6   0   0.0      4,539,704   18    
    Indiana      1,000,104   44.3   2   22.2      1,247,978   55.3   7   77.8      8,300   0.4   0   0.0      2,256,382   9    
    Iowa      664,676   50.5   3   75.0      612,338   46.5   1   25.0      39,634   3.0   0   0.0      1,316,648   4    
    Kansas      464,380   44.2   1   25.0      563,190   53.6   3   75.0      22,752   2.2   0   0.0      1,050,322   4    
    Kentucky      612,977   39.0   1   16.7      935,304   59.6   5   83.3      21,517   1.4   0   0.0      1,569,798   6    
    Louisiana      553,184   37.9   1   16.7      835,715   57.2   5   83.3      71,694   4.9   0   0.0      1,460,593   6    
    Maine      343,635   55.1   2   100.0      250,119   40.1   0   0.0      29,670   4.8   0   0.0      623,424   2    
    Maryland      1,493,047   65.3   7   87.5      737,906   32.3   1   12.5      55,331   2.4   0   0.0      2,286,284   8    
    Massachusetts      1,943,597   78.2   9   100.0      497,953   20.0   0   0.0      43,531   1.8   0   0.0      2,485,081   9    
    Michigan      2,175,003   52.4   7   50.0      1,853,459   44.6   7   50.0      126,241   3.0   0   0.0      4,154,703   14    
    Minnesota      1,420,769   55.1   5   62.5      1,125,533   43.7   3   37.5      30,695   1.2   0   0.0      2,576,997   8    
    Mississippi      398,770   42.5   1   25.0      471,162   50.2   3   75.0      68,971   7.3   0   0.0      938,903   4    
    Missouri      1,027,969   42.5   2   25.0      1,330,975   55.0   6   75.0      59,469   2.5   0   0.0      2,418,413   8    
    Montana      233,284   46.2   0   0.0      256,661   50.9   1   100.0      14,476   2.9   0   0.0      504,421   1    
    Nebraska      264,493   38.0   0   0.0      432,077   62.0   3   100.0      0   0.0   0   0.0      696,570   3    
    Nevada      491,272   51.1   3   75.0      439,727   45.8   1   25.0      29,775   3.1   0   0.0      960,774   4    
    New Hampshire      310,269   54.4   2   100.0      249,685   43.8   0   0.0      10,517   1.8   0   0.0      570,471   2    
    New Jersey      1,856,819   59.9   11   91.7      1,198,664   38.7   1   8.3      43,260   1.4   0   0.0      3,098,743   12    
    New Mexico      404,026   58.3   3   100.0      264,701   38.2   0   0.0      24,584   3.5   0   0.0      693,311   3    
    New York      3,990,483   67.2   21   77.8      1,859,054   31.3   6   22.2      92,231   1.6   0   0.0      5,941,768   27    
    North Carolina      1,771,061   48.3   3   23.1      1,846,041   50.4   9   69.2      46,224   1.3   0   0.0      3,663,326   13    
    North Dakota      114,377   35.6   0   0.0      193,568   60.2   1   100.0      13,587   4.2   0   0.0      321,532   1    
    Ohio      2,082,684   47.3   4   25.0      2,291,333   52.0   12   75.0      32,341   0.7   0   0.0      4,406,358   16    
    Oklahoma      428,452   36.3   1   20.0      730,531   62.0   4   80.0      19,853   1.7   0   0.0      1,178,836   5    
    Oregon      1,061,412   57.4   4   80.0      702,531   38.0   1   20.0      83,703   4.5   0   0.0      1,847,646   5    
    Pennsylvania      2,712,665   55.0   9   50.0      2,206,260   44.8   9   50.0      10,950   0.2   0   0.0      4,929,875   18    
    Rhode Island      242,575   65.0   2   100.0      129,838   34.8   0   0.0      867   0.2   0   0.0      373,280   2    
    South Carolina      758,340   44.4   2   28.6      927,494   54.3   5   71.4      23,458   1.4   0   0.0      1,709,292   7    
    South Dakota      121,033   36.0   0   0.0      202,695   60.3   1   100.0      12,237   3.6   0   0.0      335,965   1    
    Tennessee      846,450   39.2   2   22.2      1,279,655   59.2   7   77.8      33,719   1.6   0   0.0      2,159,824   9    
    Texas      3,852,752   47.0   13   36.1      4,135,359   50.4   23   63.9      214,597   2.6   0   0.0      8,202,708   36    
    Utah      374,009   35.5   1   25.0      617,307   58.7   3   75.0      61,190   5.8   0   0.0      1,052,506   4    
    Vermont      188,547   69.2   1   100.0      70,705   26.0   0   0.0      13,199   4.8   0   0.0      272,451   1    
    Virginia      1,867,061   56.4   7   63.6      1,408,701   42.5   4   36.4      37,209   1.1   0   0.0      3,312,971   11    
    Washington      1,888,593   62.5   7   70.0      1,048,712   34.7   3   30.0      84,646   2.8   0   0.0      3,021,951   10    
    West Virginia      234,568   40.6   0   0.0      337,146   58.3   3   100.0      6,277   1.1   0   0.0      577,991   3    
    Wisconsin      1,367,492   53.4   3   37.5      1,172,964   45.8   5   62.5      21,641   0.8   0   0.0      2,562,097   8    
    Wyoming      59,903   29.8   0   0.0      127,963   63.6   1   100.0      13,379   6.6   0   0.0      201,245   1    
    U.S. Total      60,727,598   53.4   235   54.0      50,983,895   44.8   199   45.7      1,967,161   1.7   0   0.0      113,678,654   435    


posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 12/23/2018 09:26 | permanent link

  Sun, Nov 04, 2018
United States 2014 House of Representatives Election Results
Federal and state-level results of the November 4, 2014 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      331,764   30.7   1   14.3      704,533   65.2   6   85.7      44,583   4.1   0   0.0      1,080,880   7    
    Alaska      114,602   41.0   0   0.0      142,572   51.0   1   100.0      22,567   8.1   0   0.0      279,741   1    
    Arizona      577,947   39.4   4   44.4      817,178   55.7   5   55.6      72,492   4.9   0   0.0      1,467,617   9    
    Arkansas      254,774   30.7   0   0.0      509,631   61.4   4   100.0      66,247   8.0   0   0.0      830,652   4    
    California      4,067,737   57.0   39   73.6      2,950,679   41.4   14   26.4      114,005   1.6   0   0.0      7,132,421   53    
    Colorado      936,417   46.8   3   42.9      1,000,197   50.0   4   57.1      63,911   3.2   0   0.0      2,000,525   7    
    Connecticut      638,695   59.8   5   100.0      418,589   39.2   0   0.0      10,573   1.0   0   0.0      1,067,857   5    
    Delaware      137,251   59.3   1   100.0      85,146   36.8   0   0.0      9,220   4.0   0   0.0      231,617   1    
    Florida      2,130,626   42.6   10   37.0      2,713,451   54.3   17   63.0      154,478   3.1   0   0.0      4,998,555   27    
    Georgia      956,361   41.5   4   28.6      1,349,076   58.5   10   71.4      228   0.0   0   0.0      2,305,665   14    
    Hawaii      235,400   65.4   2   100.0      120,084   33.3   0   0.0      4,693   1.3   0   0.0      360,177   2    
    Idaho      160,078   36.8   0   0.0      275,072   63.2   2   100.0      7   0.0   0   0.0      435,157   2    
    Illinois      1,822,779   51.1   10   55.6      1,721,865   48.3   8   44.4      23,358   0.7   0   0.0      3,568,002   18    
    Indiana      502,104   37.4   2   22.2      793,759   59.2   7   77.8      44,951   3.4   0   0.0      1,340,814   9    
    Iowa      509,189   45.4   1   25.0      595,865   53.2   3   75.0      15,280   1.4   0   0.0      1,120,334   4    
    Kansas      311,530   36.1   0   0.0      540,756   62.7   4   100.0      9,791   1.1   0   0.0      862,077   4    
    Kentucky      508,151   36.4   1   16.7      887,157   63.5   5   83.3      2,318   0.2   0   0.0      1,397,626   6    
    Louisiana      392,876   27.9   1   16.7      883,649   62.8   5   83.3      131,266   9.3   0   0.0      1,407,791   6    
    Maine      305,230   51.5   1   50.0      228,059   38.5   1   50.0      59,057   10.0   0   0.0      592,346   2    
    Maryland      978,267   57.4   7   87.5      704,400   41.4   1   12.5      20,370   1.2   0   0.0      1,703,037   8    
    Massachusetts      1,475,442   81.3   9   100.0      308,598   17.0   0   0.0      29,776   1.6   0   0.0      1,813,816   9    
    Michigan      1,519,030   49.2   5   35.7      1,466,749   47.5   9   64.3      103,698   3.4   0   0.0      3,089,477   14    
    Minnesota      985,760   50.2   5   62.5      913,539   46.5   3   37.5      64,240   3.3   0   0.0      1,963,539   8    
    Mississippi      230,014   36.7   1   25.0      329,169   52.6   3   75.0      67,096   10.7   0   0.0      626,279   4    
    Missouri      513,600   36.0   2   25.0      838,283   58.8   6   75.0      74,420   5.2   0   0.0      1,426,303   8    
    Montana      148,690   40.4   0   0.0      203,871   55.4   1   100.0      15,402   4.2   0   0.0      367,963   1    
    Nebraska      185,234   34.6   1   33.3      340,816   63.6   2   66.7      9,480   1.8   0   0.0      535,530   3    
    Nevada      210,147   38.7   1   25.0      304,809   56.1   3   75.0      28,053   5.2   0   0.0      543,009   4    
    New Hampshire      247,469   51.5   1   50.0      232,379   48.3   1   50.0      1,072   0.2   0   0.0      480,920   2    
    New Jersey      914,172   50.2   6   50.0      877,265   48.2   6   50.0      29,928   1.6   0   0.0      1,821,365   12    
    New Mexico      271,222   53.0   2   66.7      240,542   47.0   1   33.3      121   0.0   0   0.0      511,885   3    
    New York      2,009,444   55.0   18   66.7      1,554,274   42.6   9   33.3      87,989   2.4   0   0.0      3,651,707   27    
    North Carolina      1,234,027   43.9   3   23.1      1,555,364   55.4   10   76.9      18,607   0.7   0   0.0      2,807,998   13    
    North Dakota      95,678   38.5   0   0.0      138,100   55.5   1   100.0      14,892   6.0   0   0.0      248,670   1    
    Ohio      1,179,587   39.3   4   25.0      1,770,923   59.0   12   75.0      49,651   1.7   0   0.0      3,000,161   16    
    Oklahoma      174,022   26.6   0   0.0      457,613   70.0   5   100.0      21,778   3.3   0   0.0      653,413   5    
    Oregon      778,139   53.6   4   80.0      582,909   40.2   1   20.0      89,654   6.2   0   0.0      1,450,702   5    
    Pennsylvania      1,467,594   44.2   5   27.8      1,833,205   55.2   13   72.2      22,734   0.7   0   0.0      3,323,533   18    
    Rhode Island      192,776   61.0   2   100.0      122,721   38.8   0   0.0      760   0.2   0   0.0      316,257   2    
    South Carolina      382,208   33.1   1   14.3      734,456   63.5   6   85.7      39,118   3.4   0   0.0      1,155,782   7    
    South Dakota      92,485   33.5   0   0.0      183,834   66.5   1   100.0      -   -   -   -      276,319   1    
    Tennessee      448,421   32.7   2   22.2      848,846   61.9   7   77.8      73,894   5.4   0   0.0      1,371,161   9    
    Texas      1,474,016   33.1   11   30.6      2,684,592   60.3   25   69.4      294,891   6.6   0   0.0      4,453,499   36    
    Utah      183,491   32.4   0   0.0      351,034   62.0   4   100.0      31,445   5.6   0   0.0      565,970   4    
    Vermont      123,349   64.4   1   100.0      59,432   31.0   0   0.0      8,723   4.6   0   0.0      191,504   1    
    Virginia      845,939   39.6   3   27.3      1,143,747   53.6   8   72.7      145,645   6.8   0   0.0      2,135,331   11    
    Washington      1,047,747   51.6   6   60.0      981,853   48.4   4   40.0      -   -   -   -      2,029,600   10    
    West Virginia      182,484   41.5   0   0.0      242,823   55.3   3   100.0      14,081   3.2   0   0.0      439,388   3    
    Wisconsin      1,102,581   46.8   3   37.5      1,233,336   52.4   5   62.5      19,663   0.8   0   0.0      2,355,580   8    
    Wyoming      37,803   22.9   0   0.0      113,038   68.5   1   100.0      14,259   8.6   0   0.0      165,100   1    
    U.S. Total      35,624,349   45.7   188   43.2      40,089,838   51.4   247   56.8      2,240,465   2.9   0   0.0      77,954,652   435    


posted by Manuel Álvarez-Rivera : 11/04/2018 12:36 | permanent link

  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