A Quick Analysis Of
|
Table 1. Results of Election of the Mayor of London, May 4, 2000 |
|||||
Candidate |
Party |
1st Choices |
% |
2nd Choices |
Total |
Ken Livingstone |
Independent |
667,877 |
39% |
108,550 |
776,427 |
Steve Norris |
Conservative |
464,434 |
27% |
99,703 |
564,137 |
Frank Dobson |
Labour |
223,884 |
13% |
||
Susan Kramer |
Liberal Democrat |
203,452 |
12% |
||
Ram Gidoomal |
Christian Peoples Alliance |
42,060 |
2% |
||
Darren Johnson |
Green |
38,121 |
2% |
||
Michael Newland |
British National Party |
33,569 |
2% |
||
Damian Hockney |
UK Independence Party |
16,234 |
1% |
||
Geoffrey Ben-Nathan |
Pro-Motorist Small Shop |
9,956 |
1% |
||
Ashwin Kumar Tanna |
Independent |
9,015 |
1% |
||
Geoffrey Clements |
Natural Law Party |
5,470 |
0% |
||
Total | 1,714,072 | 208,253 | 1,340,564 |
Final Tally |
||||
Candidate |
Party | Votes |
As % of total |
As % of final |
Ken Livingstone |
Independent |
776,427 |
45% |
58% |
Steve Norris |
Conservative |
564,137 |
33% |
42% |
Important Numbers | ||
Total first
choices for Livingstone and Norris |
1,132,311 | 66% |
Total first choices for others | 581,761 | 34% |
Total first choices | 1,714,072 | 100% |
Number of valid 2nd choices | 208,253 | 12% |
Number of wasted 2nd choices | 373,508 | 22% |
Notes:1) As mentioned above, the votes of 373,508 people (22% of all votes cast) did not help to choose between Livingstone and Norris. These voters either gave their second choice to an eliminated candidate or left it blank. 2) Some 293,000 voters (17%) did not list a second choice candidate. We do
not know how many of those ballots listed Livingstone or Norris first (and hence
were not wasted, as their first choice stayed in the running) and how many
ballots listed an eliminated candidate first and hence were wasted. Media Coverage of the Mayor's RaceThis analysis is based on a reading of several U.K. and U.S. papers, the BBC coverage, and coverage of international politics on American news sources such as CNN, Washington Post and New York Times. It was a surprise to me that the coverage by news media in the U.K. and U.S. as well as the reporting of results from government sources in the U.K. were generally quite poor. This reminds us never to take media understanding of new systems for granted. With few exceptions, the media did not accurately describe the "supplementary vote" system. The American media typically didn't even mention the use of the system: a reader of the New York Times or Washington Post would have no idea an alternative voting system was used for either the mayoral or city council elections. The media also did a very poor job of reporting the relevant second choice votes. The media was generally unclear about which second choice votes were counted, often implying or stating that all second choice votes are counted (including those on ballots whose first choice made the runoff, which is inaccurate). The media typically reported the total number of second choice votes cast for the Labor, Liberal Democrat and the minor candidates. These numbers are completely irrelevant to the outcome of the election, although they do show that large numbers of voters gave 2nd choice votes to candidates who had no chance of being in the top two, which shows that voters did not fully understand the system. Even the total second choice votes for the top two candidates were misleading because they included second choice votes of people who listed the other top candidate as a first choice, so they overstated the number of second choice votes for Livingstone and Norris that actually counted. Of those who ranked Livingstone first, one in eight listed Norris second. Of Norris' first-choice supporters , nearly one in six listed Livingstone second. The results of an instant runoff or choice voting/STV election typically include the destination of votes for each eliminated or defeated candidate in each round, and I was unable to find these numbers anywhere. The media and the government, as best I could tell, completely failed to describe the destination of the 2nd choices from each eliminated candidate. For a good example of this, see the BBC's website, which actually did describe the system accurately in the small type. |