2012 Occupy Wall Street polls: Difference between revisions
Replace disabled Graph extension with SVGs from https://vega.github.io/vega-editor/?mode=vega
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (Replace disabled Graph extension with SVGs from https://vega.github.io/vega-editor/?mode=vega) |
||
Line 18:
Support for third parties was much higher under the cardinal systems compared to Plurality, moving the Democratic party down to 4th place:<ref name=":2" />
<!--{{Graph:Chart|width=600|height=400▼
▲{{Graph:Chart|width=600|height=400
|xAxisTitle=Candidate|yAxisTitle=Votes (% of possible)|legend=Legend|type=rect
|y1Title=Plurality
Line 28 ⟶ 27:
|y2=48.07, 74.00, 72.10, 60.57, 27.88, 4.33, 10.58
|y3=51.01, 68.88, 59.90, 58.51, 34.17, 12.31, 11.2
}}-->
[[File:2012 OWS party poll.svg]]
The first preferences for the IRV election were similar to the plurality election, though with a little more support for third parties:<ref name=":2" />
<!--{{Graph:Chart|width=600|height=400
|xAxisTitle=Candidate|yAxisTitle=Votes (% of possible)|legend=Legend|type=rect
|y1Title=Plurality
Line 40 ⟶ 42:
|y2=31.25, 26.92, 17.78, 11.53, 2.88, 0.01, 8.17
|colors=#1f77b4, #d62728
}}-->
[[File:2012 OWS party IRV.svg]]
Since no one obtained a majority in the first round, the IRV election proceeded through 13 elimination rounds to find a winner, which was the Green Party. <!-- Though I'm skeptical that they did this correctly; see talk page. -->
Line 60 ⟶ 63:
No adjustment was made to correct for the unrepresentativeness of the district, though polling only took place in a single district, so that the poll's plurality results could be compared with the results of the actual plurality election in that district. The plurality results were similar for both, indicating that the exit poll was reasonably accurate to the district:<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />
<!--{{Graph:Chart|width=600|height=400
|xAxisTitle=Candidate|yAxisTitle=Votes (% of possible)|legend=Legend|type=rect
|y1Title=Actual election
Line 68 ⟶ 72:
|y2=85.01, 8.28, 3.16, 1.78, 0.99, 0.39, 0.20,
|colors=#9467bd, #1f77b4
}}-->
[[File:2012 OWS vs actual.svg]]
Obama easily won under all 4 voting systems, though Approval and Score showed that there was much higher support for third parties than traditional plurality elections would imply. Romney's position in the overall ranking dropped from second place to last place (ignoring write-ins) under the cardinal systems:<ref name=":2" />
{{Graph:Chart|width=600|height=400▼
▲<!--{{Graph:Chart|width=600|height=400
|xAxisTitle=Candidate|yAxisTitle=Votes (% of possible)|legend=Legend|type=rect
|y1Title=Plurality
Line 82 ⟶ 91:
|y2=89.9, 13.0, 51.9, 26.8, 31.2, 16.6, 2.2
|y3=86.3, 24.9, 53.9, 38.9, 42.1, 33.5, 1.7
}}-->
[[File:2012 OWS candidates.svg]]
The first preferences for the IRV election were similar to the plurality election. Obama won the IRV election without any elimination rounds necessary, so second and third preferences (which favored the Green Party) were ignored:<ref name=":2" />
<!--{{Graph:Chart|width=600|height=400
|xAxisTitle=Candidate|yAxisTitle=Votes (% of possible)|legend=Legend|type=rect
|y1Title=Plurality
Line 95 ⟶ 104:
|y2=83.8, 8.5, 3.9, 1.4, 1.2, 1.2, 0.2
|colors=#1f77b4, #d62728
}}-->
[[File:2012 OWS candidates IRV.svg]]
In the IRV election, 29% [[w:Bullet voting|bullet-voted]] for only one candidate, while the others selected two or three candidates (the maximum allowed):<ref name=":2" />
<!--{{Graph:Chart|width=200|height=150
|xAxisTitle=Number of candidates ranked|yAxisTitle=Voters (%)|type=rect|showValues=format:.2r
|x=1, 2, 3
|y=29.2, 12.4, 58.4
|colors=#d62728
}}-->
[[File:2012 OWS rankings per ballot.svg]]
The polling group concluded that "Any of the alternative methods we tested would be better than the method we currently use for our elections."<ref name=":3" />
| |||