User:RodCrosby/QPR2: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Perceptions: ref) |
(→Simulations: Wales 2010) |
||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
==Simulations== |
==Simulations== |
||
===National=== |
|||
===Regional=== |
|||
PR squared should also increase the number of voters who have an MP of their first choice party, compared to FPTP. This is due to a combination of the slight increase in the district magnitude, and the quota algorithm assigning seats more efficiently than FPTP in terms of the geography of support. |
|||
We see this quite starkly in an example from Wales. |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
|+ Wales 2010 |
|||
|- |
|||
! Total Voters Represented !! Labour !! Conservative !! LidDem !! Plaid |
|||
|- |
|||
| '''FPTP''' |
|||
|- |
|||
| 42.6% || 75.7% || 35.2% || 17.6% || 21.6% |
|||
|- |
|||
| '''PR-squared''' |
|||
|- |
|||
| 72.3% || 98.8% || 83.0% || 54.4% || 34.9% |
|||
|} |
|||
Note that despite Labour obtaining five fewer seats under the PR^2 simulation (21 compared to 26 out of 40), almost all of its voters in Wales (ex ''Powys'') would have had an Labour MP. |
|||
In this respect, PR squared seems almost comparable with STV, despite a far smaller district magnitude. |
|||
==Comparison with FPTP for Westminster== |
==Comparison with FPTP for Westminster== |