pie chart in a election

[defeated_soldier]

Here is a problem :

The two pie charts show the forecast for elections in a certain year .
Others include Progress , DJD , PJP , JSP and other minor parties and independents .
To form a government , the party / parties must have more than 50% of the seats .

graphics:

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4008/scan0009gg1.jpg


Question :

i dont understand whether two charts are inter-related or indepedent.

For example, in the first chart i see Progress party has got 27% and in the second chart i see Progress party has got 155 seats .

Here i have the confusin that whether two data some relationship or not .

can we assume

X x (.27) = 155

.....something like this ......i dont know but just a wild guess(i may be wrong) ...... and here i am stuck.

If you kindly help me to understand the question that will be of immense help.

Thank you for your time and reading my post


defeated_soldier

 

[tkhunny]

You haven't actually asked a question. I'll just ramble for a moment.

You can calculate the percentages of # of seats simply by dividing each value by the total number of seats. This will show you that the proportions are not the same in the two charts.

Percentage of votes rarely is directly related to number of seats. Some electoral models have attempted to describe this sort of thing, but generally, it splinters the power too much and two things occur, 1) Nothing can get done, and 2) no one feels they can achieve enough power to make the election worth their time. For this reasons, an electoral process normally should defind a high and low limit of significance.

Low: If you can't get some small percentage of votes, you really are not a viable candidate and your party may need to try something else.

High: If you can muster some huge percentage of votes, we can start talking about the word "mandate", and folks need to start listening.

In a coalition government, rather than one group being in power, they must broker deals with other groups until they have established the constitutional majority. They difficulty in the coalition is the potential for sudden and surprising breeakdown of the deal.

Calculate the percentages for the # of seats and see what coalitions could be formed. Most significantly, can all the little ones bad together and lock out the huge one?

 

[defeated_soldier]

You haven't actually asked a question. I'll just ramble for a moment.

You can calculate the percentages of # of seats simply by dividing each value by the total number of seats. This will show you that the proportions are not the same in the two charts.

Percentage of votes rarely is directly related to number of seats. Some electoral models have attempted to describe this sort of thing, but generally, it splinters the power too much and two things occur, 1) Nothing can get done, and 2) no one feels they can achieve enough power to make the election worth their time. For this reasons, an electoral process normally should defind a high and low limit of significance.

Low: If you can't get some small percentage of votes, you really are not a viable candidate and your party may need to try something else.

High: If you can muster some huge percentage of votes, we can start talking about the word "mandate", and folks need to start listening.

In a coalition government, rather than one group being in power, they must broker deals with other groups until they have established the constitutional majority. They difficulty in the coalition is the potential for sudden and surprising breeakdown of the deal.

Calculate the percentages for the # of seats and see what coalitions could be formed. Most significantly, can all the little ones bad together and lock out the huge one?

Okay, from your comment it seems to me that there might be chances that a party may be having High Percentage of votes but grabbed less number of seats .....is it really true ?

As you said , percentage of votes menas a "mandate" ...people liking the party and so the party should get more number seats ....is not it ?

I agree , If there are several territories with seats but may be in one territiry people have "mandated" but in other terriroty it has flooped then of course number of setas would be lesser although the percentage of vote collective grows up.....this could be a situation .

In United States probabily both parties gets the mandate though democratic party is in power.

 

[tkhunny]

No, no, "mandate" is NOT a simple majority. First, it is only a vague idea. Second, it requires a very large advantage or very great victory. Even then, one can only argue that one has a mandate. Of course, opponents will scoff. The word is overused by many, many winning candidates, no matter how slim the margin of victory.

The US system results in what I would call effectual mandates, at least locally, since a simple majority of the popular vote can result in ALL the electorates from a certain state going to a single candidate.

Let me reiterate that it would be a very unusual system where votes would translate directly into seats in a governing body. It's a little more confusing in a system where not all seats are up for grabs. Some party may grab ALL available seats, but if there were only a few available, it will be a very small movement in power.

Did you translate the seats into percentages? That will help you see the imbalance.

There are ways to design election systems to be more rational than the present US system. Generally, all it takes is a little arithmetic. Such social justice is unlikely to happen quickly, since many systems have been in place for at least a few hundred years. It will take more than a few years to change them. Generally, the ones who just won the election, really aren't all that motivated to change the system that just put them in power.

Note: You didin't actually tell us why you were looking at these charts. Is this a class or textbook? You're not asking my opinion about governing some existing country, are you? If my screen name shows up on CNN or in a CIA briefing, I'll be a little irritated. :wink: