Gallagher index

Last updated
Map of Gallagher index for latest election as of 2023
.mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{}
0-1
1-3
3-5
5-7
7-9
9-11
11-13
13-15
15-20
20-
No data Gallagher index map.svg
Map of Gallagher index for latest election as of 2023

The Gallagher index measures an electoral system's relative disproportionality between votes received and seats in a legislature. [1] [2] As such, it measures the difference between the percentage of votes each party gets and the percentage of seats each party gets in the resulting legislature, and it also measures this disproportionality from all parties collectively in any one given election. That collective disproportionality from the election is given a precise score, which can then be used in comparing various levels of proportionality among various elections from various electoral systems. [3] The Gallagher index is a statistical analysis methodology utilised within political science, notably the branch of psephology.

Contents

Michael Gallagher, who created the index, referred to it as a "least squares index", inspired by the sum of squares of residuals used in the method of least squares. The index is therefore commonly abbreviated as "LSq" even though the measured allocation is not necessarily a least squares fit. The Gallagher index is computed by taking the square root of half the sum of the squares of the difference between percent of votes () and percent of seats () for each of the political parties (). [4]

   [5]

The division by 2 gives an index whose values range between 0 and 100. The larger the differences between the percentage of the votes and the percentage of seats summed over all parties, the larger the Gallagher index. The larger the index value the larger the disproportionality and vice versa. Michael Gallagher included "other" parties as a whole category, and Arend Lijphart modified it, excluding those parties. Compared to the Loosemore–Hanby index, the Gallagher index is more sensitive to large discrepancies. [6] Other indices measuring the proportionality between seat share and party vote share are the Loosemore–Hanby index, Rae index, and the Sainte-Laguë Index.

Comparison of Gallagher indices of various countries since 1945 Comparison of the Gallagher Index of Greece and selected countries.svg
Comparison of Gallagher indices of various countries since 1945

History

The first publication of the use of least squares in measuring the dis-proportionality of election outcomes was by Michael Gallagher in 1991: In Michael Gallagher's Electoral Systems web site he offers a PDF download under "Values of Indices" [7] in which he writes: "These [election] indices were originally outlined in Markku Laakso and Rein Taagepera, ‘ “Effective” number of parties: a measure with application to west Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 12:1 (1979), pp. 3–27 (effective number of parties), and Michael Gallagher, ‘Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems’, Electoral Studies 10:1 (1991), pp. 33–51 (least squares index)."

Application in Canada

The Gallagher index gained considerable attention in Canada in December 2016 in the context of efforts to reform Canada's electoral system. [8] [9] The Special Committee on Electoral Reform (a Parliamentary Committee) recommended "that the Government should, as it develops a new electoral system, use the Gallagher index in order to minimize the level of distortion between the popular will of the electorate and the resultant seat allocations in Parliament." The committee recommended that "the government should seek to design a system that achieves a Gallagher score of 5 or less." [10] [11]

Examples of calculating disproportionality

Canada

In the 2015 Canadian federal election, the Gallagher index was 12.02, where 0 would be a perfectly proportional election outcome. [12]

Gallagher Index for the 2015 Canadian federal election
PartyVotes (%)Seats (%)DifferenceDifference
squared
Liberal39.47%54.44%14.97224.1009
Conservatives31.89%29.29%-2.66.76
New Democratic19.71%13.02%-6.6944.7561
Bloc Québecois4.66%2.96%-1.72.89
Green3.45%0.29%-3.169.9856
Other0.82%0.00%-0.820.6724
Total of differences squared289.165
Total / 2144.5825
Square root of (Total / 2): Gallagher Index result12.02

Australia

This table uses for example the 2012 Queensland state election, one of the largest landslides in Australian electoral history. Though Australia and New Zealand have somewhat similar political histories, Australia uses preferential voting in Single-member districts for Commonwealth House of Representative and most state and territory Legislative Assembly elections, which tends to result in far less proportionality compared to New Zealand's MMP system (or other proportional electoral systems), especially for larger minor parties, such as The Greens or, historically, the Australian Democrats. The 2012 Queensland election had an extremely high Gallagher Index, at 31.16, due to the massive landslide in seats for the victorious LNP. The LNP gained 88% of the seats with less than 50% of the vote. Most recent Australian state and federal elections however score between 10 and 12.

Gallagher Index for the 2012 Queensland state election
PartyVotes (%)Seats (%)DifferenceDifference
squared
Liberal National 49.65%87.64%37.991443.2401
Labor 26.66%7.87%-18.79353.0641
Katter 11.53%2.25%-9.2886.1184
Greens 7.53%0.00%-7.5356.7009
Other1.47%0.00%-1.472.1609
Independent 3.16%2.25%-0.910.8281
Total of differences squared1942.1125
Total / 2971.0563
Square root of (Total / 2): Gallagher Index result31.16

EU

The 7 political groups of the European Parliament instead of the 203 political parties [13] allow a concise calculation of disproportionality between votes and seats. The Gallagher index for the European Parliament is 7.87.

Gallagher Index for the 2019 European Parliament election [14]
PartyVotes (%)Seats (%)DifferenceDifference
squared
EPP 20.80%24.23%3.4311.7649
S&D 17.88%20.51%2.636.9169
RE 12.01%14.38%2.375.6169
G/EFA 10.04%9.85%-0.190.0361
ID 10.59%9.72%-0.870.7569
ECR 7.17%8.26%1.091.1881
GUE/NGL 5.16%5.46%0.30.09
NI 6.52%7.59%1.071.1449
Wasted vote 9.82%0.00%-9.8296.4324
Total of differences squared123.9471
Total / 261.9736
Square root of (Total / 2): Gallagher Index result7.87

Sweden

The disproportionality of the 2018 Swedish general election was 1.8 according to the Gallagher index, which is extremely low by international standards (resulting in almost perfectly proportional seat allocations), due to Sweden's use of the modified Sainte-Laguë method in elections to the Riksdag.

Republic of Ireland

The disproportionality of the 2020 Irish general election was 1.96 according to the Gallagher index. The Republic of Ireland uses the single transferable vote (STV) system with Droop quota in elections to the Dáil Éireann.

United States

This table uses the aggregate results of the 2016 elections to the United States House of Representatives. These 435 single-seat elections are winner-take-all, which would tend to create disproportionate results, but this is moderated by the extremely high share of votes obtained by the two major parties—more than 97%, likely in part caused by fears of wasted votes and vote splitting. The Gallagher index ignores the effect of the primaries on the proportionality.

Gallagher Index for the 2016 United States House of Representatives elections
PartyVotes (%)Seats (%)DifferenceDifference
squared
Republican Party 49.11%55.40%6.2939.5641
Democratic Party 48.02%44.60%-3.4211.6964
Libertarian Party 1.29%0.00%-1.291.6641
Independents and minor parties 1.18%0.00%-1.181.3924
Green Party 0.39%0.00%-0.390.1521
Total of differences squared54.4691
Total / 227.2346
Square root of (Total / 2): Gallagher Index result5.22

Countries

In Michael Gallagher's Electoral Systems web site he offers a PDF download under "Values of Indices." [15] Those Gallagher indices for individual countries are listed below. Only the last available index for each country is shown.

See also

Notes

  1. Special Committee on Electoral Reform (a Canadian Parliamentary Committee) (December 1, 2016). Report 3: Strengthening Democracy in Canada : Principles, Process and Public Engagement for Electoral Reform (Report). Parliament of Canada. p. 69 (or p. 83 in PDF search). Retrieved December 26, 2016. One tool that has been developed to measure an electoral system's relative disproportionality between votes received and seats allotted in a legislature is the Gallagher Index, which was developed by Michael Gallagher (who appeared before the Committee).
  2. O'Malley, Kady (December 1, 2016). "Read the full electoral reform committee report, plus Liberal and NDP/Green opinions". Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved December 26, 2016.
  3. This is discussed in simple English at "Gallagher Index Made Easy". 2016-12-31.
  4. Gallagher 1991, pp. 33–51.
  5. Gallagher 1991, p. 40.
  6. Gallagher 1991, p. 41.
  7. "Election Indices" (PDF).
  8. Cash, Colby (December 2, 2016). "Colby Cosh: Did Maryam Monsef actually read the whole electoral reform report?". National Post. Retrieved 10 December 2016.
  9. Wherry, Aaron (December 1, 2016). "Minister 'disappointed' as electoral reform committee recommends referendum on proportional representation". CBC News. Retrieved 10 December 2016.
  10. O'Malley, Kady (December 1, 2016). "Read the full electoral reform committee report, plus Liberal and NDP/Green opinions". Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 10 December 2016.
  11. "Is Canada Fair?". Measuring Unfairness — Calculating Canada's Gallagher Index. (This website includes the Gallagher Index in adjustable table format. It initially shows the data for Canada's 2015 federal election, but some variables in some table cells are adjustable by the visitor to the website, and then the rest of the table is automatically adjusted to reflect this visitor's new input.). Retrieved 10 December 2016.
  12. The rules for federal elections in Canada require that certain provinces always get a certain quantity of seats – on a province by province basis. If so, then Byron Weber Becker proposed that the Gallagher index for Canada ought to ALSO reflect that. In other words, the Gallagher data should be collected on a province by province basis; and the Gallagher score should be calculated on a province by province basis. Only after that is done, can we then add up all of those provincial scores and then average them out to get the true national "composite Gallagher index" score. If we do that, then the illustrated table calculation of 12 for Canada is incorrect. It should instead show a "composite Gallagher index" of 17.1. Byron Weber Becker developed this "composite" index. See citation here: Special Committee on Electoral Reform (a Canadian Parliamentary Committee) (December 1, 2016). Report 3: Strengthening Democracy in Canada : Principles, Process and Public Engagement for Electoral Reform (Report). Parliament of Canada. p. 69 (or p. 83 in PDF search). Retrieved December 26, 2016. ...Professor Becker developed the "Gallagher Index Composite" for the Committee's study...
  13. "European Parliament: Facts and Figures" (PDF). Retrieved 13 February 2023.
  14. "2019 European election results – Comparative tool". European Parliament . Retrieved 5 July 2019.
  15. "Election Indices" (PDF).

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proportional representation</span> Voting system that makes outcomes proportional to vote totals

Proportional representation (PR) refers to any type of electoral system under which subgroups of an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. The concept applies mainly to political divisions among voters. The essence of such systems is that all votes cast – or almost all votes cast – contribute to the result and are effectively used to help elect someone – not just a bare plurality or (exclusively) the majority – and that the system produces mixed, balanced representation reflecting how votes are cast.

Mixed-member proportional representation is a mixed electoral system in which votes are cast for both local elections and also for overall party vote tallies, which are used to allocate additional members to produce or deepen overall proportional representation.

The D'Hondt method, also called the Jefferson method or the greatest divisors method, is an apportionment method for allocating seats in parliaments among federal states, or in proportional representation among political parties. It belongs to the class of highest-averages methods. The D'Hondt method reduces compared to ideal proportional representation somewhat the political fragmentation for smaller electoral district sizes, where it favors larger political parties over small parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First-past-the-post voting</span> Voters vote for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins

First-past-the-post voting is an electoral system wherein voters cast a vote for a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. Analogous systems for multi-winner contests are known as plurality block voting or "block voting" systems; both FPTP and block voting are "plurality" systems in that the winner needs only a plurality of the votes and not an absolute majority. The term first-past-the-post is a metaphor from horse racing of the plurality-voted candidate winning such a race; the electoral system is formally called single-member plurality voting (SMP) when used in single-member districts, and informally called choose-one voting in contrast to ranked voting or score voting.

The Webster method, also called the Sainte-Laguë method, is a highest averages apportionment method for allocating seats in a parliament among federal states, or among parties in a party-list proportional representation system. The Sainte-Laguë method shows a more equal seats-to-votes ratio for different sized parties among apportionment methods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electoral reform in New Zealand</span>

Electoral reform in New Zealand has been a political issue in the past as major changes have been made to both parliamentary and local government electoral systems.

The Canadian electoral system is based on a parliamentary system of government, modelled on that of the United Kingdom.

Canada holds elections for legislatures or governments in several jurisdictions: for the federal (national) government, provincial and territorial governments, and municipal governments. Elections are also held for self-governing First Nations and for many other public and private organizations including corporations and trade unions. Municipal elections can also be held for both upper-tier and lower-tier governments.

Apportionment is the process by which seats in a legislative body are distributed among administrative divisions, such as states or parties, entitled to representation. This page presents the general principles and issues related to apportionment. The page Apportionment by country describes specific practices used around the world. The page Mathematics of apportionment describes mathematical formulations and properties of apportionment rules.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electoral system of New Zealand</span> System by which New Zealand parliament is elected

The New Zealand electoral system has been mixed-member proportional (MMP) since the 1996 election. MMP was introduced following a referendum in 1993. It replaced the first-past-the-post (FPP) system New Zealand had previously used for most of its history. Under MMP, New Zealanders have two secret ballot votes to elect members of Parliament (MPs). The first vote is for a candidate from an electorate, a geographic electoral district. The second is the party vote for the political party the voter wants to form the government.

Michael Gallagher is a political scientist. He is Professor of Comparative Politics and head of the Department of Political Science at the Trinity College Dublin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Effective number of parties</span> Concept in political party systems

The effective number of parties is a concept introduced by Laakso and Taagepera (1979) which provides for an adjusted number of political parties in a country's party system. The idea behind this measure is to count parties and, at the same time, to weight the count by their relative strength. The relative strength refers to their vote share effective number of electoral parties (ENEP) or seat share in the parliament effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP). This measure is especially useful when comparing party systems across countries, as is done in the field of political science. The number of parties equals the effective number of parties only when all parties have equal strength. In any other case, the effective number of parties is lower than the actual number of parties. The effective number of parties is a frequent operationalization for the political fragmentation.

Electoral reform is a change in electoral systems which alters how public desires are expressed in election results.

The Sainte-Laguë index (SLI) measures an election’s disproportionality, the adherence to the one person, one vote principle of equal representation. This index assumes if the fraction of voters matches the fraction of seats, then perfect proportionality is achieved.

The House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform (ERRE) (French: Comité spécial sur la réforme électorale) was a special committee of the House of Commons of Canada established in 2016 during the 42nd Canadian Parliament to investigate reforms to the Canadian electoral system. The formation of "an all-party Parliamentary committee to review... [electoral] reforms" was an election promise by Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau in the 2015 federal election. After the Liberals won a majority in the election, and Trudeau became Prime Minister of Canada, he indicated the formation of a special committee was a priority in his mandate letter for Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef. Shortly after the committee submitted its report to Parliament on December 1, 2016, Monsef was transferred to the position of the Minister of Status of Women and Karina Gould took over the electoral reform file. Shortly after taking her position, Gould announced that the government would no longer be pursuing reform of the electoral system, stating "It has become evident that the broad support needed among Canadians for a change of this magnitude does not exist."

The Loosemore–Hanby index measures disproportionality of electoral systems, how much the principle of one person, one vote is violated. It computes the absolute difference between votes cast and seats obtained using the formula:

A mixed electoral system or mixed-member electoral system combines methods of majoritarian and proportional representation (PR). The majoritarian component is usually first-past-the-post voting (FPTP/SMP), whereas the proportional component is most often based on party-list PR. The results of the combination may be mixed-member proportional (MMP), where the overall results of the elections are proportional, or mixed-member majoritarian, in which case the overall results are semi-proportional, retaining disproportionalities from the majoritarian component.

Apportionment in the Hellenic Parliament refers to those provisions of the Greek electoral law relating to the distribution of Greece's 300 parliamentary seats to the parliamentary constituencies, as well as to the method of seat allocation in Greek legislative elections for the various political parties. The electoral law was codified for the first time through a 2012 Presidential Decree. Articles 1, 2, and 3 deal with how the parliamentary seats are allocated to the various constituencies, while articles 99 and 100 legislate the method of parliamentary apportionment for political parties in an election. In both cases, Greece uses the largest remainder method.

The 2005 Devon County Council election was an election to Devon County Council which took place on 5 May 2005 as part of the 2005 United Kingdom local elections. 62 councillors were elected from various electoral divisions, which returned either one or two county councillors each by first-past-the-post voting for a four-year term of office. The electoral divisions had been redrawn since the last election in 2001. No elections were held in Plymouth and Torbay, which are unitary authorities outside the area covered by the County Council.

The seats-to-votes ratio, also known as the advantage ratio, is a measure of equal representation of voters. The equation for seats-to-votes ratio for a political party i is:

References