Proportional representation Discussion

[Risteard]

AFAIK, the moratoriums are self-imposed.

Was going to set up a new thread as it could be very useful but i'll just throw it in here seen as we're polling tomorrow.
As good as all the Rock the vote and Vote or die or whatever they're called campaigns are, wouldn't we be much better telling people HOW TO vote.
ie using the STV.
For example if my candidate just makes it past the quota in the first count, all my preferences are redundant, no?
I had been voting for Lab and FG 2,3,4, and 5 after my preferred candidate for a change of government. After thinking about it i will most likely be giving them 7,8,9 and 10.
Discuss.

[Shelsman]

AFAIK, the moratoriums are self-imposed.
As good as all the Rock the vote and Vote or die or whatever they're called campaigns are, wouldn't we be much better telling people HOW TO vote.
ie using the STV.

This is all covered in the Irish Times today. 'How to Use your Vote Tactically'.


For example if my candidate just makes it past the quota in the first count, all my preferences are redundant, no?
I had been voting for Lab and FG 2,3,4, and 5 after my preferred candidate for a change of government. After thinking about it i will most likely be giving them 7,8,9 and 10. Discuss.

If say your candidate requires 5,000 votes to get elected and he/she gets 5,500 votes, the extra 500 votes ( picked at random presumably! ). I'm not sure when it gets to this stage.

However, what does certainly happen is that candidates with the lowest votes who have not been initially elected ( starting with the lowest ) are eliminated one by one and the ballot cards are checked to see who the second choice -these votes are then allocated as appropriate and then it is checked if anyone else has now passed the threshold, if not, then the next lowest candidate is eliminated and the ballot cards for them checked for their number 2 and then allocated etc.
I'm not sure if it ever gets to third choice but I always fill my card out completely ( except for FF and SF of course! :D ).

The article in the Irish Times says that if you want to get the maximum number of candidates for your desired party into power then you should give your initial vote to the weaker candidate, if they are eliminated then your vote ( if you filled it out correctly ) will go to the stronger candidate in the same party anyway and so on. The problem with this is that if too many people do it then the good candidate doesn't get in!

[Schumi]

If say your candidate requires 5,000 votes to get elected and he/she gets 5,500 votes, the extra 500 votes ( picked at random presumably! ). I'm not sure when it gets to this stage.In this example, the 500 surplus votes are chosen representatively (for their second preferences) if the candidate was elected on the first count. If the candidate was elected on a later count, the last set of votes that put them over the quota are the ones used as the surplus.

[pete]

New thread created.

[Risteard]

Thanks pete.
This is important actually.

Cheers Shelsman.
One thing.


If say your candidate requires 5,000 votes to get elected and he/she gets 5,500 votes, the extra 500 votes ( picked at random presumably! ). I'm not sure when it gets to this stage.

My reading of the Irish Times (and my father) appears to contradict this.
Apparently after the first count, if quota is 8,000 and poll-topper gets 10,000, ALL 10,000 votes second preferences are distributed but only weighted as a % of the 2,000 surplus.
Eg if 5,000 of the 10,000 votes (50%) for poll-topper are transfers to his/her running-mate, then the running-mate receives 1,000 votes (50% of the surplus).
1,000 of the poll-toppers votes are then physically transferred to the running-mates pile.
In later counts, the counting of surpluses is taken from the last votes counted. eg. 537 over quota = count the transfers of the most recent 537 votes.
Correct?

The message of this is as i read it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you've any time at all for the lesser-known candidates, they should get your number 1 and 2 as your vote for either coalition will still definitely be counted.*

A 6 is as good as a 1.
Me likes the PRSTV.

*provided that the whole constituency doesn't know this.

[beautifulrock]

Preference Voting (also known as Single Transferable Vote) - This is a system that is presently in use in Australia and Ireland. Its unique value is that it provides a means of ensuring proportional representation while still allowing people to vote for individual candidates. It could be used for the American House of Representatives without requiring a constitutional amendment. It would require that congressional districts be enlarged so that more than one member would represent each district. The voter lists his preferences by placing a number beside the name of each candidate. "1" represents his first preference, "2" his second, etc. All first preferences are tallied. Anyone reaching the "quota" is elected to a seat. The quota is determined by the number of seats open and the number of ballots cast. Depending on the system used, in a three member district the quota would be between 25% and 33% of the total vote. If no one reaches a quota on the first count the candidate receiving the fewest first preference votes is eliminated. His ballots are then allotted to their second preferences. Anyone reaching the quota is then elected. If the seats have not all been filled then the last place candidate is eliminated and his ballots are assigned to the next preference. The process continues until all seats have been filled. This system is presently being used in Cambridge MA to elect the city council and school committee. This is from a website called LAbonte.com

From Wikipedia

This method of proportional representation uses a system of preferential voting to determine the results of the election

A constituency elects two or more representatives per electorate. Consequently the constituency is proportionally larger than a single member constituency. Parties tend to offer as many candidates as they most optimistically could expect to win: the major parties may nominate almost as many candidates as there are seats, while the minor parties and independents rather fewer. Voters mark their ballot, allocating preferences to their preferred ranking for some or all candidates. A successful candidate must achieve a quota being the total number of votes received divided by the number of candidates to be elected plus one ie in a nine member constituency the nquota would be the number of votes divided by 10 (9 + 1), Only in a few cases is this achieved at the first count. For the second count, if a candidate wins election his surplus vote, in excess of the quota, is transferred to his voters' second choices; otherwise, the least popular candidate is eliminated and his votes redistributed according to the second preference shown on them. This process continues for as many counts as are needed until all seats are filled. Although the counting process is complicated, voting is clear and most voters get at least one of their preferences elected. All deputies are answerable directly to their local constituents. Some political scientists argue that STV is more properly classified as 'semi-proportional' as there is no assurance of a proportional result at a nationwide level. Indeed, many advocates of STV would argue that preventing nationwide proportionality is one of the primary goals of the system, to avoid the perceived risks of a very highly fragmented legislature

[pete]

Its complicated, try not to think too much about it.

I think...
- If candidate eliminated all the 2nd preference votes are counted & transferred.
- If distributing a surplus they that a representative sample & then distribute. The problem with this is that every time you have a recount could have a different result especially when its very close.

Its am amazing system really as 1 single could case a candidate to get eliminated & then maybe lose out on thousands of transfers from other party member who distributes a transfer later. 1st preference votes are hugely important as gives you a head start but then so are transfers...

I am not member of a party & would have interest watching a count live but will be glued to the tv/teletext/internet...

[Student Mullet]

This reminds me of the "You're the Ref'" piece in the program.



You're the Returning Officer:
Myself, Bald Student, pete and beautifulrock are all running in a three seater. I'm very popular so nearly everyone votes for me number one and doesn't put down any number 2 preference. I'm elected, none of the other lads has a quota and few of my votes are transferable.
What do you do?

[Risteard]

I'm reassured by my lesson on the PRSTV.
A good system imo. If only people knew how to use it.
Now to fix this whole coalition politics crap.

what would i do?
Count all your preferences.
Multiply the figure for transfers respectively for Bald Student, pete and beautifulrock by (surplus/ total mullet 1st choice votes) and allocate this figure to each candidate.
Despite huge Mullet to Bald transfers (reverse Just For Men product) , pete sneaks in on few culchie student transfers having been near the quota originally.
Wikipedia buff beautifulrock falls to Bald student due to most of his campaign being internet based.

This makes me think you were right first time Shelsman.

[Risteard]

This should eh clear things up.
the statutes (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1992/en/act/pub/0023/sec0121.html#zza23y1992s121)

[Calcio Jack]

No one has mentioned the unique version of PR that FF has engaged in over the years ( a high profile instance related to CJH's campaign manager who was arrested ) whereby they vote early and often !! ie they check out locally who's died and or is away and impersonate that person thereby managing to vote more than once.... Tamanay Hall has nothing on those boyos !!

[beautifulrock]

[QUOTE=Risteard;691509]I'm reassured by my lesson on the PRSTV.
A good system imo. If only people knew how to use it.
Now to fix this whole coalition politics crap.

what would i do?
Count all your preferences.
Multiply the figure for transfers respectively for Bald Student, pete and beautifulrock by (surplus/ total mullet 1st choice votes) and allocate this figure to each candidate.
Despite huge Mullet to Bald transfers (reverse Just For Men product) , pete sneaks in on few culchie student transfers having been near the quota originally.
Wikipedia buff beautifulrock falls to Bald student due to most of his campaign being internet based.

Yes, I think you have it spot on. However, if none of us reached the quota. Then the canditate with the fewest number of first pref votes gets elimanated (Pete I reckon :) ) The rest of us then are allocated all of his votes which are redistributed according to the second preference shown. I get elected easily of course and then my surplus is allocated to the second preference shown. However, the votes I carried from Pete's demise are now handed on to his third choice and so on. Yes it is actually complicated the more you think about it.

If you are to vote tactically, I guess the way to do it, is to give the strongest candidate your number 1 always and hope he reaches the quota at the first count easily. Then all their surplus will be passed on to the second pref candidate

[Dodge]

So to confirm the surplus being distibuted...

Its either
a) All 2nd preferences are counted and distributed propotionally
or
b) A random sample of 2nd preference votes are transfered (in the amount over the quota)

Anyone able to confirm?

[beautifulrock]

So to confirm the surplus being distibuted...

Its either
a) All 2nd preferences are counted and distributed propotionally
or
b) A random sample of 2nd preference votes are transfered (in the amount over the quota)

Anyone able to confirm?

Depends, if a candidate reaches or exceeds the quota their surplus vote, in excess of the quota, is transferred to their voters' second choices. However, when the least popular candidate is eliminated then ALL his votes are redistributed according to the second preference shown on them.

[Dodge]

Depends, if a candidate reaches or exceeds the quota their surplus vote, in excess of the quota, is transferred to their voters' second choices
Well I did say surplus. :p

I want to know how they decide what actual, physical votes the surplus is. Is it simply the last few votes counted or is there a more scientific (or random) way of doing it

[Magicme]

Was explaining the system to my 9 yr old this morning and took him voting with me so he could see how it works. Mite get him to read this thread too to clear up any misunderstandings!

[Schumi]

I want to know how they decide what actual, physical votes the surplus is. Is it simply the last few votes counted or is there a more scientific (or random) way of doing itAs I said above it depends on whether the guy gets elected on the first count or a later count.

If he's elected on the first count, all second preferences are checked and a proportional sample makes up the surplus that is distributed.

If he's elected on a laster count, the last x votes (x being the size of the surplus) that the candidate got are the ones distributed.

[BohsPartisan]

I reckon the election was rigged, there's no way Student Mullet is that popular! :D

[Risteard]

Wahey.
Just voted there.
Democracy rules.

Never seen the polling station so busy.

[Aberdonian Stu]

I reckon the election was rigged, there's no way Student Mullet is that popular! :D

It's amazing how popular you can be when you're a beer baron

[crc]

I want to know how they decide what actual, physical votes the surplus is. Is it simply the last few votes counted or is there a more scientific (or random) way of doing it
Maybe the blind leading the blind, but...

I think that technically the counters should arrive at a scientific calculation of the surplus (i.e. look at all the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc preferences and calculate the number of votes to be distributed based on the actual surplus).

However, with a manual count, this is exceptionally time-consuming, and very often it is quicker to base the surplus redistribution on a random sample (which may or may not be the last 500 or so votes).

This method is faster, but not completely accurate. If the contest is close, especially for the last seat, then a re-count may be needed. In this case, the counters may need to count ALL of the votes and base the surplus redistribution that way. I think this is why re-counts can take ages. If we hadn't baulked at the idea of electronic voting, all this counting could be done much more quickly and, importantly IMO, much more accurately than is currently the case.

[Risteard]

I think the problem was that the machines weren't up to it.
Nothing to do with baulking at all.

[OneRedArmy]

I think the problem was that the machines weren't up to it.
Nothing to do with baulking at all.The machines weren't perfect, but the type are used in other countries with no significant problems.

IIRC the main problem was their lack of a printable audit trail and the problems that could lead to with our (ridiculous) judiciary, in terms of legal challenges. It similar to the guards being asked for paper proof from speed guns and breathalyzers, which in the modern world of robust systems is patently ridiculous.

People seem to believe only something with a zero risk is acceptable, when in actual fact we are currently operating with a system, that due to its manual nature and human interaction, is inherently risky and indeed probably more risky than the e-voting system proposed.

People tend to be fearful of what they don't understand and the Government should've had the balls to proceed with the e-voting. After the first couple of elections it would've been accepted as it has been nearly everywhere else.

[Schumi]

My biggest problem with electronic voting was that it removed all the fun of the counts.

[Macy]

I think that technically the counters should arrive at a scientific calculation of the surplus
The surplus of people over the quota on second and subsequent votes is done as has been said, on the remaining votes. It isn't done on a proportional basis. Recounts take so long because the start again from the start, so if you're talking about 7th or 8th or later counts it takes ages to recheck.


If we hadn't baulked at the idea of electronic voting, all this counting could be done much more quickly and, importantly IMO, much more accurately than is currently the case.
You couldn't be more wrong with the above assertion that electronic voting would've corrected this anomaly of the system. The e-voting system that Cullen brought in actually enshrined the anomaly into it - it swapped the left over votes with a random selection.

It is my opinion that this was done deliberately so that there would be no feasible way of a manual check of some receipt. For example, an e-voting system that calculated the distribution of the surplus on a proportional basis, and that printed a manual reciept of the vote cast that was placed subsequently in a ballot box, would mean that the result could be reconcilled to confirm the computer tally. By keeping the random selection, Cullen made it impossible to produce the same result with such a method.

I don't see what is so wrong about expecting a voting system to provide a full audit trail. Before we even get on to what was wrong with the actual software of the proposed system.

[pete]

I think i made it down to 11th preference. Only the Shinners & Christian Wackos were left out although for different reasons.

I think gave Bertie 9th preference & will be a great day if he needs it. :D

[Risteard]

I didn't vote for the PD candidate or the independent guy who's complaining about refugees being taught english.
Voted for everyone else.

I did give a preference to an independent with no picture who has not campaigned and didn't even give his job description.
Just to really rub it in to the two far-right goons above.

[Poor Student]

My biggest problem with electronic voting was that it removed all the fun of the counts.

Mary O'Rourke's swift elimination last time was amusing to be fair.

[pete]

I didn't vote for the PD candidate or the independent guy who's complaining about refugees being taught english.

I did give a preference to an independent with no picture who has not campaigned and didn't even give his job description.
Just to really rub it in to the two far-right goons above.

I just realised gave probably 7th or 8th preference to Immigration wacko. :o
Those feckin Independents all sound the same (as no pictures) :(

[Risteard]

no worries pete.
He'll be second or third out.

You in CSC?
Who did ya vote for?

[Schumi]

Voted to 11, left out the two (in Dublin South of all places!) Shinners. Voted independent guy number 1 and Eamon Ryan (Greens) as the first likely elected guy in fourth place, the subject of my sig is down in 11th place.

[Bald Student]

Voted to 11, left out the two (in Dublin South of all places!) Shinners. Voted independent guy number 1 and Eamon Ryan (Greens) as the first likely elected guy in fourth place, the subject of my sig is down in 11th place.I was pretty similar. I gave the no hope girl from FF my number 2 and Ryan my number 3. Olivia Mitchell, with whom I have some previous, got my 11.

[Risteard]

Just listening to Newstalk now and theres Directors of Elections on and they can't answer the questions on the PRSTV i've posted.

[OneRedArmy]

I don't see what is so wrong about expecting a voting system to provide a full audit trail. Before we even get on to what was wrong with the actual software of the proposed system.But why?
Why the need for a paper based audit trail?

You accept that there is a risk and long as the risk is deemed immaterial you move on.

[John83]

Olivia Mitchell, with whom I have some previous, got my 11.
You dog.

[Poor Student]

Just listening to Newstalk now and theres Directors of Elections on and they can't answer the questions on the PRSTV i've posted.

The fella who was on RTÉ earlier, Dr. Richard Sinnott was my lecturer on voting trends in UCD. If you fire off an e-mail to him he might just answer it.

[crc]

I think i made it down to 11th preference. Only the Shinners & Christian Wackos were left out although for different reasons.

I didn't vote for the PD candidate or the independent guy who's complaining about refugees being taught english.
Voted for everyone else.
With PR-STV you should vote all the way down to the bottom of the ballot. STV is just a preference, not necessarily an explicit "vote for" a candidate. Surely pete must have a preference between SF and Christian candidate; likewise for Risteard between the PDs and the independent. If it happened that these two candidates were the last two left in a close contest your 'preference' would have no way to be taken account of.

[pete]

With PR-STV you should vote all the way down to the bottom of the ballot.

I agree up to a point. I usually vote as far down as possible which seems a lot of people do not. Its somewhat pointless when get down to the loonies at the end of the ballot as they will already have been eliminated. Why waste time deciding better racist & bigoted fringe candidates...

[pete]

Cyprian Brady (FF) elected in Dublin Central without passing the quota. He 2.7% of the 1st preference votes (900) in 4 seater. Massive flaw in PR system...

:rolleyes:

[soccerc]

The fella who was on RTÉ earlier, Dr. Richard Sinnott was my lecturer on voting trends in UCD. If you fire off an e-mail to him he might just answer it.

LOL, Well Dick Roche was mine at the IPA - enough said!

[Poor Student]

LOL, Well Dick Roche was mine at the IPA - enough said!

:o

Nah, Dr. Sinnott really know his stuff. He's back on RTE now.;)

[Bald Student]

Who was that fat bloke standing behind Harney when she was interviewed?

[Schumi]

Who was that fat bloke standing behind Harney when she was interviewed?I thought I was seeing double.

[pineapple stu]

I didn't vote for...the independent guy who's complaining about refugees being taught english.

Eh??


But why?
Why the need for a paper based audit trail?

You accept that there is a risk and long as the risk is deemed immaterial you move on.
Why accept risk? Prove to me the machines, for example, weren't capable of being turned off and losing memory, or being hacked, for example. Those would be potentially huge, albeit unlikely, problems.

The obvious thing is for a piece of paper to print off as you make your vote and drop into a box underneath the machine. Then you have your paper back-up as well as electronic voting.

That said, I agree about the fun of the count. People today can get all worked up on using computers for no other reason than they're modern and quick, which isn't really a compelling reason for change.

[GavinZac]

Eh??


Why accept risk? Prove to me the machines, for example, weren't capable of being turned off and losing memory, or being hacked, for example. Those would be potentially huge, albeit unlikely, problems.

The obvious thing is for a piece of paper to print off as you make your vote and drop into a box underneath the machine. Then you have your paper back-up as well as electronic voting.

That said, I agree about the fun of the count. People today can get all worked up on using computers for no other reason than they're modern and quick, which isn't really a compelling reason for change.


they can be much more accurate
they are easier to understand and quicker to use
they can centralise an unrulely register
they can provide detailed information on demographics
they can provide users with "cliffnotes" on policies when in the booth
they are cheaper in the long run (when not in bloody storage)
they are more secure and risk-free than hand counting
the fun of the count is possible the saddest concept ever.
they can be further integrated into distributed systems which will make voting easier, such as estonia allowing secure online voting


when you're making an atm transaction, is there any danger a power outage will cause you to lose money? no, there isnt, the software has taken this into account. is the idea of someone with an agenda breaking encryption, reading votes and somehow maliciously using the count figures (which are common knowledge at the moment in polling centres anyway) really that frightening, considering it would be nigh-on impossible to do or to do without detection? or have we been watching too much Heroes?

[pineapple stu]

I know electronic stuff is safe and all that - I'm not arguing that, although then again, look who we're dealing with here! The point is if someone does want to make a challenge, there has to be something tangible to fall back on instead of "The computer says so", which leaves the legal problems I mentioned. They're unlikely to happen, but that doesn't prove they didn't happen.

Easier to understand and quicker to use than pencil and paper? Don't see how that makes sense. Much more accurate? The current system is, I would say, fairly accurate. Talk of some lad in Tipp South asking for a recount when 59 votes behind and acknowledging that it's a fairly big gap.

Detailed information on demographics? In a confidential (not the word I'm looking for, but anyway) vote?

The count being "sad"? Good argument there.

Cheaper? Maybe, but I'd say the cost of hiring people for one day's counting is insignificant in the greater scheme of things.

"Cliffnotes on policies"? "Centralise an unrulely register?" Sounds like the stuff I'd expect to see on a Bullsh!t Bingo card, to be honest. Feel free to translate into English!

[pete]

There was a guy on RTE explaining the electronic voting mess from the last time. He explained that the department had never tested the devices or the software. As someone who works in that area i can tell you nobody accepts delivery of a software system without passing their own tests.

:rolleyes:

As sure Cullen messed that up so why no give him a department with an even bigger budget. By this logic i suppose Health is next for him?

[GavinZac]

"Cliffnotes on policies"? "Centralise an unrulely register?" Sounds like the stuff I'd expect to see on a Bullsh!t Bingo card, to be honest. Feel free to translate into English!
Cliffnotes: a short summary. you'd think a student would know that.

the register is in disarray, as expounded by many people on this very board. one centralised fully computerised register based on the same database as PPS or whatever will solve that. finding duplicates would be much, much quicker.

[Bald Student]

Cliffnotes: a short summary. you'd think a student would know that.

the register is in disarray, as expounded by many people on this very board. one centralised fully computerised register based on the same database as PPS or whatever will solve that. finding duplicates would be much, much quicker.Both of these points have nothing to do with electronic voting.

[GavinZac]

Both of these points have nothing to do with electronic voting.
explain?