Proportional representation Discussion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Risteard

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crc

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Risteard

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) :(

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

You in CSC?
Who did ya vote for?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald Student

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

---

You dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crc

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...

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Student

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!