DeVore The monster's daddy!
#31

While the system is very complex in its internals... how you should vote can be very simply described.

You should list the politicians from most favoured to least favoured.

There are only two reasons why you should stop listing your candidates in order of your preference.

1. You've run out of spaces on the ballot.

2. ALL remaining candidates are *equally* distasteful to you. If there is one that is even slightly better in your opinion than the others, list that next on your list of preferences.


If you follow that recipe for voting your vote will go where you would wish it to in the circumstances.

DeV.

1 person has thanked this post
upmeath Registered User
#32

DeVore said:
While the system is very complex in its internals... how you should vote can be very simply described.

You should list the politicians from most favoured to least favoured.

There are only two reasons why you should stop listing your candidates in order of your preference.

1. You've run out of spaces on the ballot.

2. ALL remaining candidates are *equally* distasteful to you. If there is one that is even slightly better in your opinion than the others, list that next on your list of preferences.


If you follow that recipe for voting your vote will go where you would wish it to in the circumstances.

DeV.


Exactly what I've been saying throughout the thread, I just couldn't make it this concise. Thank you DeV!

1 person has thanked this post
im invisible Closed Account
#33

takun said:
...although you only voted for 5 people, your vote was in there through 10 counts, was important right to the last count and helped to elect 3 candidates.


xper said:
Correction, the vote in your example only helped elect the candidate who got the last seat in Count 10. It was surplus to the needs of two candidates who passed the quota in earlier counts.

but the vote had the potential to be left in any of the piles it was in,

im just confusing myself now

.BrianJM Subscriber
#34

lang said:
If your vote is in the randomly selected surplus then it continues to count.....if it is not picked then it stays were is is and does not continue to be used at any further point.

eg: Quota is 100. Candidate A gets 125 votes. Out of the 125 total votes 25 are randomly picked and out of these the preferences are divided out as per the wishes expressed on each ballot paper. Some of the surplus would not go any further, should (fo instance) a ballot paper not indicate any further preferences. Think that's how it is really, in layman's terms anyway.....I'm sure it is infinitely more complicated tho......We just cant do things simply can we.....


So in theory those 25 surplus votes could transfer to a candidate from the same party.
Alternatively, they could transfer to a few of the candidates least likely to succeed.


upmeath said:
Someone involved in tallying might be able to confirm this for me, but my suspicion is that the remaining candidates view a sample of the surplus to verify that the ballot numbers are varied. Within a constituency you'll have significant variations (i.e. middle class centrist/right-leaning votes in one ballot box in one polling station, working class left-leaning votes in another one) and they won't mix in the count centre, so it's important that the surplus pile is varied and reflective of society at large. They can confirm this by seeing a variety of ballot numbers on the surplus sample. That way those remaining go forward into the next round with a relatively equal chance of prevailing.


I think something like that does happen but it could still give the outcome I mentioned above.
End result could be a government partially elected by random selection!

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!