Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Ooh! Ooh! I voted!

13»

Comments

  • #102
    electrogrimey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭electrogrimey


    As little as election propaganda tells you if taken at face value, if you learn to read between the lines you can learn a lot more about the candidate, like that fact that the Maurice Ahern leaflet I got used the phrase "my brother Bertie" about 6 times...


  • #103
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    electrogrimey wrote: »
    As little as election propaganda tells you if taken at face value, if you learn to read between the lines you can learn a lot more about the candidate, like that fact that the Maurice Ahern leaflet I got used the phrase "my brother Bertie" about 6 times...
    Or the Libertas leaflets show that Libertas are willing to pull lies out of their ass and attempt to be on both sides of pretty much every issue at once :P.


  • #104
    Shacklebolt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Shacklebolt


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    Or the Libertas leaflets show that Libertas are willing to pull lies out of their ass and attempt to be on both sides of pretty much every issue at once :P.

    "Did you know that the EU payed 500'000 for a ski-slope..... ON FLAT GROUND?

    Declan knows how to stop this waste!"

    (Thats more or less a direct quote.)


  • #105
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    cocoa wrote: »
    Those most fit to govern, are quite often and ironically, those least likely to win the popularity of the people.

    You have a valid point. However your conclusion about random draws being better is... well, weak. Also, the definition of "fit to govern" is subjective. You may be interested to read about the wisdom of crowds in relation to this.
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Personally, I reckon I would need months of studying to make a properly informed decision of who to vote for. I don't believe that sitting down for an hour or two and reading election propaganda from the various sides is really that much better in the grand scheme of things than someone voting randomly.
    There's a considerable learning curve. Given the convergence of Irish political opinion towards the centre and the consequently relatively limited choice of parties available, most people could identify their ranking within an hour of guided research. Any research thereafter would be fine straw-picking. Using EUProfiler will give you a reasonably accurate mapping of your political views in less than ten minutes.


  • #106
    cocoa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭cocoa


    The Economist wrote: »
    You have a valid point. However your conclusion about random draws being better is... well, weak. Also, the definition of "fit to govern" is subjective. You may be interested to read about the wisdom of crowds in relation to this.

    Hmm, that was an interesting read, but I would argue that it doesn't apply directly to the irish (or, possibly, any) voting system because we don't take a spectrum of candidates, vote, and then average the votes. Quite the contrary, it seems moreso to be based on something he lists as a block to crowd wisdom, herd mentality within parties. In other words it lacks the fourth element needed for crowd wisdom, aggregation.

    (The whole idea of random selection being better than cognitive choice only occured to me, and it really is just an idea that I find interesting. I'm not so much arguing my point of view, as arguing the side of random selection, out of curiosity to see how this plays out)


  • #107
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    cocoa wrote: »
    In other words it lacks the fourth element needed for crowd wisdom, aggregation.
    Aggregation is done in the polling centre. Just as a stock market price reflects market wisdom, the election of a candidate (especially by means of PR-STV imho) reflects the political wisdom. It's a point that Surowiecki makes repeatedly throughout the book but that's not referenced on the Wiki. (BTW you can have the book delivered for €6.)
    (The whole idea of random selection being better than cognitive choice only occured to me, and it really is just an idea that I find interesting. I'm not so much arguing my point of view, as arguing the side of random selection, out of curiosity to see how this plays out)
    Cool.

    I think we're getting off-topic though.


  • #108
    Richard Cranium
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭Richard Cranium


    I voted for the first time last Friday. It felt great.

    I have followed politics closely since I was about 9 (that's half my life by now). I have completely avoided blindly inheriting the political opinions of my parents, and I thought long and hard for months about who would get my vote, why I would vote for them and in what order of preference.

    I know voting is really really really important and should only be talked about with utmost earnestness and solemnity, but in all honesty the county council will do pretty much the same job regardless of whether Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil has the majority (especially now that the construction industry has gone to pot and no one has the money to bribe planners anymore).

    The whole time I was in the polling booth I couldn't help wishing that I was voting in a general election or the Lisbon II referendum- something much more important than who collects the bins outside my house. I know I'm being slightly flippant, but I really don't think it would have been that big a deal not to have known about all the candidates on the ballot paper.


  • #109
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    The Economist wrote: »
    Any research thereafter would be fine straw-picking. Using EUProfiler will give you a reasonably accurate mapping of your political views in less than ten minutes.

    Hmm, interesting.....apparently I'm a lot more anti-EU than I thought!
    These were the results I got:
    Sinn Fein - 76.6%
    Green Party - 73.9%
    Socialist Party - 72.8%
    Labour - 66.3%
    Fine Gael - 50%
    Libertas (eww!) - 46.4%
    Fianna Fail - 42.1%

    I thought I would be higher for Labour, a little higher for FF, lower for FG and much lower for Libertas.

    My closest match in Europe (83.3%) was Folkebevægelsen mod EU, a Danish party who want Denmark out of the EU!


  • #110
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    I got the Socialists, followed by Sinn Féin, followed by the Greens.

    I'd never vote for either of the first two. I usually vote Green.


  • #111
    electrogrimey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭electrogrimey


    To get back on topic, I think what is important is to introduce some kind of voting education, maybe even a day in school in 6th year for people turning 18, or a leaflet distributed with your ballot paper, maybe briefly outlining the policies of all candidates in your area, because the amount of people who think you have to fill every box etc. is ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    electrogrimey wrote: »
    To get back on topic, I think what is important is to introduce some kind of voting education, maybe even a day in school in 6th year for people turning 18, or a leaflet distributed with your ballot paper, maybe briefly outlining the policies of all candidates in your area, because the amount of people who think you have to fill every box etc. is ridiculous.

    Everyone (?) is taught the basics in CSPE.

    I agree that there should be a leaflet distributed with the ballot paper voter registration card though. In fact I think what would be far better than the current blanket-bomb of spam you get would be if every house were sent a little booklet with each candidate in their area given one page of space to write "Why you should elect me", unedited unless what they write is untrue. Then ban political leaflets.


  • #113
    Stev_o
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭Stev_o


    The Economist wrote: »
    Everyone (?) is taught the basics in CSPE.

    I agree that there should be a leaflet distributed with the ballot paper voter registration card though. In fact I think what would be far better than the current blanket-bomb of spam you get would be if every house were sent a little booklet with each candidate in their area given one page of space to write "Why you should elect me", unedited unless what they write is untrue. Then ban political leaflets.

    No one is taught anything in CSPE you just sit their and act the maggot due to the subject being the single biggest waste of time in secondary school.


  • #114
    Acacia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,816 ✭✭✭Acacia


    Stev_o wrote: »
    No one is taught anything in CSPE you just sit their and act the maggot due to the subject being the single biggest waste of time in secondary school.


    I'd agree to an extent- but only because it's taught in the Junior Cert cycle as opposed to the Leaving Cert cycle (which is much closer to the voting age- makes more sense to me.)

    I don't think 13-14-15 year olds have a whole lot of interest in how the electoral process works or the difference between the Dail and the Seanad.


  • #115
    Piste
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    I was talking with someone last night about the whole "right to vote". He says it shouldn't be a right at all, and that it should be earned. The obvious problem with this is only educated, literate people could vote, and in order to keep the uneducated, illiterate people from voting the government could refuse to educate them or provide facilities for them to become responsable citizens.

    Maybe a good idea would be in a few years time to change the rules so that from, say 2015 everyone must sit a politics exam (it could be done as part of the LC, as a core subject and used for points) and a pass in politics is required to earn the right to vote, sort of like a driving test.

    I don't think this idea is too bad, but then again there are the obvious drawbacks of people leaving school early and being kept down by the system as they have no say in how the country is run.


  • #116
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Piste wrote: »
    I was talking with someone last night about the whole "right to vote". He says it shouldn't be a right at all, and that it should be earned. The obvious problem with this is only educated, literate people could vote, and in order to keep the uneducated, illiterate people from voting the government could refuse to educate them or provide facilities for them to become responsable citizens.

    Maybe a good idea would be in a few years time to change the rules so that from, say 2015 everyone must sit a politics exam (it could be done as part of the LC, as a core subject and used for points) and a pass in politics is required to earn the right to vote, sort of like a driving test.

    I don't think this idea is too bad, but then again there are the obvious drawbacks of people leaving school early and being kept down by the system as they have no say in how the country is run.

    I think it's a fairly daft idea tbh. Like it or lump it the point of democracy is one person, one vote.
    It definitely annoys me that my vote is being counter-balanced by people who have no idea how anything works, but boohoo, just something everyone has to accept.


  • #117
    Stev_o
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭Stev_o


    Piste wrote: »
    I was talking with someone last night about the whole "right to vote". He says it shouldn't be a right at all, and that it should be earned. The obvious problem with this is only educated, literate people could vote, and in order to keep the uneducated, illiterate people from voting the government could refuse to educate them or provide facilities for them to become responsable citizens.

    Maybe a good idea would be in a few years time to change the rules so that from, say 2015 everyone must sit a politics exam (it could be done as part of the LC, as a core subject and used for points) and a pass in politics is required to earn the right to vote, sort of like a driving test.

    I don't think this idea is too bad, but then again there are the obvious drawbacks of people leaving school early and being kept down by the system as they have no say in how the country is run.

    That is singly the worst idea for a democratic country i have ever heard. Defeats the whole point of democracy and there is absolutely nothing stopping a government decide we will make it so hard that only the very upper class could pass and vote us in.


  • #118
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    The Economist wrote: »
    Everyone (?) is taught the basics in CSPE.
    CSPE is a ridiculous subject though. Everyone sees it as a doss class; any bit of study at all will get you an A or a B. No one takes it seriously. "Recycling is good, racism is bad" - that's about as much as you learn really.

    I like the idea of having Politics as a Leaving Cert subject; I certainly would have considered doing it.
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    I got the Socialists, followed by Sinn Féin, followed by the Greens.

    I'd never vote for either of the first two. I usually vote Green.

    Depending on the election, I vote either Labour or Sinn Fein. (I don't think the Socialist party runs any candidates in my area.) Voted SF at the European and local elections, but will vote for Labour at the next general election because our local Labour TD is very good.


  • #119
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    Stev_o wrote: »
    No one is taught anything in CSPE you just sit their and act the maggot due to the subject being the single biggest waste of time in secondary school.
    I'd tend to agree, so maybe it should be harder. Or at least make it mandatory that everyone must know at least how to vote to pass. IIRC it does teach this, maybe it just doesn't come up on the exam etc.
    Piste wrote: »
    I was talking with someone last night about the whole "right to vote". He says it shouldn't be a right at all, and that it should be earned. The obvious problem with this is only educated, literate people could vote, and in order to keep the uneducated, illiterate people from voting the government could refuse to educate them or provide facilities for them to become responsable citizens.

    Maybe a good idea would be in a few years time to change the rules so that from, say 2015 everyone must sit a politics exam (it could be done as part of the LC, as a core subject and used for points) and a pass in politics is required to earn the right to vote, sort of like a driving test.

    I don't think this idea is too bad, but then again there are the obvious drawbacks of people leaving school early and being kept down by the system as they have no say in how the country is run.
    I made this argument four years ago :). Now I realise how awfully undemocratic it is.
    Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »
    I like the idea of having Politics as a Leaving Cert subject; I certainly would have considered doing it.
    It wouldn't work at educating those who don't know how to vote though, because they'll pick Home Ec/Woodwork/Physics instead. It might be a good idea if we want to get people into stuff like policy jobs, though.


  • #120
    Piste
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    From that post you linked I can say you're much younger than I thought you were!


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    sock puppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    The Economist wrote: »

    I made this argument four years ago :). Now I realise how awfully undemocratic it is.

    Have you changed your username since? Just that The Economist would be a slightly unusual username for an 18 year old:pac:


  • #122
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    Piste wrote: »
    From that post you linked I can say you're much younger than I thought you were!
    This is exactly the reason I don't buy the "Oh, we're just after leaving our teens, give us a break!" excuse.
    sock puppet wrote: »
    Have you changed your username since? Just that The Economist would be a slightly unusual username for an 18 year old:pac:
    Correct: this isn't my original nick. (Still had a subscription when I was 18, though.)

    Edited to add:

    Madam, – I was in the RDS during the election count and I witnessed first hand that one vote can make a difference. Votes were being counted for a local election area in Dublin and two candidates from the same party were running neck and neck from the outset. Throughout the count they were scarcely 10 votes apart and towards the end it became apparent that only one of them would be elected, on the last seat. Every transfer was going to make a difference and in the end one of them had two votes less than the other and was duly eliminated. His transfers brought his party colleague over the line and into the council.

    The gap of two votes means that if one voter had placed him as a higher preference than the other candidate, then it would have been a tie. One more vote and he would have taken the seat in place of his colleague.

    The eliminated candidate called for a recount, but the gap of two votes was still there after all the votes were checked and counted again.

    In every locality there must be similar stories. However, in most circumstances a single vote is unlikely to make a big difference to the outcome. Rather than this being a problem, I suggest it is entirely the point. Voting is one of the most important examples of collective action: we vote together, as families, communities, co-workers and other groups of shared interest. Elections are all about voting collectively, not as individuals, and choosing candidates who best serve our collective interests.

    Next time, I hope more people vote – for whatever reason. – Yours, etc,

    NAT O’CONNOR,
    Tyrconnell Road,
    Inchicore,
    Dublin 8.

    We all voted the way we voted last week and nothing will change that. However there is a referendum on the way and it's reasonably likely that the government will fall in the next year or so. Please at least consider the consequences of your vote, even if it's only a third or fourth preference.


  • #123
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    But transfers are a lottery..... It's retarded.


  • #124
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    But transfers are a lottery..... It's retarded.

    No they're not.


  • #125
    electrogrimey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭electrogrimey


    The Economist wrote: »
    No they're not.

    +1


  • #126
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Anne-Marie!! wrote: »
    Used the age old and proven "eeny meeny miny mo"......"O, you look nice".... "You're smiling, you get no.1"...."why does this man not have a picture? Im not voting for him"...."blaaaah this is boring, I've never even heard of libertas but it sounds fun, theres no.2 for ya"...
    !
    Oh dear :rolleyes:

    The dangers of democracy right here.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    tolteq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭tolteq


    Anne-Marie!! wrote: »
    For the first time :D

    And what a crappy, anticlimatic experience it was. Wander in, a few auld fellas around the place, grab the paper, into the booth.

    Used the age old and proven "eeny meeny miny mo"......"O, you look nice".... "You're smiling, you get no.1"...."why does this man not have a picture? Im not voting for him"...."blaaaah this is boring, I've never even heard of libertas but it sounds fun, theres no.2 for ya"...

    Ah, teenage logic. It just wasn't as exciting and I'm-changing-the-worldish as expected :rolleyes: Blaaahhhh.

    Did yez all vote?!

    yawn. how about reading the political literature next time?


  • #128
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    The Economist wrote: »
    No they're not.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote#Differing_counting_methods
    The simplest methods of transferring surpluses under STV involve an element of randomness; partially random systems are used in the Republic of Ireland

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meek%27s_method#Hare_method
    Initial surplus

    Suppose candidate X, at a certain stage of the count, has 190 votes, and the quota is 200. Now X receives 30 votes transferred from candidate Y (after Y was either elected or eliminated). This gives X a total of 220 votes, i.e. a surplus of 20 to be transferred. But which 20 votes will be transferred?

    [edit] Hare method

    20 votes are drawn at random from the 30 received from Y's transfers. These 20 votes are each transferred to the next available preference after X stated on the ballot, skipping those that have already been elected or eliminated. In a manual count of paper ballots, this is the easiest method to implement; it is close to Thomas Hare's original proposal in 1857. It is used in all universal suffrage elections in the Republic of Ireland. This is analogous to what happens in the children-voting example above. Some people consider it fair in that, with 200 required for election, the group of 230 with first-preference Y get to influence other preferences, whereas the group of only 190 with first-preference X should just be satisfied to get their candidate elected. But some other people feel the group of 190 should get more influence on other preferences (as in Meek's method below). Also, exhausted ballots are excluded, so if more than 10 of the 30 votes have no preference stated after X, then it is impossible to select 20 to transfer and so some votes must be wasted.

    Your transfer will only make a difference if it's randomly selected. Retarded.


  • #129
    Jonathan
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 8,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jonathan


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Your transfer will only make a difference if it's randomly selected. Retarded.
    How do decide what portion of the surplus is transferred?


  • #130
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    The Economist wrote: »
    It wouldn't work at educating those who don't know how to vote though, because they'll pick Home Ec/Woodwork/Physics instead. It might be a good idea if we want to get people into stuff like policy jobs, though.

    Yeah, I agree it won't necessarily educate those who don't know how to vote, I was just saying it would be an interesting and ,potentially, a very beneficial subject to do at LC level.


  • #131
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Your transfer will only make a difference if it's randomly selected. Retarded.

    Wikipedia has misled you, young padawan.

    Your statement "[y]our transfer will only make a difference if it's randomly selected" is wrong.

    Suppose the quota is 9,000 and I get 10,000 first preferences; leaving me with 1,000 surplus. You suggest a random number of these are transferred. That is not true.

    Every one of my votes is looked at again and it is found that 50% of them have you as number 2, and 20% have Piste as number 2. The distribution is not random. You then receive 500 of the available votes and Piste gets 200. Here your statement that your transfer only counts if randomly selected is not true at all, it's proportional to the nearest vote.

    Where the "randomness" comes in (it's not actually random, I'll get to that in a sec) is to see what happens to the third preferences. So let's say you only needed 400 of the 500 votes that I transferred to you. The question then becomes which 100 votes are transferred. This is somewhat random, but it's not really, for two reasons:
    1. If randomly selected from the votes, on average the selection will represent the true preferences
    2. Transfers are non-random. In fact you can predict them remarkably well e.g. FF transfers to FF and not to FG. This makes even the non-random distribution less random
    Finally it's important to note that in this case, you're only talking about transferring 100 votes which in our little example is 1% of quota. Typically these votes don't tip the balance either way (though they may) because typically nobody reaches quota at the end and rather it's a "last man standing" situation.

    So if the third preference bundle selected does not represent the full sample, and if the votes don't follow the usual FF-FF transfer routine, and if the numbers of transfers are high enough to tip the balance; then yes you a bit of a lottery system. That's why candidates may request re-count third preferences as an extra back-up system.

    So, no, I wouldn't call the PR-STV method of transfers either random or retarded.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    cocoa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭cocoa


    The Economist wrote: »
    Where the "randomness" comes in (it's not actually random, I'll get to that in a sec) is to see what happens to the third preferences. So let's say you only needed 400 of the 500 votes that I transferred to you. The question then becomes which 100 votes are transferred. This is somewhat random, but it's not really, for two reasons:
    What does 'somewhat random' mean? Speak plainly and honestly, either they are chosen randomly and without a specific method, or they are not, there is no 'somewhat random'. Just because you may believe that external forces guide the hand of chance doesn't make random any less than random...
    The Economist wrote: »
    1. If randomly selected from the votes, on average the selection will represent the true preferences
    2. Transfers are non-random. In fact you can predict them remarkably well e.g. FF transfers to FF and not to FG. This makes even the non-random distribution less random
    So you're saying that 1. Ok, they're random, but 1 time out of 6 a dice will roll a three... and 2. Herd mentality is in fact rampant, which would seem to me, as I mentioned before, as a block to crowd wisdom...
    The Economist wrote: »
    Finally it's important to note that in this case, you're only talking about transferring 100 votes which in our little example is 1% of quota. Typically these votes don't tip the balance either way (though they may) because typically nobody reaches quota at the end and rather it's a "last man standing" situation.
    Seems a bit of a turn-around from your original declaration that every vote counts...
    The Economist wrote: »
    So if the third preference bundle selected does not represent the full sample, and if the votes don't follow the usual FF-FF transfer routine, and if the numbers of transfers are high enough to tip the balance; then yes you a bit of a lottery system. That's why candidates may request re-count third preferences as an extra back-up system.

    No. It is a lottery system whether the third preference bundle represents the full sample or not, you just happen to have been lucky when it does represent it. This may just be my ignorance of the system, but how does a recount change this?


  • #133
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    cocoa wrote: »
    What does 'somewhat random' mean?
    The issue here is that there are more than one definitions of random and similarly, from an academic-statistical point of view, a spectrum of randomness. For example if you're doing a vox pop and you ask every sixth person that passes you to fill your survey in, that's random. Alternatively you could ask every blonde person you pass. That's non-random. However it could be that blondes comes evenly from all parts of society so your sample is representative. (I'm using the blonde example to get the point across rather than it being statistically accurate. I can talk more about proxies and instrumental variables etc. if you want, but that's really off-topic.) A really non-random sample would be if you asked anyone who was wearing a fancy suit, because then you'd have a biased sample towards richer people. So every sixth person is random, every well-dressed person is really not random, and every blonde is somewhere in-between. This is what I mean by a spectrum of true randomness.

    There's also the slight problem that the law of large numbers causes the terms we use. "Random" is often used by the public to mean "by chance" or "coincidence" or "unusual" and that kind of thing. But if you take a random sample from a distribution, the distribution of the random sample will converge to that of the original distribution quite quickly.
    Speak plainly and honestly, either they are chosen randomly and without a specific method, or they are not, there is no 'somewhat random'. Just because you may believe that external forces guide the hand of chance doesn't make random any less than random...
    I disagree.

    In our specific case of PR-STV, the first set of transfers are completely non-random, they're exactly proportional (to the nearest whole number) to the actual second-preference. However the third preferences are randomly selected from the second-preferences so there is an element of randomness there. Thus it isn't fully random (it's not just every sixth vote) but it isn't fully representative either. There's a bit of a mix.
    So you're saying that 1. Ok, they're random, but 1 time out of 6 a dice will roll a three... and 2. Herd mentality is in fact rampant, which would seem to me, as I mentioned before, as a block to crowd wisdom...
    I'm obviously not saying that.
    1. Your best estimate of the true distibution of a votes with a subsample of b votes is the distribution implied from the subsample b. Check it out in Excel with the =rand() command.
    2. Herding only matters if the way I vote affects the way you vote. Herding is irrelevant within one ballot paper. Say you want a FG govt and I want FF. It does not matter that you have FG as 1, 2, 3 and I have FF as 1, 2, 3 since it reflects our preferences. Herding matters when I convince you that I'm voting Labour, and then you change your vote to keep Labour out (by voting FF), then I vote FF anyway.

    Seems a bit of a turn-around from your original declaration that every vote counts...
    My original declaration was that Michael Collins died for democracy. Aside from that: yes, every vote counts. I fully appreciate that it is extremely rare that an election comes down to one ballot. However what's really damaging is that if this issue becomes socially acceptable. It does not matter to the world if one person litters; but if everyone takes the view that "oh, it doesn't matter if I litter", then we have a problem. It's a social responsibility imho to vote, even though it's unlikely your particular vote will make a difference.

    No. It is a lottery system whether the third preference bundle represents the full sample or not, you just happen to have been lucky when it does represent it.
    It's not a lottery in the true sense of the word when transfers work the way they do. Say there is one vote to be transferred and there are ten parties. A lottery would be where you pick one of the parties at random and that party gets the full vote. That means you pick the correct party of preference only 10% of the time. However if the preference is 65% to transfer to FF and 30% to transfer to FG, and 5% among the other 8 parties, then you once-off selection is right 65% of the time. As you increase the numbers of votes to be distributed, even to as few as twenty or thirty, the convergence kicks in.
    This may just be my ignorance of the system, but how does a recount change this?
    A different bundle of third preferences may be selected. Because the subsample distributions converge quickly this rarely changes things. As in maybe 1 election out of 100 changes. So as I said initially, the randomness is only important where it's really tight, after a second preference, and where the number of transfers is small enough to not converge; and even then you can re-count. So there is a bit of randomness, as I admitted, but it's a million miles from being "retarded" and it's definitely not true that "you transfer only counts if randomly selected".


Advertisement