Electoral System

b3t4

Hey people,

I'm hoping ye can help me out. I am a college student and we have to write a system based on the Irish Electoral System. My problem is that I am having a problem figuring out exactly how the whole thing works. I've already read through the following links http://www.rte.ie/news/election2002/site_files//bg-structure_electsys.html http://www.voy.com/12949/9.html and had a look at this graphical representation http://www.rte.ie/news/election2002/site_files//constit04.html. Although I found the sites very informative I am still at a loss.

I understand how the quota works and how someone is elected in the first round or not. My understanding stops when it comes to the transfer of votes and how to eliminate people from the election. The sites speak of the distribution of votes but doesn't give me a clear indication of how the votes are actually distributed.

Can someone please explain it to me in a very simple manner??

Many thanks,
A.

Sparks

Originally posted by b3t4
Can someone please explain it to me in a very simple manner??

They lie about what they'll do in office, half of us show up to pick which crook we distrust the least, and then they go off and screw us over for five years or less, at which time we do it all over again, no protests allowed.

star gazer

Single transferable vote in 3, 4 or 5 seat constituency. On the ballot paper the list of candidates is, we vote number one for our favourite, 2 for secoond favourite, 3........
on the first count if some one reaches the quota, the number of votes over that quota is transfered to everyone else (ie the number twos of a sample number from the elected candidates votes. Then the lowest candidate gets eliminated. All that candidates votes get transfered (The number twos plus had that candidate gotten transfers from the elected candidate, the threes on that ballot paper. This carries on until the last candidate is eliminated or the number of seats have been taken.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
They lie about what they'll do in office, half of us show up to pick which crook we distrust the least, and then they go off and screw us over for five years or less, at which time we do it all over again, no protests allowed.

The only addition I'd make to this is that most people pick the same crook they picked the last time....

Arrah shur...better safe then sorry.

jc

Blackjack

Below is probably the best explanation available to man on the subject!!
This is taken from the following site:
http://www.ireland.com/focus/election_2002/voting/voting1.htm

Proportional Representation made easy


Ireland's electoral system is proportional representation (PR) by means of a single transferable vote (STV) in multi-seat constituencies. The PR system gives every voter the opportunity to cast a secret ballot which will contribute to the actual election of a candidate, and every vote and every preference counts.
On polling day the voter indicates the order of his/her choice by writing "1" opposite the name of the candidate of his or her first choice and, if s/he wishes, "2" is placed opposite the name of the second choice, and so on. Candidates are listed in alphabetical order on the ballot paper.

In casting a vote in this manner the voter is giving an instruction to the returning officer to transfer his/her vote to his/her second choice if the first-choice candidate either exceeds the quota required for election, or is eliminated through receiving too few votes. Likewise, if the voter's second choice candidate is elected or eliminated the vote may be transferred to the voter's third choice and so on.

As the count begins, ballot papers are sorted according to first preference votes for each candidate only. In order to determine the minimum number of votes required for election or quota in each constituency, the total number of valid papers is counted. The quota is then calculated by dividing the total valid votes by the number of seats plus one, and then adding one to the result. For example: if there were 60,000 votes in a five-seater constituency, the quota for election would be 10,001.

If, on the first count, no candidate has reached the quota, the candidate who received the lowest number of votes is eliminated and his or her votes are transferred to the candidate for whom a second preference is recorded. If a candidate receives more than the quota required for election, his or her surplus votes are transferred to the remaining candidates in accordance with the subsequent voter preferences.

If the candidate's votes are all also first preference votes all his ballot papers are sorted into separate piles according to the next preference shown. A separate pile is made of his non-transferable papers. Each remaining candidate then receives from the top of the appropriate pile of transferable papers a number of votes calculated by dividing the surplus by the total number of transferable papers, and multiplying the total by the number of papers in the pile.

When the number of remaining candidates who have neither been elected nor eliminated corresponds to the number of vacancies to be filled, those candidates are declared elected. This applies even though the remaining candidates may not have reached the quota.

Victor

Go here http://election.polarbears.com/online/da2002.htm and using the Carlow-Kilkenny example you can see how the votes were transferred through the counts by clicking "Next Count".

Looking at a bye-election with a single seat is the simplest way to start out http://election.polarbears.com/online/dabye.htm

http://election.polarbears.com/online/eu1999r.htm Munster is a good example of a substantial surplus being distributed.

Note surpluses are transferred by random sample (otherwise it would take weeks to count even simple surpluses), not an exact recount. This will remain so until electronic counting is introduced everywhere as all constituencies must use the same counting mechanism. At the moment electronic votes are randomized, not done exactly.

Also take a look at "GENERAL RESOURCES" here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41016

b3t4

Thanks all for yeer replies. Your links Victor were most helpful :-) I also found another one which was useful http://www.oasis.gov.ie/government_in_ireland/elections/proportional_representation.html

However you mentioned that surpluses are transfered by random sample. I fail to understand what this random sample is a sample of. Could you possibly explain this a bit more??

Many thanks,
A.

Blackjack

As far as I know the "Random Sample" is just the number of transferrable Ballots taken from the top of the pile of votes for the candidate whose votes are being transferred. I could be wrong but that is my understanding of how it is done.

Cork

Originally posted by Sparks
They lie about what they'll do in office, half of us show up to pick which crook we distrust the least, and then they go off and screw us over for five years or less, at which time we do it all over again, no protests allowed.

PR is a pretty fair system where the number of seats a party wins reflects its share of the popular vote.

I think there have been 2 referenda to charge the system. Noel Dempsey flew a kite about possible change a number of years ago.

His ideas got some support but by & large people were happy with the existing set-up.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
I think there have been 2 referenda to charge the system.

1959 and 1968. FF tried to replace it on both occasions. Referendum failed on both occasions - seems the Irish people are fond of some element of proportionality in representation.

The vote wasn't about whether PR was the most desirable system - it was about whether it was more desirable than the alternative offered in the referendum (which it was)

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
PR is a pretty fair system where the number of seats a party wins reflects its share of the popular vote.

<....and so on>...

I'm wondering what the entire point of quoting Sparks' post above this one was, because you didn't address a single point he raised, Cork.

The only incredibly tenuous link is that he maintains the people running in the elections are untrustworthy, and you wish to defer that argument by saying that the system is fair. :rolleyes:

Well, in that case, answer this question...

If you had to choose between 10 criminals, would the system you used - PR or otherwise - make any difference in whether or not a criminal was elected?

Please note - I did not say that this is what happens at present. I did not infer that any/all of these members are real people, belong to a real political party, or that I am even referring to Ireland. So lets not have any "FF are great, though" soundbite responses. Just answer the question....

If the candidates are all equally poor, what is the relevance of the system being fair?


jc

Blackjack

If the candidates are all equally poor, what is the relevance of the system being fair?

JC, you do raise an interesting point.

However, in relation to the system being fair, you could take the point of view that maybe someday in the future the country will be fortunate to have reasonably effective Government and opposition such that things may actually get done, and properly.

Proportional representation may not be perfect, but at least it gives the voter the (optional) responsibility of choosing in the order of their choice, instead of picking their favourite and hoping for the best. At least this way you get a variety of candidates elected representing the broader wishes of the electorate.

If you really don't wish to cast a vote that may assist some to get elected, then you don't have to (in theory even a last place vote can essentially assist to get someone elected).

That these candidates may be equally as poor or as corrupt as each other is an unfortunate situation. I agree with Sparks - it tends to be a case of electing the candidate you feel will do less harm than electing the one who will do most damage.
My advice if you feel that way is to spoil your vote - at least you are exercising your vote, and can considered to be a form of protest - a "none of the above" option, I suppose.
Incidentally, I understand that the electronic voting system that is being proposed does not have that option, which I personally think to be a little unfair. Anyone have any info to confirm that?.

Another consideration - if the system was unfair, what are the chances of ever getting a decent candidate?.

Victor

Originally posted by b3t4
However you mentioned that surpluses are transfered by random sample. I fail to understand what this random sample is a sample of. Could you possibly explain this a bit more??

If candidate #1 is elected on the first count with 10,000 votes with a quota of 9,000, the excess 1,000 are picked at random from the 10,000 and then distributed in accordance with the next highest preference. The 10,000 are not all individually checked for second (etc.) preferences and then exactly spread out proportionately. This leads to the minor discrepancies found in recounts.

Sparks

Originally posted by Blackjack
My advice if you feel that way is to spoil your vote - at least you are exercising your vote, and can considered to be a form of protest - a "none of the above" option, I suppose.

There's no point to this at all Blackjack. Spoilt votes are discarded without note by our system. In effect, spoiling your vote is just a waste of your time in coming out to vote. All spoilt votes are treated as accidentally spoilt anyway - there isn't any way to list them as being a political protest.
For example, in the last general election, somewhere around 18-19,000 votes were spoilt, but we'll never know exactly how many because several constituencies don't even count them.

Incidentally, I understand that the electronic voting system that is being proposed does not have that option, which I personally think to be a little unfair. Anyone have any info to confirm that?.

http://www.noneoftheabove.ie

In short BJ, yes, the electronic voting system won't let you spoil your vote. (It's also insecure, untrustworthy and unverifiable, but I suspect that's another argument)

Originally posted by Sparks

http://www.noneoftheabove.ie

In short BJ, yes, the electronic voting system won't let you spoil your vote. (It's also insecure, untrustworthy and unverifiable, but I suspect that's another argument)

You could stand for election yourself sparks
Get a few sponsors,run a few raffles and other fund-raising social events for the advertising fund for your campaign.

Your campaign slogan might be one of the above

If you get few votes, well shur whats the point in complaining, the people will elect you if they want.
Indeed I hear you say one T.D/councillor is not enough, but at least it would test the popularity or otherwise of your Direct Democracy campaign.

mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
You could stand for election yourself sparks

I think you know the answer to that Man.

Darn it

and I after spending hours dreaming up the slogan for you " One of the above "

mm

Blackjack

There's no point to this at all Blackjack. Spoilt votes are discarded without note by our system. In effect, spoiling your vote is just a waste of your time in coming out to vote.

Not sure I agree with that. Then again you are entitled to your opionion. I just think that those that don't bother to vote have no right to complain. The Australians have it right, whereby if you don't vote you are fined.

For example, in the last general election, somewhere around 18-19,000 votes were spoilt, but we'll never know exactly how many because several constituencies don't even count them.

That's absolute rubbish - all constituencies report the number of spoilt votes. You can check this fact for yourself at
http://www.stormcentre.net/elections/results/general/29thdail/

If all of those that did not bothered to vote "because there is no one worth voting for" actually voted, then perhaps you would see a different scheme of things in the Dail at present. Is this not how Sinn Fein got an increased number of votes in the last election, by appealing to those in the marginalised areas where voting numbers were previously very low?.
As usual though people just aren't bothered to get off their arses and will only complain about the result.

Sparks

Originally posted by Blackjack
Not sure I agree with that. Then again you are entitled to your opionion.

Hold up here. This isn't an opinion. It's what happens - spoil your vote and it's discarded and no longer counts. And if 99% of the people who vote spoil their votes, there's no rule that says "oops, we have a problem here", the election is just decided on the remaining 1%. (That's not what's happened, I point out - I'm just making the point that spoilt votes are not a protest today, they're just ignored).

I just think that those that don't bother to vote have no right to complain. The Australians have it right, whereby if you don't vote you are fined.

And if there's no candidate on the list whom you would trust to represent you? Should you be fined because you didn't want to choose one untrustworthy person over another?

That's absolute rubbish - all constituencies report the number of spoilt votes. You can check this fact for yourself at
http://www.stormcentre.net/elections/results/general/29thdail/

I did check this myself a week ago on the Irish times election site. It listed the spolit vote count from some constituencies as "N/A". Your site carries no spoilt vote count for three constituencies : Meath, Dublin North and Dublin West. In each case, spolit votes aren't mentioned and there's no way to tell if there were none because voter turnout wasn't listed.

If all of those that did not bothered to vote "because there is no one worth voting for" actually voted, then perhaps you would see a different scheme of things in the Dail at present.

You miss the point - they find no point in voting because they have no option they feel is worth voting for, and they know that spoiling their vote changes nothing, so they (frankly, rightly) assume that staying home and reading a book or whatever leisure activity they choose is more constructive.
Provide a "none of the above" option that gives them an alternative and see what happens.

As usual though people just aren't bothered to get off their arses and will only complain about the result.

Really? And you'd be one of the people who, as usual, resort to blaming people who are at least acting rationally, instead of wondering if the system could do with some tweaking, would you?

Blackjack

Your site carries no spoilt vote count for three constituencies : Meath, Dublin North and Dublin West. In each case, spolit votes aren't mentioned and there's no way to tell if there were none because voter turnout wasn't listed.

Sparks, these were the 3 constituencies that used the electronic voting system, which you yourself pointed out that the option to spoil your vote was not available for. Hence why those constituencies reported no spoit votes.

And if there's no candidate on the list whom you would trust to represent you? Should you be fined because you didn't want to choose one untrustworthy person over another?

Then spoil your vote. Or, if there is ever a "none of the above" option, apply it.

Really? And you'd be one of the people who, as usual, resort to blaming people who are at least acting rationally, instead of wondering if the system could do with some tweaking, would you?

I don't deny that the system could do with some tweaking. In fact, if you bothered to read my earlier post, I did mention that the system was not perfect. As regards acting rationally, I figure that if you don't vote, then tough, deal with the results, you have shag all right to whinge about it afterwards.
Not voting, or at least not making the effort is certainly not going to help change things, is it?

Sparks

Originally posted by Blackjack
Sparks, these were the 3 constituencies that used the electronic voting system

Ah, blah. That would account for it.

Then spoil your vote.

Next time round I may not even be able to do that - and even if I did, it'd just be discarded. So I'd be wasting the time I took to vote, because the end result would be exactly the same as if I hadn't voted at all.

Or, if there is ever a "none of the above" option, apply it.

And you wonder why I'm in favour of it?

As regards acting rationally, I figure that if you don't vote, then tough, deal with the results, you have shag all right to whinge about it afterwards.

And I'm telling you, that's not right, not with the choices we have to choose from in many cases.

Not voting, or at least not making the effort is certainly not going to help change things, is it?

No, but spoiling your vote is effectively the same as not voting at all, and voting for someone you know to be either unsuitable, unrepresentative or just plain corrupt is worse than not voting at all.

Blackjack

You know Sparks, I have already mentioned that I believe that there should be a "none of the above" option. That the option is not available, I think, is not a very good scenario. This is pretty well covered in in the weblink you have provided.
My point as regards Spoiling your vote is as the only way of notifying the candidates that you are not going to vote for any of them.
However, it's a moot point as you point out that the electronic voting system does not provide this option.
Somehow I doubt it will be adopted either.
Voter Apathy is as much a part of the problem in why the candidates are unsuitable and unrepresentative. Corruption, I reckon, is something that's endemic in all political circles.

Capt'n Midnight

RE: in theory even a last place vote can essentially assist to get someone elected

Please explain this - 'cos I'm so tired of hearing this chestnut

If there are 24 candidates and you put 23 in Joe's box and 24 in Fred's box then on the 23rd count Joe (if still left) will recieve it ahead of Fred.

So with PR you don't vote 1,2,3 in order of preference.
You vote last, second last, third last in order of your dislike of them.

Also haveing a "none of the above" would be useful in a PR system, eg: if you put 5 in the box it would mean you found 4 politicians worth voting for...

Blackjack

Please explain this - 'cos I'm so tired of hearing this chestnut

To be perfectly honest, I don't really know. It has been explained to me at one stage in the past, mind you I was under the influence at the time, so it does not really make any sense, particularly in the way in which you point it out below.
If I figure it out I'll come back to you.