Happy with the Single Transferable Vote?

Jaanus

Sorry, me as a foreigner have to ask these questions. Are you in Ireland happy with your electoral systemof single transferable vote? Do you think the British would be adviced to move a system like yours, as there was some suggestion a couple of days ago?

Moreover, can anyone of you adequately explain how the votes under the STV-system are translated into seats? I doubt it. Therefore it must be a case like if you board an aeroplane and as long as you trust that the captain knows his job you have no worries.

Similarly, as long as you believe the electoral-system is honest, even though you may not understand it, you are happy with it.

Or have I completely misconstrued things?

bagels

stv is a much misunderstood system, at least as far as the general public are concerned;
we are led to believe that every vote counts so we are encouraged to express several preferences;
however, when a surplus is being distributed, the votes are not transferred pro rata;
generally speaking, only the actual last stack of ballot papers counted, that brought the candidate over the quota, are the votes that get to be distributed;
therefore, the distribution is a matter of pot luck and is not a true representation of voters preferences;
a proper count of all ballot papers, to ascertain the true pro rata preferences, would not be too much to expect in a so-called democracy, now would it, especially when a single vote could decide the destination of a seat and even decide a majority in government;
as for evoting, we should never accept it because we cannot verify its accuracy or credibility and its too open for manipulation;

duggie-89

bagels wrote: »

stv is a much misunderstood system, at least as far as the general public are concerned;
we are led to believe that every vote counts so we are encouraged to express several preferences;
however, when a surplus is being distributed, the votes are not transferred pro rata;
generally speaking, only the actual last stack of ballot papers counted, that brought the candidate over the quota, are the votes that get to be distributed;
therefore, the distribution is a matter of pot luck and is not a true representation of voters preferences;
a proper count of all ballot papers, to ascertain the true pro rata preferences, would not be too much to expect in a so-called democracy, now would it, especially when a single vote could decide the destination of a seat and even decide a majority in government;
as for evoting, we should never accept it because we cannot verify its accuracy or credibility and its too open for manipulation;

i agree, i think a system of where the propotion of 2nd perfence's should be used where all the 2nd choices are counted and a precentage worked out so that all votes have the same say.

ie say someone got over the quota by say 200 votes, when the quota was say 4000, so someone got 4200 votes. i think that all 4,200 votes should be looked at again to see who got 2nd choice.

so say it works out that 20% of the total of 4200 votes 2nd choices went to Mr A, 50% went to Mrs B, 15% to Mr C and 15% to Mrs D. i think Mr A should get 40 votes, Mrs B gets 100 votes, Mr C gets 30 and Mrs D gets 30 votes. that way everyone has that final say.

i also agree about E-voting, just another FF waste of money

SeanW

I support the STV system 100% - I believe it is part of the reason we don't have such a profound two-party system here as in countries like the U.S. U.K etc.

Because your lower-preferences can count A) if your 1st preference candidate was already elected by the time your vote was counted, your vote cascades down, If your first preference candidate is elimiated in an early round, (check out the details of STV to see how this can happen) and individual is more free to tune their ballot paper to reflect their views and hopes. To give ones first preference to a more desired outside chance candidate and know that it will either be counted to them or transferred to less desireable but still likeable candiates. Or to vote first for a desired popular candidate, while giving less desired but still likeable small candidates a chance to gain an otherwise wasted vote.

I believe that if the U.S. used PR-STV, the Greens and the Libertarians would do much better in all non-presidential polls. While it might not smash the two party system (which at this point is just two different textures sides of the same coin), it would fragment it, which would be a very good thing.

murphaph

I do not support STV for the exact same reasons as SeanW!

I believe we have a succession of weak governments here because they are heavily dependent on keeping disparate groups happy together in coalition. They end up not governing at all and tough decisions are just avoided forever. You end up getting hospitals for remote villages while cities in need suffer, just to keep some independent on a hospitals for villages ticket on board in government. It is undemocratic despite what you might think as independents and small parties are over-represented.

I would like to try FPTP. I know FF tried to get this through twice before as they believed they would be the perpetual party of government with it but I don't believe that to be the case anymore.

I'd like to see some differing ideologies develop. At present the parties are all pretty much the same!

SeanW

Murphaph, if Fianna Fail ever managed to ram through non-transferable votes, I feel certain that they would be the prepetual party of governement. Because their supporters would vote for them as usual, but anyone who wanted anything different would have to cast their vote strategically (e.g. for the strongest Fine Gael candidate) as opposed to for what they want. And you thought they were impossible to shake before!

Simple non-transferable votes are used in the United States, where the two party system is gradually migrating to the same-politics-different-package system. Look at Democratic and Republican Congresspersons votes on the Patriot Act, the authorisation to invade Iraq, spending bills that would make a drunken sailor blush, pandering to special interests, they are broadly similar. Yet I think many people cast their votes on a "I vote for this guy 'cause the other is a prick" basis.

I would gladly take the odd gombeen-man independent over that any day!

I'd like to see some differing ideologies develop.

Dumping the PR-STV system is one way to ensure that will never happen.

murphaph

Well, you're entitled to your opinions of course but I believe we should try an alternative system. The parliament at Westminster has been a success in anyone's books-it is called the mother of parliaments. It is not based of PR-STV. The system there has seen 3 large parties of government in modern times, the Liberals/Conservatives and then later Labour. It developed into a two party system through the 20th century and the Liberals fell by the wayside but they are making grounds back towards government again. They may have a 3 party system sooner rather than later.

In strong economic times it's easy to rule by coalition because there's always a few quid available to keep the independent/minority interest group happy. In tough times one needs strong government.

A Dub in Glasgo

I fully support the STV system. The 1st past the post system here in the UK is an abdication of democracy

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I fully support the STV system. The 1st past the post system here in the UK is an abdication of democracy

Go tell that to people in Tibet/East Timor/Saudi Arabia/Sudan etc. etc. etc. and see them laugh in your face.

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I fully support the STV system. The 1st past the post system here in the UK is an abdication of democracy

There was an article in Sci Am a few years back, reporting on a study which had been done, looking at the various systems of democracy in use around the world.

The conclusion was that except in so-called "edge cases", the differing systems tend to produce the same result. An "edge" case is typically where there is a very close call. In such cases, if memory serves, while the study could show that there were slight statistical differences, there was no clearly identifiable way of saying that one marginal result was more or less fair than another.

In a sense, you can look at any scoring system and try and figure out which is "fairer". For example, when countries are listed in the medals table in the Olympics, one gold beats any number of silvers and bronzes. On the other hand, in sports using a typical league system, a single win can be "beaten" by sufficient draws. Is one system fairer than the other? In formula 1 a few years ago, they changed the scoring system. The analysis of the new system over previous results was that it actually changed very little at the top, but did allow more teams to get points rather than be stuck in or around 0 for a chunk of the season. However, there were - again - "edge" cases, where two highly-placed teams or drivers would have changed places, again because of the change in relative value of a non-winning result. Which is fairer? There's no real way of saying.

If you choose to see first-past-the-postas an atrocity, you're absolutely entitled to. However, there is little reason to hope that should the system ever change, it would actually lead to a significant change in results.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ok maybe I was too hyperbolic. I prefer STV to FPTP anyday

ninty9er

The STV system works fairly well in Ireland. It means that if your first preference is either elected with more than the quota, or eliminated; your vote still counts.


e.g. ** please bear with me**
Seats 5
Ballots = 65,184
Quota=10,864
8 Candidates
Count 1
A - 16,428 (Elected)
B - 6,421
C - 5,247
D - 7,796
E - 1,314
F - 9,845
G - 208
H - 901

"As A has reached the quota on the first count I deem A to be elected, I will now proceed to distribute A's surplus of 5,564"

for argument's sake and to make this simple and quick only 3 people got no.2s on those ballots. 9,521 to C, 4,222 to D, and 2,200 to E, 485 non transferrable.

9,521 = 58% of A's 2nd prefs
4,222 = 25.7% of A's 2nd prefs
2,200 = 13.4% of A's 2nd prefs
485 = 2.9% of A's 2nd prefs

Count 2
A - (5564)
B - 6,421
C - 5,247 + 3,227 = 8,474
D - 7796 + 1430 = 9,226
E - 1,314 + 746 = 2,060
F - 9,845
G - 208
H - 901

"As none of the remaining candidates has reached the quota, I will now eliminate the candidate with the least amount of votes; G and distribute G's 2nd preferences of 208 votes."

For arguments sake (well shortening it) they all went to H

Count 3
A - -
B - 6,421
C - 5,247 + 3,227 = 8,474
D - 7796 + 1430 = 9,226
E - 1,314 + 746 = 2,060
F - 9,845
G - (208)
H - 901 + 208 = 1,109

At this point H will be eliminated and any 2nd prefs that would have gone to G now go to the 3rd pref candidate

"As none of the remaining candidates has reached the quota, I will now eliminate the candidate with the least amount of votes; H and distribute H's preferences of 1,109 votes."

D gets 893
B gets 121
NTV 95
Count 3
A - -
B - 6,421 +121 = 6,542
C - 5,247 + 3,227 = 8,474
D - 7796 + 1430 = 9,226 + 893 = 10,119
E - 1,314 + 746 = 2,060
F - 9,845
G - -
H - 901 + 208 = (1,109)

**(I'm confusing myself at this point so sorry if this isn't as informative as I'd hoped)**

"As none of the remaining candidates has reached the quota, I will now eliminate the candidate with the least amount of votes; E and distribute E's preferences of 2,060 votes."


Count 4
A - -
B - 6,421 +121 = 6,542
C - 5,247 + 3,227 = 8,474 + 499 = 8,973
D - 7796 + 1430 = 9,226 + 893 = 10,119 + 542 = 10,661
E - 1,314 + 746 = (2,060)
F - 9,845 +1,019 = 10,864
G - -
H - -

1,019 to F (shock horror that's a coincidence)
542 to D
499 to C


"As F has reached the quota on the 4th count I deem F to be elected. As there are no more votes to transfer I deem D, C and B elected having not reached the quota"

Then at about 3 in the morning everybody gets to go home...yay:pac::pac:

If there had been candidates I,J and K polling extremely low, it would have been possible to eliminate them all in 1 count.

For more examples visit Elections Ireland and select General Election

bagels

every vote does not count:
in the event of candidates, other than the first candidate elected, exceeding the quota then the surplus bundle of votes only is distributed.

DadaKopf

,urphaph wrote:

I do not support STV for the exact same reasons as SeanW!

I believe we have a succession of weak governments here because they are heavily dependent on keeping disparate groups happy together in coalition. They end up not governing at all and tough decisions are just avoided forever.

I would like to try FPTP. I know FF tried to get this through twice before as they believed they would be the perpetual party of government.

This is a complete contradiction! Change the voting system only to have FF in power for ever. Not only would it produce the opposite of what you'd prefer, but Ireland would become even more undemocratic than it is now!

It's also a misconception that PR-STV has enabled a multi-party system in Ireland like elsewhere in Europe. Most continental countries have 3-4 'effective' parties, the UK has 2, Ireland has 2.5-3. Irish governments do not rely on coalition-forming to the same extent as other European countries. The argument against better PR in Ireland is that it would destabilise politics; this is not solely due to the voting system, it's due to many other factors. Consider the differences in political cultures and institutions governing the Netherlands and Italy.

bagels wrote:

every vote does not count:
in the event of candidates, other than the first candidate elected, exceeding the quota then the surplus bundle of votes only is distributed.

True, it's a misconception that every vote is recounted. After the first round, votes are effectively a random sample. The method used, according to statisticians, is actually very robust in terms of turning out a fairly accurate representation of all preferences.

But if we were to move to electronic voting (assuming the system were foolproof), all votes could be counted.

bonkey

ninty9er wrote: »

Count 1
A - 16,428
B - 6,421
C - 5,247
D - 7,796
E - 1,314
F - 9,845
G - 208
H - 901

"As A has reached the quota on the first count I deem A to be elected, I will now proceed to distribute A's surplus of 5,564"

<sniiiiiiip>

"As F has reached the quota on the 4th count I deem F to be elected. As there are no more votes to transfer I deem D, C and B elected having not reached the quota"

So basically, after all the jiggery and pokery of the system, we find that the STV-based allocations result in A, B, C, D, and F getting elected.

This is clearly a fairer result than would have been obtained under (say) a one-man-one-vote system, where A, B, C, D and F would ha......oh.

Victor

DadaKopf wrote: »

But if we were to move to electronic voting (assuming the system were foolproof), all votes could be counted.

Not needed. the only reason the surplus is distributed the way it is is because the law says so.

In the North, for multi-seat constituencies, all votes are assigned properly.

cabinteelytom

Thank you Bagels and 99er for explaining a lot. Support FPTP because:
a) the voter responsibly chooses a government, rather than participates in an opinion poll
b) one party often forms the government, and delivers it's manifesto promises without the excuse of appeasing the coalition partner, or else
c) there is a clear mapping of representative to constituent, unlike a multimember constituency
d) it's understandable
e) large multimember constituencies put candidates of the same party in competition with each other; which has the disadvantages of 'fixerdom' (we'll field only one candidate in this constituency, who is then 'the cert') and personality politics ( vote for the more show-biz/empty candidate).
f) when most elections give 'hung' Dails, the entire electorate is at the mercy of the uncommitted Independents. Let's hope they are very high quality people; though experience would suggest otherwise.

Somehow avoid what is happening in Britain where both main parties increasingly choose centrally the candidates for each constituency; a model of democracy based upon the College of Cardinals; where at least it's been long-lived.

ninty9er

Oops, had meant to have someone who polled below 5th get elected. I agree there are advantages to FPTP, mainly because I agree that Single Party Government is the strongest form of government and the most public service oriented as there are enough environmental distractions besides having internal cabinet/govt. distractions.

redspider

STV is only part of the democratic equation. Ireland has moved to smaller constituencies, but clearly 7-seater constituencies are more democratic and representative than 5-seaters, which are more democratic than 4-seaters and which are more democratic than 3-seaters. By the same logic, a single national constituency with perhaps party lists would allow very small parties that have national support to get a seat in the Dail and get the represetation that matches their mandate in the voting population.

The current STV system with 3, 4 and 5-seaters allows FF and FG to get more seats proportionally than the smaller parties such as the Greens, SF, etc.

Larger constituencies may not seem 'fair' to some, but it is more representive and hence more fair. If FPTP was used in NI, it would be a unionist state. Remember that NI is part of the UK, so if STV was brought in there for democratic reasons by a UK government with all-party support, even the main UK parties agree that STV is a more democratic and more representative system.

> independents and small parties are over-represented.

No, not with STV and 3,4 and 5-seaters. They are in fact under-represented. You may have an opinion that smaller parties get in the way of government, but that is just your opinion and is not a measurement of representation of the STV system with 3,4 and 5-seaters.

By the way, if you vote in a 5-seater, you are better represented. So shouldnt all constituencies be the same size in Ireland so that each vote gets equal representation possibilities? Shouldnt all voters have equal rights? Currently, they do not. By the way, its FF/FG that draws up the constituencies. Shouldnt there be an independent body that does this instead? Turkey's will never vote for Xmas ......

Redspider

redspider

I meant to add as well about the surplus transfers. The rules for this are not cast in stone as it is dependent on the whims of the Returning Officer.

There are cases where (if time afforded it) the count of all 2nd (or 3rd or the next one) preferences were totted up and the surplus distibuted accordingly pro-rata. There have been cases of selecting votes at random and totting those up. There has also been cases of selecting heaps at random until the nmber required is achieved. There has also been 'nefarious' cases of Returning Officers choosing heaps with a good idea based on the areas and personalities involved who would be more likely to get the preferences. Returning Officers can affect the results in this way.

Note that the electronic voting system which is in 'storage' counted ALL the 2nd (or equivalent) preferences and distributed using a fixed rounding system. The Returning Officer could not meddle and the counts, ALL counts, could be carried out in a matter of seconds.

There are problems with the electonic voting system, but there are probably more problems with the paper based one. I dont get a receipt for my vote, and in times past there have been cases of box stuffing and the paper system is as open to exploitation if not more so than the electronic-based one.

Vote Early and Vote Often .....

Redspider

Mucco

Here's an example of FTPT (2005 Westminster elections):

[PHP]Parties Seats Seats % Votes % Votes
Labour 356 55.2 35.3 9,562,122
Conservative 198 30.7 32.3 8,772,598
Liberal Democrat 62 9.6 22.1 5,981,874[/PHP]

I'm not sure I'd consider it fair that a party with 22% of the vote only get 10% of the seats.

M

Dalfiatach

bagels wrote: »

stv is a much misunderstood system, at least as far as the general public are concerned;
we are led to believe that every vote counts so we are encouraged to express several preferences;
however, when a surplus is being distributed, the votes are not transferred pro rata;
generally speaking, only the actual last stack of ballot papers counted, that brought the candidate over the quota, are the votes that get to be distributed;
therefore, the distribution is a matter of pot luck and is not a true representation of voters preferences;
a proper count of all ballot papers, to ascertain the true pro rata preferences, would not be too much to expect in a so-called democracy, now would it, especially when a single vote could decide the destination of a seat and even decide a majority in government;

But that's a procedural issue rather than a flaw in PR-STV itself. In the North they count the prefernces properly, none of this "sampling" bolloxology. It's a simple change and it could easily be fixed if the will was there.

STV isn't "too complicated", as opponents in the UK claim. We've been using it for 80 years and the people know what they are doing. FFS, vote 1, 2, 3 in order of preference and stop when you run out of candidates you like. Hardly rocket science, is it?

The second real problem with the southern system (apart from not counting the votes properly) is the large number of 3-seat constituencies which are not proportional in a multi-party system, and hence skew the results slightly in favour of the two bigger parties (FF & FG). We should move to uniform 5 or 6 seat constituencies across the country as far as is possible. 3-seats should be banned, and 4-seats only allowed as an exception with no more than 10% of all constituencies being 4-seaters.

Dalfiatach

Jaanus wrote: »

Or have I completely misconstrued things?

Yes :rolleyes:

Pretty much anyone in Ireland could give you a general idea of how votes end up as seats, we've only been having PR elections for 80 years now. A surprisingly high proportion of people could cheerfully bore you to death for hours on sample sizes, quotas, transfer patterns etc etc etc.

And we trust the system because the votes are counted in public count centres where anyone can walk in and have a look, and all parties have their tallymen there to keep everybody else honest. The system is well-understood, conducted in public, and transparent.That's why we didn't want e-voting.

ninty9er

redspider wrote: »

STV is only part of the democratic equation. Ireland has moved to smaller constituencies, but clearly 7-seater constituencies are more democratic and representative than 5-seaters, which are more democratic than 4-seaters and which are more democratic than 3-seaters. By the same logic, a single national constituency with perhaps party lists would allow very small parties that have national support to get a seat in the Dail and get the represetation that matches their mandate in the voting population.

The current STV system with 3, 4 and 5-seaters allows FF and FG to get more seats proportionally than the smaller parties such as the Greens, SF, etc.

Larger constituencies may not seem 'fair' to some, but it is more representive and hence more fair. If FPTP was used in NI, it would be a unionist state. Remember that NI is part of the UK, so if STV was brought in there for democratic reasons by a UK government with all-party support, even the main UK parties agree that STV is a more democratic and more representative system.

The system operates based on population. This is constitutionally enshrined. 6/7 seat constituencies could erode this and leave large geographical areas (larger than currently) with diluted representation in Dáil Éireann.

You only need to look at a certain Norther constituency to see that when 5 of 6 seats are gained by 1 party, the number of seats is really irrelevant.

redspider wrote: »

> independents and small parties are over-represented.

No, not with STV and 3,4 and 5-seaters. They are in fact under-represented. You may have an opinion that smaller parties get in the way of government, but that is just your opinion and is not a measurement of representation of the STV system with 3,4 and 5-seaters.

3 seaters make fo stronger governance and willingness to make tough decisions. 5 Seaters erode that governance with the tug-of-war that occurs in coalition governments. If you look at the last 15 years, when governance has been by coalition only, policies from all parties have to be dropped due to opposition from within government, not to mind what's coming from the other side of the House

redspider wrote: »

By the way, if you vote in a 5-seater, you are better represented. So shouldnt all constituencies be the same size in Ireland so that each vote gets equal representation possibilities? Shouldnt all voters have equal rights? Currently, they do not. By the way, its FF/FG that draws up the constituencies. Shouldnt there be an independent body that does this instead? Turkey's will never vote for Xmas ......

Redspider

There is a Constituencies Commission that decides constituency boundaries. FF and FG do not set constituency boundaries and seats.:rolleyes:

Dalfiatach wrote: »

Yes :rolleyes:

Pretty much anyone in Ireland could give you a general idea of how votes end up as seats, we've only been having PR elections for 80 years now. A surprisingly high proportion of people could cheerfully bore you to death for hours on sample sizes, quotas, transfer patterns etc etc etc.

Most non politicos don't have aclue how the system works.

Dalfiatach wrote: »

And we trust the system because the votes are counted in public count centres where anyone can walk in and have a look, and all parties have their tallymen there to keep everybody else honest. The system is well-understood, conducted in public, and transparent.That's why we didn't want e-voting.

You must have a security pass to enter a count centre...that includes tallymen, and counters.

ninty9er

ninty9er wrote: »

Most non politicos don't have aclue how the system works.

What are politicos?

People in FF?

Breezer

Deleted User wrote: »

What are politicos?

People in FF?

People who take an interest in politics.

I would not like to see FPTP introduced in Ireland, as I think it is hard to imagine it leading to anything other than near-perpetual FF government. While single party government may mean stronger government, I don't believe any party being in government too long does the country any favours. A fresh approach is needed from time to time to prevent complacency creeping in.

The one viable alternative would be any non-FF supporters rowing in behind FG simply to oust FF. Again, not good. While I support FG, I can see the merit in smaller parties contributing to government. Voters should not have to choose between just two sets of policies. A system where many parties can have a say allows people to vote for a party that reflects their beliefs, rather than one that they see as the lesser of two evils. It also creates more competition for seats, and therefore more motivated politicians.

My one problem with PR-STV as currently employed in this country is the random redistribution method. As others have said, this could (and I believe should) be easily remedied through legislation.