Giving preferences in a General Election

Dave_24irl

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone has a good grasp of the electoral system in Ireland? I recently joined a facebook group which was promoting trying to limit the number of preferences the government got http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=175577965800928&id=627087427#!/pages/Not-a-single-one-of-my-preferences-will-go-to-Fianna-Fail-in-this-election/113410895393181 but time and time again a massive debate seems to be opening up amongst friends etc. over the nature of preferences and what they actually mean. It has been pointed out by a few that Fianna Fail canvassers were saying on the doorsteps that to give a preference to FF would be more damaging than to give none?!

For example, someone pointed out earlier that if, for example you wanted to damage the government parties it would be more beneficial to give them your LAST preference as oppossed to NO preference at all??? I was under the impression that if a candidate wasn't given a preference it would damage them more as they become transfer repellent?

Sorry if this is the wrong forum but I don't have enough posts for the political forum, if it can be moved there that'd be superb as this has been bugging me all morning and is a real scratch the head moment for many people as it keeps coming up lately when someone expresses a wish not to vote for the FF/Green parties.

Cookie_Monster

preferential voting is ridiculous and un-democratic. Depending on how you vote and random chance your vote can be worth 4 or 5 votes as such.

1 person, 1 vote please

Snakeblood

Dave_24irl wrote: »

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone has a good grasp of the electoral system in Ireland? I recently joined a facebook group which was promoting trying to limit the number of preferences the government got http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=175577965800928&id=627087427#!/pages/Not-a-single-one-of-my-preferences-will-go-to-Fianna-Fail-in-this-election/113410895393181 but time and time again a massive debate seems to be opening up amongst friends etc. over the nature of preferences and what they actually mean. It has been pointed out by a few that Fianna Fail canvassers were saying on the doorsteps that to give a preference to FF would be more damaging than to give none?!

For example, someone pointed out earlier that if, for example you wanted to damage the government parties it would be more beneficial to give them your LAST preference as oppossed to NO preference at all??? I was under the impression that if a candidate wasn't given a preference it would damage them more as they become transfer repellent?

Sorry if this is the wrong forum but I don't have enough posts for the political forum, if it can be moved there that'd be superb as this has been bugging me all morning and is a real scratch the head moment for many people as it keeps coming up lately when someone expresses a wish not to vote for the FF/Green parties.

As far as I understand it, if you give them no preferences, the party dies because they have no TDs and no chance of getting TDs. I'm not sure how a party getting no preferences could possibly be better than getting some for that party.

Laminations

It's simple, don't give someone you don't like at all any preference vote. It's like the CAO application. If you don't get your first choice (for a multiseat constituency) they move on to your second etc. There is no requirement for you to fill out the full form, I usually stop after 4. Next election do not put FF on the voting slip, not even in 10th.

ArmaniJeanss

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

preferential voting is ridiculous and un-democratic. Depending on how you vote and random chance your vote can be worth 4 or 5 votes as such.

1 person, 1 vote please

Its probably the most democratic system of all - by having multiple seats in each constituency it avoids the situation in single seaters whereby a seat becomes such a 'safe' seat for one party or other thats it basically not contested by the opposition candidate.
So in England Labour never fight for seats in Berkshire or Kent, The Tories never fight for seats in central Liverpool - In America California (Democrat) and Texas (Republican) are rarely fought for in Presidential Elections. In Ireland every vote/every seat is contested, every vote counts.

The Vote Transfer system then returns us 'consensus candidates' - so a candidate can't get elected without being agreeable to a cross section of the community. In England in theory if 11 candidates stand for one seat then a candidate can win with 10% of the vote. We force the winning candidate to have been voted for at some preferential level by 50% of the electorate.

If the system has a problem its that it is almost too democratic.

Dave_24irl

Thanks for this.

There was a chorus of people on that facebook group claiming that by announcing no preference for FF I was not doing them damage but helping them. I heard it so many times I began to wonder what the hell was up and needed to question it. Many thanks for clearing this up. Just goes to show how confusion can reign supreme.

Gambler

How the preference system works:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/voting/proportional_representation.html

If a candidate receives more than the quota on any count, the surplus votes are transferred to the remaining candidates in proportion to the next available preferences indicated by voters (i.e., the next preference on each vote for a candidate who has not been elected or eliminated). For example, if candidate A receives 900 votes more than the quota on the first count and on examining all of his or her votes, it is found that 30% of these have next available preferences for candidate B, then candidate B does not get 30% of all candidate A's votes, candidate B gets 30% of his/her surplus, i.e., 270 votes (30% of 900).

If you don't give someone a preference then your vote can't be transfered to them if you happen to be in the surplus.. I don't see how giving someone a chance of possibly getting your vote in a transfer can be more damaging than not giving them a preference at all..

Gambler

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

preferential voting is ridiculous and un-democratic. Depending on how you vote and random chance your vote can be worth 4 or 5 votes as such.

1 person, 1 vote please

Not sure how you see there being a random chance -

For example, if candidate A receives 900 votes more than the quota on the first count and on examining all of his or her votes, it is found that 30% of these have next available preferences for candidate B, then candidate B does not get 30% of all candidate A's votes, candidate B gets 30% of his/her surplus

If you give a second preference vote to someone and your first preference gets through with a surplus (at any stage of the count) then your second preference is counted in deciding how much of the surplus gets passed to your second preference.

ArmaniJeanss

Gambler wrote: »

Not sure how you see there being a random chance -

For example, if candidate A receives 900 votes more than the quota on the first count and on examining all of his or her votes, it is found that 30% of these have next available preferences for candidate B, then candidate B does not get 30% of all candidate A's votes, candidate B gets 30% of his/her surplus

If you give a second preference vote to someone and your first preference gets through with a surplus (at any stage of the count) then your second preference is counted in deciding how much of the surplus gets passed to your second preference.

Lets say I vote A-B-C and you vote A-B-D.

A is elected, and B gets 30% of his surpluses.
B then gets elected at a later stage with a surplus.

Where I think the 'chance' comes in, and I'm happy to be told I'm wrong here, is that if my vote was one of the 30% selected for As initial surplus, then candidate C now has a chance of getting my vote.

But if your similar A-B vote wasn't selected as part of that inital 30%, then there is no chance of your vote for D being used when B is elected.

If candidate C then defeats candidate D by 1 vote for the last seat down the line, it is purely chance that this has happened. And could have been a different outcome if the voting officer had randomly selected your A-B-D instead of my A-B-C at the time that A's surplus was being given out.

johnnyskeleton

Dave_24irl wrote: »

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone has a good grasp of the electoral system in Ireland? I recently joined a facebook group which was promoting trying to limit the number of preferences the government got http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=175577965800928&id=627087427#!/pages/Not-a-single-one-of-my-preferences-will-go-to-Fianna-Fail-in-this-election/113410895393181 but time and time again a massive debate seems to be opening up amongst friends etc. over the nature of preferences and what they actually mean. It has been pointed out by a few that Fianna Fail canvassers were saying on the doorsteps that to give a preference to FF would be more damaging than to give none?!

For example, someone pointed out earlier that if, for example you wanted to damage the government parties it would be more beneficial to give them your LAST preference as oppossed to NO preference at all??? I was under the impression that if a candidate wasn't given a preference it would damage them more as they become transfer repellent?

Sorry if this is the wrong forum but I don't have enough posts for the political forum, if it can be moved there that'd be superb as this has been bugging me all morning and is a real scratch the head moment for many people as it keeps coming up lately when someone expresses a wish not to vote for the FF/Green parties.

Giving someone your last preference is the same as giving them no preference.

The way it works is that all the votes are counted and if anyone meets the quota (in a 5 seater it is 1/5 of the total votes or 20%) and their extra votes are taken away and given to other candidates. If no one meets the quota, the bottom candidate is eliminated.

Now if you fill in a full quota, the only way it can get to the last preference person is if all the other candidates you have chosen are elected or eliminated. If that is the case then the last preference candidate will have been elected anyway.

But still, I wouldn't even give them my last preference, out of spite if nothing else.

Cookie_Monster

Gambler wrote: »

Not sure how you see there being a random chance -

If you give a second preference vote to someone and your first preference gets through with a surplus (at any stage of the count) then your second preference is counted in deciding how much of the surplus gets passed to your second preference.

later counts are not weighted and based on a first counted basis, so it was explained in detail by boardsies last time I asked

trishasaffron

I was always told by my late father that the advice to vote all the way down your preferences was an old FF ruse to fool people into giving them a preference however low down the list in the event that (however unlikely) a tranferred vote could accrue to them at some stage in the voting process.

there will be a lot of party workers out there - not just on the doorsteps but on the internet too - spreading lies in order to help their party. If you don't want FF in power don't vote for them AT ALL.

Gambler

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Lets say I vote A-B-C and you vote A-B-D.

A is elected, and B gets 30% of his surpluses.
B then gets elected at a later stage with a surplus.

Where I think the 'chance' comes in, and I'm happy to be told I'm wrong here, is that if my vote was one of the 30% selected for As initial surplus, then candidate C now has a chance of getting my vote.

But if your similar A-B vote wasn't selected as part of that inital 30%, then there is no chance of your vote for D being used when B is elected.

If candidate C then defeats candidate D by 1 vote for the last seat down the line, it is purely chance that this has happened. And could have been a different outcome if the voting officer had randomly selected your A-B-D instead of my A-B-C at the time that A's surplus was being given out.

Looking at citizens info it says:

Where a candidate is elected at the second or at later count, only the votes that brought him/her over the quota are examined in the surplus distribution, i.e., the parcel of votes last transferred to the elected candidate.

By my understanding you are probably right but to be honest it's not very well explained at all..

However, my understanding is that this only happens once your vote is counted and used to elect a candidate. When that happens then your vote is "used". If your vote is part of the surplus (i.e. it's added to the pile after the candidate you voted\gave a preference to is elected) then your vote can move on to the next candidate in your list of preferences. Your vote is only counted once but if your ballet goes into the surplus system my understanding is it stays in until you run out of preferences or your vote is used to elect a candidate?

Gambler

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

later counts are not weighted and based on a first counted basis, so it was explained in detail by boardsies last time I asked

Got a link by any chance? Would love to get more info myself..

Ray Burkes Pension

Why dont they teach this stuff in primary school?

Diapason

Chance does indeed come into it as described above, and I think I'm correct in saying that e-voting machines (being computerised) were going to do away with this, and would take a correct proportion. I have no source bar my not-very-trustworthy memory, so read into that what you well.

I was taught all about this in Civics class in school. It's about the only thing I ever remember learning in Civics.

Gambler

Ray Burkes Pension wrote: »

Why dont they teach this stuff in primary school?

They did teach it in my primary but to be honest at the age of 10 I wasn't interested enough to really take it in.. Now that I'm an engaged adult I just have my vague recollections of what the teachers said way back when and citizensinformation.ie

ISAW

trishasaffron wrote: »

I was always told by my late father that the advice to vote all the way down your preferences was an old FF ruse to fool people into giving them a preference however low down the list in the event that (however unlikely) a tranferred vote could accrue to them at some stage in the voting process.

there will be a lot of party workers out there - not just on the doorsteps but on the internet too - spreading lies in order to help their party. If you don't want FF in power don't vote for them AT ALL.

Sorry but your father was in error!
Assume everyone votes for non FF candidates as first preference
Then the FF candidate will get eliminated on the first count.

The only way a FF candidate will get elected is if they get more first preferecne votes than other candidates. After that the second preference of the candidates who got less first preference votes than the FF will count just as good as a first preference.


Givein the lowest preference to your FF candidate will in practice make no difference at all.

In theory the only way it could have any difference is if all the other higher candidates were eliminated ... actually no it would not make any difference since all the others would or would not be elected.

Assume worst case - they weren't and you had several candidates under the quota. One of these several would have to be a higher preference then your lowest so if thet person was eliminated your last preference might transfer but you would still have to have more then two candidates not reaching the quota and the FF candidate not being the lowest of these. So how could that happen and your paper not have one of the other two as a higher preference?

In effect lowest preference means not voting for them.
In practice it would be unlikely that number 3 or 4 would have any great effect unless all those above got eliminated in turn without reaching the quota. If for example you voted 1 FG and 2 FF and the FG guy got elected it would be almost meaningless in practice to the FF candidate. Unless there is a massive surplus and high preference for FF for example he got two quotas and all his votes were number 2 for FF. Thats why they do surplus transfers before elimination. I cont think of anyone ever getting a surplus transfer which was a whole quota.

Cookie_Monster

Gambler wrote: »

Got a link by any chance? Would love to get more info myself..

Have a read of my last thread: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055910401

Gambler

Had a quick read and it does seem that I am right that your vote stays in the system until it is counted against a candidate or all of your preferences are disqualified from the election..

However there does seem to be an element of chance in whose votes are considered surplus and whose are considered part of the batch that makes it to the quota..

Would love to see a step by step example on citizens information that really spells out the steps in nitty gritty detail..

murphaph

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

If the system has a problem its that it is almost too democratic.

The problem is that STV only works with multi-seat constituencies, so we need multiple TDs to represent the same geographical area. This leads to an astonishing level of parish pump politics and TDs spending their valuable time getting things done that should be done by others (council etc.). This then leads directly to the eye being taken off the national ball and banks go unregulated etc. etc. and the rest is history.

PRSTV has ultimately not served us well and should be abolished, to be replaced with a list. If we must have STV then only as part of a national constituency, so in effect TDs would not directly serve any local area, but would simply serve "Ireland". It would then be up to councillors etc. to fill the local void and pass on the wishes and desires of people to TDs who would not be served by "looking after" one area over another.

ISAW

Gambler wrote: »

They did teach it in my primary but to be honest at the age of 10 I wasn't interested enough to really take it in.. Now that I'm an engaged adult I just have my vague recollections of what the teachers said way back when and citizensinformation.ie

It is very simple.

Imagine you have a number of class reps for your class. It could be one two or three say.

First determine a quota:

That means you will need just over half or a third or a quarter and so on to get elected depending on whether there are one two three etc reps

SAy you have a class of 100 that means 51 ( nobody else can get more) or if two reps 34 each ( leaving less than 33 for everyone else) or if three reps 26 each leaqving less than 25 for everyone else.


SAy in the above case we have four representatives so anyne with 21 votes gets elected

Then everyone votes:

Everyone goes into a queue behind their candidate ( assume the candidate is voting for themself)

so you can have as many queues as candidates.

Now two things can happen

1. There are 21 votes or more in a queue.

In that case you ask the extra people to jump to other queues and tell the 21 people to go to the other side of the room and declare the head of that queue elected.

Say you have 30 in queue A - nine more than necessary

What queue the others go to depends on how the whole queue thinks they should go. If ten of the thirty say B ten say D and ten say E ( an equal division of preference) then B D and E get three more people to their queues ( an equal division of the nine votes) .

2. They have less than 21 votes
( you now have 79 voters left)
If any queues now have only one or two or three people and their total is less than the next smallest queue they are asked to change to another queue. This is called elimination. The votes just cohange to other candidates and you repeat this cutting out the shortest queue until another candidate gets more then 20 votes. You then remove another 21 and redistribute any over 21 to another queue have 58 voters left and on you go to 37 voters and eventually 17 are left. These 17 are the bottom preference.

ISAW

murphaph wrote: »

The problem is that STV only works with multi-seat constituencies,

No it does not! You could have a single seat STV. what for example do you think the Donegal Election is?

the manin practical value is it is nmore democratic. In Donegal the person getting elected will hjave to get 51 percent. In the UK whoever got the most votes would win. So a government could get 30 per cent nationally and still have most TDs.

If STV were got rid of then FF wold have had huge majorities in the past.

PRSTV has ultimately not served us well and should be abolished, to be replaced with a list.

If you don't understand STV then how can we expect you to argue a list is fairer?

As I stated FF could have huge majorities without STV.

If we must have STV then only as part of a national constituency, so in effect TDs would not directly serve any local area, but would simply serve "Ireland".

Constitutionally this is what they are required to do! And the larger the constituency the more probable you get with fringe parties and independents.

It would then be up to councillors etc. to fill the local void and pass on the wishes and desires of people to TDs who would not be served by "looking after" one area over another.

In effect this is what is done. But councillors should have a DIFFERENT function and are not underlings of TDs as you seem to think. You are proposing TD should only legislate and not be involved in local issues. But people dont want that . In effect you are arguing that the Senate should replace the DAil! Odd!

Liam Byrne

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Giving someone your last preference is the same as giving them no preference.

No, it's not.

If you don't think they're capable/suitable/worthy of representing the country, then don't vote for them AT ALL.

murphaph

ISAW wrote: »

No it does not! You could have a single seat STV. what for example do you think the Donegal Election is?

the manin practical value is it is nmore democratic. In Donegal the person getting elected will hjave to get 51 percent. In the UK whoever got the most votes would win. So a government could get 30 per cent nationally and still have most TDs.

If STV were got rid of then FF wold have had huge majorities in the past.




If you don't understand STV then how can we expect you to argue a list is fairer?

As I stated FF could have huge majorities without STV.



Constitutionally this is what they are required to do! And the larger the constituency the more probable you get with fringe parties and independents.



In effect this is what is done. But councillors should have a DIFFERENT function and are not underlings of TDs as you seem to think. You are proposing TD should only legislate and not be involved in local issues. But people dont want that . In effect you are arguing that the Senate should replace the DAil! Odd!

You are technically correct, STV can be used in single seat constituencies, but we don't use it like that and Wiki states:

The term STV usually refers to the multi-winner version, as it does in this article

The rest of your post is also, odd. You think because TDs are constitutionally required to serve Ireland, that they actually do? This is naive at best.

You maintain that people want their TDs to fix local issues, but who are you to actually say that. I am telling you that I DON'T want that. I expressly want TDs to legislate on national issues and nothing else. I don't want to contact my TD about a hip replacement or getting a pothole fixed. I am not alone and we have not asked the people lately what exactly they do want.

I believe it's time to offer some of the alternatives (by the way, the Netherlands uses a national list and it's an ok country) to the people, have a public debate and a referendum.

Where do you think our string of centrist, populist governments have come from? It's STV. It's used in NI for this very purpose, to achieve "concensus" and in a modern, stable democracy, all it leads to is political stagnation. Its use was borne out of the civil war to try to reconcile the country and we have moved beyond it.

imme

give a preferance to someone you want to see elected, if you don't want someone elected don't give them anything, simple as.

Cookie_Monster

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you don't think they're capable/suitable/worthy of representing the country, then don't vote for them AT ALL.

but that rules everyone out then :P

its gotten to a stage where you are voting fo the least worst candidate in any election here now imo due to the system being so useless for adequate national representation over local populism

Leiva

WOW was only thinking this morning how this works and it now seems alot of people are thinking the same as me .....

How the hell do I really make sure FF don't get anywhere near the Dail .

So if I just mark my ballot with my top 3 and stop then its better than working down the ballot paper and putting numbers beside all candidates ?

M

imme

mixednuts wrote: »

WOW was only thinking this morning how this works and it now seems alot of people are thinking the same as me .....

How the hell do I really make sure FF don't get anywhere near the Dail .

So if I just mark my ballot with my top 3 and stop then its better than working down the ballot paper and putting numbers beside all candidates ?

M

yes
just give a vote to someone you want to see elected, simple as:cool:

murphaph

mixednuts wrote: »

WOW was only thinking this morning how this works and it now seems alot of people are thinking the same as me .....

How the hell do I really make sure FF don't get anywhere near the Dail .

So if I just mark my ballot with my top 3 and stop then its better than working down the ballot paper and putting numbers beside all candidates ?

M

No, not if you have nothing particular against candidate X,Y,Z. If you really just want to prevent FF getting their paws on power again and you don't have any problem voting for any of the other candidates, then give all of them a preference in the order of your choice, EXCEPT FF, just leave them off completely.

You never know how far your vote will be transfered, it could theoretically go to the last transfer and keep FF away from seat 5 of a 5 seater. Of course, you may have ideological problems voting for say, SF (not uncommon) so in that case you probably wouldn't give them a preference either. If you have no real ideological problem voting for SF (and assuming you aren't actually a fan) then you can give them a low preference as well.

In short, give a preference to as many candidates as you can just about stomach in the order you desire and leave off any "untouchables" (like FF in this case).

Personally I hope FF are made extinct or as near to it as possible in this election. We need to move away from populist centrist politics and towards a half decent right/left divide.

Tipp Man

So I have a question on how exactly I should complete my voting card when the day eventually comes around (education and working abroad so first time voting).

I want FG in power after the next election. I do not want to give SF or any extreme left the steam from my you know what. I would rather another term of FF than SF. So what is the best way to complete my vote. The card in my consituency will probably look something like

3 x FF
3 x FG
1 x Lab
1 x SF
1 x that new party formed yesterday
2-3 x ind

So to make the maximum use of my vote given my wants mentioned above what is the very best way to complete my vote??

crabfeet

ISAW wrote: »

Assume worst case - they weren't and you had several candidates under the quota. One of these several would have to be a higher preference then your lowest so if thet person was eliminated your last preference might transfer but you would still have to have more then two candidates not reaching the quota and the FF candidate not being the lowest of these. So how could that happen and your paper not have one of the other two as a higher preference?

This is nonsense. Preferences do not transfer; Votes transfer! The system is called PR-STV. I.e. the single transferable vote. If your first preference is to a candidate who is not elected on the first count but is eventually elected, the vote will never have moved or transferred at all. The lower preferences will never be reckoned for any purpose.
If your first preference is elected the next preference influences the destination of the surplus.
If your first preference is to a candidate who is eliminated the vote moves to the next highest preferred of the remaining candidates.

Brussels Sprout

If a candidate receives more than the quota on any count, the surplus votes are transferred to the remaining candidates in proportion to the next available preferences indicated by voters (i.e., the next preference on each vote for a candidate who has not been elected or eliminated). For example, if candidate A receives 900 votes more than the quota on the first count and on examining all of his or her votes, it is found that 30% of these have next available preferences for candidate B, then candidate B does not get 30% of all candidate A's votes, candidate B gets 30% of his/her surplus, i.e., 270 votes (30% of 900).

I understood this to be the case alright but I've also noticed that the surplus transfers are always integer numbers. I assume therefore that they round the numbers

What would the transfer be for example, in the above, if the surplus was 902 instead of 900?

Brussels Sprout

Tipp Man wrote: »

So I have a question on how exactly I should complete my voting card when the day eventually comes around (education and working abroad so first time voting).

I want FG in power after the next election. I do not want to give SF or any extreme left the steam from my you know what. I would rather another term of FF than SF. So what is the best way to complete my vote. The card in my consituency will probably look something like

3 x FF
3 x FG
1 x Lab
1 x SF
1 x that new party formed yesterday
2-3 x ind

So to make the maximum use of my vote given my wants mentioned above what is the very best way to complete my vote??

FG 1,2,3 followed by whatever other candidates you would like to see possibly elected. Do not vote at all for the people that you do not want to see get elected.

Laminations

Tipp Man wrote: »

So I have a question on how exactly I should complete my voting card when the day eventually comes around (education and working abroad so first time voting).

I want FG in power after the next election. I do not want to give SF or any extreme left the steam from my you know what. I would rather another term of FF than SF. So what is the best way to complete my vote. The card in my consituency will probably look something like

3 x FF
3 x FG
1 x Lab
1 x SF
1 x that new party formed yesterday
2-3 x ind

So to make the maximum use of my vote given my wants mentioned above what is the very best way to complete my vote??

Just leave FF and SF off your list and vote for the others in whatever order you would prefer to see them in government.

Leiva

This Thread should be re-named ...

"How to vote and keep Fianna Fail out of Govt"

side note :
Its not gonna happen but .... if SF were in Govt as a minor partner you could be sure to fcuk they wouldnt be a walked over- pissed on pussy cat like the PD's and Greens .

Coillte_Bhoy

Ray Burkes Pension wrote: »

Why dont they teach this stuff in primary school?

We were taught it in 6th class and a fair few years ago. The teacher took it on himself to do it.

jd

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

FG 1,2,3 followed by whatever other candidates you would like to see possibly elected. Do not vote at all for the people that you do not want to see get elected.

I could go into a long discussion about it, but don't have time now.Iif you want to maximise the efficiency of your vote vote for the weakest FG candidate number 1, then the next weakest number 2. Parties try and manage their vote so that if they have multiple candidates they have more or less the same number of votes on the first count.

NSNO

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

FG 1,2,3 followed by whatever other candidates you would like to see possibly elected. Do not vote at all for the people that you do not want to see get elected.

Another factor that he should take into account are possible coalition partners. If, for example, 2 FG candidates get elected, but the third doesn't then you'll want your vote transferred to Labour rather than Sinn Féin purely because FG would never go into power with SF, however FF would and the last thing you want is that third seat now won by SF tipping a FG/Lab coalition below 50% (Obviously unlikely but should be considered)

So your ballot should be:

FG1
FG2
FG3
Lab
vvv (Below this I'd give preferences to the Greens and any non-left candidates in order to maximise FG's coalition potential)

Milk & Honey

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I understood this to be the case alright but I've also noticed that the surplus transfers are always integer numbers. I assume therefore that they round the numbers

What would the transfer be for example, in the above, if the surplus was 902 instead of 900?

That is not the case! Only surplus distributions after elections on the first count are done by proportion. If a surplus is generated by an election on a later count it is the last votes in the bundle which are transferred. (this creates a random element in the process). Rounding takes place when the proportions are not whole integers.
I always vote the full ballot paper. Theoretically it is possible that the last vote could be counted or could have an influence. If there are a lot of candidates eliminated with non transferable votes, it is possible that my vote might end up in a surplus deciding which of the last two remaining candidates for one seat is to be eliminated.

Eliot Rosewater

Gambler wrote: »

However there does seem to be an element of chance in whose votes are considered surplus and whose are considered part of the batch that makes it to the quota..

Yup, from the second preference there is. Making the vote fully proportional (ie eliminating all chance) would be impossible without the use of a computer.

This leaves room for voting tactics. In the European Elections I didn't give my number 2 to Sean Kelly because I knew he'd be elected anyway; I gave it to Alan Kelly instead. If I had voted for Sean Kelly there would have been a chance my vote would have been dropped, and running the risk of Kathy Sinnot getting more votes.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, it's not.

From a technical perspective it is. If you've given a number to every single candidate the last preference simply won't count. The only case in which it would count were if every other candidate on the ballot was already elected or eliminated, in which case the person last on your ballot would get in anyway as the last remaining candidate.

namloc1980

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The way it works is that all the votes are counted and if anyone meets the quota (in a 5 seater it is 1/5 of the total votes or 20%)

That's not quite right. The quota is calculated as follows:

total valid poll / n + 1
plus 1

where n is the number of seats.

So in a 5 seat constituency with 60,000 valid votes, the quota is 10,001.

Or in a 3 seater with 35,000 valid votes, the quota is 8,751.

Milk & Honey

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

From a technical perspective it is. If you've given a number to every single candidate the last preference simply won't count. The only case in which it would count were if every other candidate on the ballot was already elected or eliminated, in which case the person last on your ballot would get in anyway as the last remaining candidate.

What would happen if all candidates were on equal votes with none elected? E.g. 4 remaining candidates in a three seater with equal votes.