Votes

fi

Can someone please explain or point me in the right direction to explain to me vote transfers...

is it better to just vote for 1 person, as i do not understand how the transfers work, and if someone could explain them to me please.

like if u vote for say 2 FG and one stands no chance do all his votes transfer to the other FG bloke?

if you vote for your no 1, say ...and its a donkey where do those votes go? and to whom

sorry if stupid questions

Ruire

fi wrote: »

Can someone please explain or point me in the right direction to explain to me vote transfers...

is it better to just vote for 1 person, as i do not understand how the transfers work, and if someone could explain them to me please.

like if u vote for say 2 FG and one stands no chance do all his votes transfer to the other FG bloke?

if you vote for your no 1, say ...and its a donkey where do those votes go? and to whom

sorry if stupid questions

Vote in order of your preference from 1 down to whatever. You only get one vote, which is transferred to your preference as stated by you on your balllot (hence the technical name Single Transferable Vote).

If your highest preference is eliminated then your vote goes to your next available preference.

If your highest preference is elected and passes the quota (unlikely) there is a chance that your vote may be removed from the surplus to the next available preference (even more unlikely).

It is far better to vote for as many candidates as you wish to, in order of preference, than to vote just for one. That way you still have a chance to influence the election even if your highest preference isn't elected.

Wikipedia has a decent illustration of this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#An_example

Arnold Layne

Do you use your vote to vote for all candidates in order of preference.

I mean, if you gave your least favourite candidate your last preference, is there still a possibility that your vote might help get him/her elected?

deanh

Arnold Layne wrote: »

Do you use your vote to vote for all candidates in order of preference.

I mean, if you gave your least favourite candidate your last preference, is there still a possibility that your vote might help get him/her elected?

You vote for all candidates you have a preference for. You could vote no. 1 only or rank all candidates 1to16, if desired.

to answer you question, YES, a preference vote can help a candidate get elected, but the chances of it happening depend on so many vagaries of count that it is unlikely. If you don't want them elected, its best not to vote for them i.m.o.

fi

ok i have in my head to do 1 - 3

my no one vote will be for Dogs 1 [not using parties!!]
my no two vote was going to be for cats 1 and my third vote for cats 2

BUT

if cat 2 stands no chance of getting elected, does his votes go to cat 1 or someone totally different and if so how is this decided?

if you really wanted dog 1 in, and the dogs party, would it be better to vote 1 for dog 1 and 2 for dog 2 even if you dont like dog 2 as if he doesnt get in dog 1 will get the votes and help thier chances?

why is the system so confusing??

Ruire

fi wrote: »

ok i have in my head to do 1 - 3

my no one vote will be for Dogs 1 [not using parties!!]
my no two vote was going to be for cats 1 and my third vote for cats 2

BUT

if cat 2 stands no chance of getting elected, does his votes go to cat 1 or someone totally different and if so how is this decided?

if you really wanted dog 1 in, and the dogs party, would it be better to vote 1 for dog 1 and 2 for dog 2 even if you dont like dog 2 as if he doesnt get in dog 1 will get the votes and help thier chances?

why is the system so confusing??

You only have one vote, and it goes to your highest available preference. In this case, Dogs 1.

If Cats 2 stands no chance, it doesn't matter; your vote wouldn't have gone to him unless Dogs 1 and Cats 1 were elminated.

If you really wanted the Dogs in, then you vote 1 and 2 for the two Dogs candidates; voting No 1 for your preferred candidate, in this case Dog 1.

The whole point is, you have one vote. It goes to your First preference. If they are eliminated, it goes to your second, third, whatever your next preference is that has not eliminated.

upmeath

If someone gets elected on the 9th or 10th count (as often happens) and you only filled out 5 preferences because there are only 5 seats in your constituency, your ballot loses its currency in determining transfers after (Number of Candidates minus 5) counts.
There might be 15 candidates contesting 5 seats, it's important you allocate preference 1-15 to all of them if you want to maximise your role in the process, even if it's just to send 1 of them to the doghouse by ranking them #15, you're putting them as low as possible on your ballot and giving no-hopers a chance of election ahead of them.
If you know anyone is better than Bad but an outsider for election you can still strengthen the chances of Good over Bad, it just takes enough like-minded people to reject Bad to send them to the doghouse.
If you didn't vote for anyone then someone else's vote would get Bad in sooner and you'd have had no say - either for or against - Bad. But if you used your vote to elect anyone before you elect Bad then you're contributing to every round and strengthening anyone's position over Bad.

upmeath

Also, proposal to change thread name to "PR-STV transfers explained" - a lot of voters don't understand this process and I think it's important that boards.ie offers a forum for discussion and explanation of it.

John Waters wrote a very good article on the subject of PR-STV only yesterday, and when you reach the end of the article he links you to a podcast featuring Seamus Bellew explaining how to maximise your vote.

Ruire

upmeath wrote: »

Also, proposal to change thread name to "PR-STV transfers explained" - a lot of voters don't understand this process and I think it's important that boards.ie offers a forum for discussion and explanation of it.

A lot of voters don't know that it's called PR-STV. Needs a simpler title.

upmeath

Ruire wrote: »

A lot of voters don't know that it's called PR-STV. Needs a simpler title.

Thanks Ruire, I guess "How Transfers Work" or "Our Voting System Explained" might do the trick then.

Ruire

upmeath wrote: »

Thanks Ruire, I guess "How Transfers Work" or "Our Voting System Explained" might do the trick then.

Definitely, it's something that can take a bit of explaining but seems more complicated than it really is.

UpTheSlashers

upmeath wrote: »

Also, proposal to change thread name to "PR-STV transfers explained" - a lot of voters don't understand this process and I think it's important that boards.ie offers a forum for discussion and explanation of it.

John Waters wrote a very good article on the subject of PR-STV only yesterday, and when you reach the end of the article he links you to a podcast featuring Seamus Bellew explaining how to maximise your vote.

seconded.

takun

upmeath wrote: »

If someone gets elected on the 9th or 10th count (as often happens) and you only filled out 5 preferences because there are only 5 seats in your constituency, your ballot loses its currency in determining transfers after (Number of Candidates minus 5) counts.

Not necessarily, it's not quite that straight forward.

Let's suppose there are 16 candidates in a 4 seater and you vote for 5 of them. There ends up being 10 counts.

Count 1: No candidate elected, your vote stays with your first choice.

Count 2: One candidate reaches the quota and is elected. This was not your first choice, so your vote stays where it is.

Count 3: At the third count your first choice is eliminated.

Count 4: Your vote passes on to your second choice, who is elected as the second candidate to pass the post. Your votes is among those from the surplus that continues down.

Count 5: Your third choice has already been elected, so your vote is passed to your fourth choice.

Counts 6: Your candidate is neither eliminated nor elected. Your votes stays put with your fourth choice.

Counts 7: Your candidate is neither eliminated nor elected. Your votes stays put with your fourth choice.

Count 8: Your fourth choice is elected. Your vote is in the package of surplus votes that is passed down.

Count 9: Your vote goes to your final choice. Nobody is elected so it stays put. Two candidates are eliminated - it's now a two horse race for the last seat.

Count 10: Your final choice is elected.

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

upmeath

takun wrote: »

Not necessarily, it's not quite that straight forward.

Let's suppose there are 16 candidates in a 4 seater and you vote for 5 of them. There ends up being 10 counts.

Count 1: No candidate elected, your vote stays with your first choice.

Count 2: One candidate reaches the quota and is elected. This was not your first choice, so your vote stays where it is.

Count 3: At the third count your first choice is eliminated.

Count 4: Your vote passes on to your second choice, who is elected as the second candidate to pass the post. Your votes is among those from the surplus that continues down.

Count 5: Your third choice has already been elected, so your vote is passed to your fourth choice.

Counts 6: Your candidate is neither eliminated nor elected. Your votes stays put with your fourth choice.

Counts 7: Your candidate is neither eliminated nor elected. Your votes stays put with your fourth choice.

Count 8: Your fourth choice is elected. Your vote is in the package of surplus votes that is passed down.

Count 9: Your vote goes to your final choice. Nobody is elected so it stays put. Two candidates are eliminated - it's now a two horse race for the last seat.

Count 10: Your final choice is elected.

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

Point takun. Nothing like a bit of nit-picking of a Saturday afternoon, is there? My explanation might have been basic but the explanation needs to be simple. You went to great lengths to demonstrate how many counts you can get out of 5 preference voting. We need to demonstrate how quickly your vote can evaporate, rather than how long it can hang around. Mine was the path of least resistance, yours that of most resistance, but you're right, it can be around for a while even if you don't fill out all the preferences.
Nevertheless, I think it's important that we stress the importance of filling out your ballot from 1 to X if you want to maximise your democratic say, the likelihood of your example occurring in a real ballot, while not beyond possibility is not quite as probable as my own.
Thousands of voters aren't aware that a simple 1-5 preference ballot loses all meaning when your 1-5 are among the first people eliminated, while you could have determined whether the expenses-claiming gravy trainer from your constituency got to live the high life again or not.

takun

upmeath wrote: »

Point takun. Nothing like a bit of nit-picking of a Saturday afternoon, is there?

Oh I love a bit of nit-picking any day!

upmeath wrote: »

you could have determined whether the expenses-claiming gravy trainer from your constituency got to live the high life again or not.

You can equally do that by just not voting for any gravy train candidate. In fact that might be more effective where there are 3 or 4 gravy train candidates (not impossible), as if you vote for all candidates you are going to have to rank them in some sense. While unlikely, it is possible your vote will filter down to one and help him/her - albeit only above one you think worse.

But essentially giving no preference to people you dislike is just as valid a way to ensure they get no benefit from your vote.

My opinion is that the best advice is vote for all the candidates you could tolerate seeing elected, in order of your choice. Then stop.

lang

upmeath wrote: »

Nevertheless, I think it's important that we stress the importance of filling out your ballot from 1 to X if you want to maximise your democratic say, the likelihood of your example occurring in a real ballot, while not beyond possibility is not quite as probable as my own.
Thousands of voters aren't aware that a simple 1-5 preference ballot loses all meaning when your 1-5 are among the first people eliminated, while you could have determined whether the expenses-claiming gravy trainer from your constituency got to live the high life again or not.

I agree with you to a point. If there are 5 people on the ballot paper then we should vote 1-5 in order of our preferences in order to maximise our democratic right. And we all know that there are many countries in the world at this very moment in time protesting (and being killed) in order for greater democracy. But I do have issue with using all your preferences just because there are X amount of people on the ballot paper. It is the individuals right to vote for who they like...and conversely not vote for who they do not like. I've voted in a few elections and and I dont think I've allocated all my preferences to all candidates. If you are fundamentally opposed to a particular individual/party why should you give them any preference. Not using your Preference is as powerful as using it.

tomo75

takun wrote: »

Not necessarily, it's not quite that straight forward.

Let's suppose there are 16 candidates in a 4 seater and you vote for 5 of them. There ends up being 10 counts.

Count 1: No candidate elected, your vote stays with your first choice.

Count 2: One candidate reaches the quota and is elected. This was not your first choice, so your vote stays where it is.

Count 3: At the third count your first choice is eliminated.

Count 4: Your vote passes on to your second choice, who is elected as the second candidate to pass the post. Your votes is among those from the surplus that continues down.

Count 5: Your third choice has already been elected, so your vote is passed to your fourth choice.

Counts 6: Your candidate is neither eliminated nor elected. Your votes stays put with your fourth choice.

Counts 7: Your candidate is neither eliminated nor elected. Your votes stays put with your fourth choice.

Count 8: Your fourth choice is elected. Your vote is in the package of surplus votes that is passed down.

Count 9: Your vote goes to your final choice. Nobody is elected so it stays put. Two candidates are eliminated - it's now a two horse race for the last seat.

Count 10: Your final choice is elected.

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

One question on this:
For your vote to have effect in later counts i.e post count 4, does your vote have to be in the surplus? If it is not in the surplus, is that the end of you vote i.e stays put?
Cheers,
Tomo.

Nate--IRL--

Count 8: Your fourth choice is elected. Your vote is in the package of surplus votes that is passed down.

Who decides which votes get passed on when in excess of the quota?

Nate

lang

tomo75 wrote: »

One question on this:
For your vote to have effect in later counts i.e post count 4, does your vote have to be in the surplus? If it is not in the surplus, is that the end of you vote i.e stays put?
Cheers,
Tomo.

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

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

upmeath

lang wrote: »

But I do have issue with using all your preferences just because there are X amount of people on the ballot paper. It is the individuals right to vote for who they like...and conversely not vote for who they do not like. I've voted in a few elections and and I dont think I've allocated all my preferences to all candidates. If you are fundamentally opposed to a particular individual/party why should you give them any preference. Not using your Preference is as powerful as using it.

Well say there are 15 candidates contesting 5 seats, 3 of whom I can agree with and I only number the ballot 1 to 3, what happens if my 3 get eliminated early on? I've had little or no say, in anything. Even if I only gave preference to 5, or 8, the final result is most likely going to be still up in the air as far as my voice is concerned. I haven't given my damning indictment of those I find insufferable.
Of the 12 I didn't vote for, I obviously have those I can agree to some extent with but still dislike and wouldn't like to see represent me. All options weighed up, they're a better option than the neo-con, the Christian fundamentalist, the fascist or the pro-lifer whose pignorance disgusts me. Do I really want my laziness with a ballpoint pen seeing these lunatics being elected ahead of the half-decent skin I'm not head over heels in love with? The simple answer is no, so I'll follow through with those I can meet on a middle ground and then root those extremists whose policies I despise as the last preference on my ballot. Fair enough, I could have given them no preference, but it says to their tally-man at the count "Hey, I can agree with X, Y and Z but your lot are a sick bunch and I've no time for you" If everyone voted this way, then the true minority of Candidate Doom's constituency became apparent, and they'd see how worthless their cause is.

lang

I get you to a point. I still feel that the only true way of showing someone you have no time for is to not give them a preference at all. For instance, I have no time for any FF candidate in my local constituency so I will not give them a preference. However, I can see some good in some of the Independents so will be giving some a preference.

upmeath

lang wrote: »

I get you to a point. I still feel that the only true way of showing someone you have no time for is to not give them a preference at all. For instance, I have no time for any FF candidate in my local constituency so I will not give them a preference. However, I can see some good in some of the Independents so will be giving some a preference.

True, to give no preference at all would be an absolute rejection of candidate, party and policies. I look at it this way: when all the votes have been counted, surpluses transferred and losing candidates eliminated, and it comes down to a few rogue votes to fill the last seat, I want to have my say. It's the difference of five years representation and no representation.

To give no preference beyond those you find agreeable is limiting your own potential in my book. There are 4 groups on my ballot - I like, I can tolerate, Filler and Danger, and they get my preferences in that order. I'll explain in a minute why I even number my Danger candidates.

I'm like yourself, I have candidates and parties I won't vote for. Mine is a reliably conservative constituency (Meath West, currently 2FF/1FG) and I can't stomach civil war politics so I go forensic with my voting tactics in the hope that some day the tide will turn and we won't have anyone from either of those parties representing this constituency. Where a Danger party fields multiple candidates in my constituency, I size up the probability of one candidate from that party being elected over the other, and then give the weaker Danger guy preference first so the "sweeper" candidate can't reelect the strong Danger candidate on my vote. Damn them. The Filler in between are candidates I know haven't much chance of being elected, I use them to effectively dampen the hopes of the Danger candidates below them. I try to gauge what way the electorate in my constituency will vote and I map the way I want my vote to work, which I believe can amplify my voice over those who do the simple 1-2-3 thing. Devious, I know. :rolleyes:

I might be overly optimistic that my vote, out of an electorate of 55,000 last time out, will be the one that survives all those surplus transfers to call the shots in the wee hours, but those odds are considerably better for voters in 3 seat constituencies. I could be 1 in 90,000 in a 5 seater like Dublin SC, I'd still mark my cards. It's a lottery.

blubloblu

lang wrote: »

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

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

I have an issue with there being an element of randomness to an election. If we had electronic voting, or at least counting, they could make every vote count.

xper

takun wrote: »

Not necessarily, it's not quite that straight forward.

Let's suppose there are 16 candidates in a 4 seater and you vote for 5 of them. There ends up being 10 counts.
<snip>
Thus although you only voted for 5 people, your vote was in there through 10 counts, was important right to the last count and helped to elect 3 candidates.

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

It is important when explaining out voting system to make the distinction between preferences and votes. You can express many preferences but you only get one vote. That vote may or may not end up helping a candidate get elected. It depends on whether your expressed preferences agree with those of your fellow voters. Thats democracy.

Gaveston

So ... thanks for all this explanation folks. One thing I've never undertood though is how the Returning Officer decides which votes to include in the 'surplus' votes to be redistributed. Is it really done via a random selection based on percentage? Or are there subtler forces at work? Why is there usually a call for candidates and their representatives to come forward and examine the 'surplus' pile before they are redistributed?

upmeath

Gaveston wrote: »

Why is there usually a call for candidates and their representatives to come forward and examine the 'surplus' pile before they are redistributed?

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

fi

im glad i asked but still somewhat confused, but i have worked out from your replies...

1. i will vote more then 1 2 3

2. i will not vote at all for anyone i dont want in under any conditions.

3. i wont waste a vote on anyone i think is a donkey!

Why is it so confusing? there must be a simpler way? do all countries do it this way?

lang

upmeath wrote: »

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

That's news on me......always thought it was a random selection, but what you say makes sense. What you say would make particular sense in a constituency like Dun Laoghaire where there is a vast socio-economic divide. Would not make sense to just take the surplus from one particular area as it would not be reflective of the whole constituency.

upmeath

lang wrote: »

That's news on me......always thought it was a random selection, but what you say makes sense. What you say would make particular sense in a constituency like Dun Laoghaire where there is a vast socio-economic divide. Would not make sense to just take the surplus from one particular area as it would not be reflective of the whole constituency.

I'd imagine the same goes for just about any constituency in the country. I would hazard a guess that in rural constituencies you'll find a much stronger conservative vote coming in from the polling station in a 2-room national school than any of the urban polling stations where leftists snap up a larger proportion of the votes. So if the rural dwellers had ballot numbers 1-100 and the townies were 101-200, I'd want to make sure any surplus that was being redistributed had its fair share of each.

lang

upmeath wrote: »

I'd imagine the same goes for just about any constituency in the country. I would hazard a guess that in rural constituencies you'll find a much stronger conservative vote coming in from the polling station in a 2-room national school than any of the urban polling stations where leftists snap up a larger proportion of the votes. So if the rural dwellers had ballot numbers 1-100 and the townies were 101-200, I'd want to make sure any surplus that was being redistributed had its fair share of each.

All this is why I'd like to be able to rack up to the local sorting office on Saturday morning to check how this counting lark works.....It's not as simple as one, two, three you know.

DeVore

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

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

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

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

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


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

DeV.

upmeath

DeVore wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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


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

DeV.

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

im invisible

takun wrote: »

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

xper wrote: »

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

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

im just confusing myself now

.BrianJM

lang wrote: »

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

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

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

upmeath wrote: »

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

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