Quick question about voting system

PGL

Lets say for example I am only happy with one independent candidate in my constituency and do not want to give the other candidates my no. 2, 3, 4 etc votes. Is it possible to mark no. 1 against my favourite candidate, and ignore the other candidates on the voting slip?

cheers!

Sulmac

Yes, vote for as many or as few candidates as you want.

Sad Professor

Yes, it's fine to do that if you wish. But you risk your vote being wasted if your candidate isn't elected.

who the fug

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yes, it's fine to do that if you wish. But you risk your vote being wasted if your candidate isn't elected.

How is it wasted there is only one decent person in his or her opinion the rest are tossers and the OP wants nothing to do with aiding their election

meglome

who the fug wrote: »

How is it wasted there is only one decent person in his or her opinion the rest are tossers and the OP wants nothing to do with aiding their election

The thinking is by giving your favourite candidate your no. 1 preference and going down the list in order you are less likely to get the candidate you least like.

Sad Professor

who the fug wrote: »

How is it wasted there is only one decent person in his or her opinion the rest are tossers and the OP wants nothing to do with aiding their election

That's fine. A "wasted vote" is just what it's called. Any vote that does not help to elect a candidate (and therefore you give you representation) is considered "wasted". The whole point of PR is to prevent wasted votes as it discourages people from voting.

Caribs

Understand the PR system to an extent but by giving someone your number 5 or 6 for example that you don't want elected could be the deciding vote in getting them over the line by way of transfers in the counts.

Not sure if using the term wasted is yours or a common definition of sorts but I would consider it more of a "waste" to bring in someone that you don't want rather than run the risk of having the people you want elected not be successful and your vote ending there. As a collective decision your vote has been represented democratically but there weren't a sufficient number of like minded people to bring your candidate in.

Just my tuppence worth

Victor

Caribs wrote: »

I would consider it more of a "waste" to bring in someone that you don't want

But if you don't continue your preferences, some you like even less will be elected by other votes.

starviewadams

So if I leave the two FF candidates in my area as the bottom two in my preferences there is a (small) chance that this might actually help them get elected?

Am I better off just not marking them on my ballot paper at all just to be safe?

Victor

If you don't want a particular candidate elected, put them as the very last choice. If there is more than one that you don't want, then you will have to select which one you dislike the most. If you don't choose between them, someone else gets to choose between them.

who the fug

meglome wrote: »

The thinking is by giving your favourite candidate your no. 1 preference and going down the list in order you are less likely to get the candidate you least like.

So PR is about making sure the person you least like does not get elected

who the fug

Sad Professor wrote: »

That's fine. A "wasted vote" is just what it's called. Any vote that does not help to elect a candidate (and therefore you give you representation) is considered "wasted". The whole point of PR is to prevent wasted votes as it discourages people from voting.

What discourages people from voting is 50 years of gombeen politicians in Kildare street, that you can never get rid of

The Rooster

Caribs wrote: »

Understand the PR system to an extent but by giving someone your number 5 or 6 for example that you don't want elected could be the deciding vote in getting them over the line by way of transfers in the counts.

That's not correct. By giving someone your number 5 vote, you can only help them get elected ahead of your number 6, 7, 8 choice etc. You giving someone a number 5 vote will never help them get elected ahead of your 1-4 preferences.

starviewadams wrote: »

So if I leave the two FF candidates in my area as the bottom two in my preferences there is a (small) chance that this might actually help them get elected?

Am I better off just not marking them on my ballot paper at all just to be safe?

No. If you want to keep FF out, then mark your card the whole way down, leaving the FF as numbers 9 and 10 (assuming 10 candidates). In that way, the only way your number 9 and 10 choices will come into play is if those two are fighting it out for the last seat, with everyone else either elected or eliminated.

In this scenario if you had stopped at 8, you would have no say in which of the two FFers got the last seat (and that would be fine if you disliked them both equally). However, if there is one who isnt as bad as the other, give him the 9th choice, then at least you'll be helping to keep the one you dislike most out of the next Dail.

But to repeat, by giving them numbers 9 and 10, there is no way you can help either get elected ahead of the other 8 candidates.

Caribs

Thought I understood the system but it appears I'm not as bright as I thought I was..!!

So, if I decide that at a point on the ballot card (be it preference 3 or 9 regardless) that I dislike all the other candidates equally and am willing to accept that other votes will influence that candidate potentially being elected without my say then it is fine to leave them blank?

Or maybe another way to ask is if I decide I am totally anti FF and there are 3 FF candidates out of a possible 10 is the best way to keep them out to put them on my card as 8,9 and 10 or not to put them on my card at all??

Sad Professor

Caribs wrote: »

Or maybe another way to ask is if I decide I am totally anti FF and there are 3 FF candidates out of a possible 10 is the best way to keep them out to put them on my card as 8,9 and 10 or not to put them on my card at all??

Best way is to fill out 1-7 and leave the FF candidates off.

Riskymove

The Rooster wrote: »

That's not correct. By giving someone your number 5 vote, you can only help them get elected ahead of your number 6, 7, 8 choice etc. You giving someone a number 5 vote will never help them get elected ahead of your 1-4 preferences.

surely if their 1-4 preferences are eliminated in that order the vote will go to the 5th preference and could help elect them?

Raging_Ninja

The Rooster wrote: »

But to repeat, by giving them numbers 9 and 10, there is no way you can help either get elected ahead of the other 8 candidates.

You don't have to give a preference for every candidate.

If you don't want somebody to be elected, don't list a preference for them. That way your vote will never be given to them.

The Rooster

Sad Professor wrote: »

Best way is to fill out 1-7 and leave the FF candidates off.

I'd still put the FF candidates in at 8, 9 and 10 so at least if does come down to one seat going to one of them, you still choose which one of them you like best (I'm guessing not all FF candidates are evil incarnate and some of them have nothing to do with the mess we're in!). But it still ensures your vote could never help a FF candidate against a non-FF candidate.

Riskymove wrote: »

surely if their 1-4 preferences are eliminated in that order the vote will go to the 5th preference and could help elect them?

Of course. You will be helping your 5th preference get elected in preference to your 6th, 7th, 8th choice etc.

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

You don't have to give a preference for every candidate. If you don't want somebody to be elected, don't list a preference for them. That way your vote will never be given to them.

Or if you give them your last choice (i.e. number 10 out of 10 candidates), then its also impossilbe your vote will ever go to them.

Raging_Ninja

The Rooster wrote: »

Or if you give them your last choice (i.e. number 10 out of 10 candidates), then its also impossilbe your vote will ever go to them.

That's not true. Just because you gave a candidate your last preference, doesn't mean anybody else did. Every preference counts.

Riskymove

The Rooster wrote: »

Of course. You will be helping your 5th preference get elected in preference to your 6th, 7th, 8th choice etc.

sorry you said

You giving someone a number 5 vote will never help them get elected ahead of your 1-4 preferences.

if you agree with me, that is incorrect

Riskymove

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

That's not true. Just because you gave a candidate your last preference, doesn't mean anybody else did. Every preference counts.

if you give everyone a preference then the last one cannot count...but repeat, only if you give everyone a preference

dilallio

starviewadams wrote: »

So if I leave the two FF candidates in my area as the bottom two in my preferences there is a (small) chance that this might actually help them get elected?

Am I better off just not marking them on my ballot paper at all just to be safe?

A very very small chance.

If you dislike any candidate, don't give them any preference.

The Rooster

Riskymove wrote: »

sorry you said

"You giving someone a number 5 vote will never help them get elected ahead of your 1-4 preferences. "

if you agree with me, that is incorrect

Nope, I'm correct!

In your example, you said numbers 1-4 are already eliminated. Its only then your vote goes to number 5.

So you're helping 5 get elected ahead of 6, 7, 8.

You are NOT helping them get elected ahead of 1-4, because they've already been eliminated. So long as your numbers 1,2,3,4 are still in the race, then 5 will not get your preference.

The Rooster

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

That's not true. Just because you gave a candidate your last preference, doesn't mean anybody else did. Every preference counts.

What I said is 100% true.

Your 10th choice out of 10 can NEVER get your preference.
Doesnt matter a damn how anyone else votes.

Riskymove

The Rooster wrote: »

Nope, I'm correct!

In your example, you said numbers 1-4 are already eliminated. Its only then your vote goes to number 5.

So you're helping 5 get elected ahead of 6, 7, 8.

You are NOT helping them get elected ahead of 1-4, because they've already been eliminated. So long as your numbers 1,2,3,4 are still in the race, then 5 will not get your preference.

yes I understand all that, I guess its a matter of interpretation

I would think that my 5th preference getting elected and 1-4 not, meaning I have helped my 5th "get elected ahead of 1-4"

I can now see what you meant

EDIT: i.e. when you say 'ahead' you mean 'before' in the election process

Victor

dilallio wrote: »

If you dislike any candidate, don't give them any preference.

If there are N candidates and you give the Nth preference to someone, there is no way they can benefit from that as there can only be N-1 counts at most.

OK, what I'm about to say might be a bit un-neutral. I strongly suspect the people advocating not filling out the full sheet are doing so without realising that this would be a tactic advocated by larger parties, in particular FF* who have traditionally been the largest, to get their last candidate over the line. Most of the competitions in the last count would have been between a FF candidate and a non-FF candidate. Depriving the random non-FF candidate of the last few transfers gives the FF candidate the advantage. Advocating not filling out the full sheet is anti-democratic.



* And maybe the people advocating it are FF supporters.

The Rooster

Victor wrote: »

If there are N candidates and you give the Nth preference to someone, there is no way they can benefit from that as there can only be N-1 counts at most.

OK, what I'm about to say might be a bit un-neutral. I strongly suspect the people advocating not filling out the full sheet are doing so without realising that this would be a tactic advocated by larger parties, in particular FF* who have traditionally been the largest, to get their last candidate over the line. Most of the competitions in the last count would have been between a FF candidate and a non-FF candidate. Depriving the random non-FF candidate of the last few transfers gives the FF candidate the advantage. Advocating not filling out the full sheet is anti-democratic.

* And maybe the people advocating it are FF supporters.

Nah, that's a conspiracy theory too far.

Most of those advocating not filling out the full sheet have done so due to a lack of understanding (the most common reason given is because you might inadvertantly get a FFer in - so hardly FFers doing that). And judging by the boards poll, there are feck all FFers left on boards anyway.

Zubeneschamali

The Rooster wrote: »

Most of those advocating not filling out the full sheet have done so due to a lack of understanding

It's also common for canvassers to ask people who won't vote #1 for their candidate or party to give them some lower preference. If a canvasser from FF says that to an anti-FF voter, their natural reaction is to think "Hell, no, I will not give you a preference", but this is counter-productive.

If you can't stand a candidate or party, you should vote all the way down the list, and put them at the bottom.

pigeonbutler

I think there should be a locked sticky put up by Victor (or possibly a site announcement). There's so much misinformation about the workings of PR being put up by people that don't understand it themselves and there seems to be at least a thread every day re-hashing the same arguments. Victor's the only guy explaining it simply and concisely and accurately.

gent9662

PGL wrote: »

Lets say for example I am only happy with one independent candidate in my constituency and do not want to give the other candidates my no. 2, 3, 4 etc votes. Is it possible to mark no. 1 against my favourite candidate, and ignore the other candidates on the voting slip?

cheers!

Good thread, I was just about to post something very similar this morning. I think it should be stickied.

Centaur

Sad Professor wrote: »

Best way is to fill out 1-7 and leave the FF candidates off.

That is not exactly true. It is much the same unless you have a particular preference for one of the FF'ers.

Sad Professor

Centaur wrote: »

That it is not exactly true. It is much the same unless you have a particular preference for one of the FF'ers.

It is if you absolutely don't want your vote to go to FF, which is what Caribs said.

I had lectures by Richard Sinnott (who knows a thing or two about PRSTV) last year and we asked him this exact question. He said if you don't want your vote to go to a certain candidate or party you should leave them off. Which makes perfect sense. But you should still, of course, fill out the rest of the ballot in order to ensure that somebody else has a chance of being elected ahead of them.

As Victor and others have said, though, a candidate placed last on your ballot has little or no chance of getting your vote anyway. But the point is that many people would rather their vote be wasted than go to FF/whoever, in which case leaving them off is the best thing to do.

Buceph

The simplest way of approaching it is to think of "preferences." So you put it in order of who you would prefer to be in government. That should be easy for the people you actively want to run the country. The tricky part comes when you get to people you don't really like. At that point you should start thinking, "Of the people left, would I prefer this guy over the other guy." If you would prefer one over the other, give him the next number. If it gets to the point where you say, "They're all equally bad, and I don't care which of them gets in" that's when you leave it blank.

Just keep thinking "Who would I prefer" and you can't really go wrong.

Zubeneschamali

Suppose the Nazis were running in this election, you'd get loads of people saying "Oh, I don't want my vote to help elect a Nazi, so I'm leaving them off my ballot", but that's just because they don't understand the system.

If you vote all the way down to the end, there is no possibility, no way shape or form that the candidate at the bottom can benefit from your vote. It's not "little or no" chance, it's absolutely impossible, by the nature of the system. You are voting against that last candidate.

Putting all the Nazi Party candidates at the bottom has the same effect for the whole party. There is absolutely no way that can help a Nazi beat any candidate who is not a Nazi.

Your vote transferring to a Nazi is not a moral problem for you. In the very unlikely case that this happens, it's you using the system as it's designed to vote against the worst Nazi.

Buceph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Suppose the Nazis were running in this election, you'd get loads of people saying "Oh, I don't want my vote to help elect a Nazi, so I'm leaving them off my ballot", but that's just because they don't understand the system.

If you vote all the way down to the end, there is no possibility, no way shape or form that the candidate at the bottom can benefit from your vote. It's not "little or no" chance, it's absolutely impossible, by the nature of the system. You are voting against that last candidate.

Putting all the Nazi Party candidates at the bottom has the same effect for the whole party. There is absolutely no way that can help a Nazi beat any candidate who is not a Nazi.

Your vote transferring to a Nazi is not a moral problem for you. In the very unlikely case that this happens, it's you using the system as it's designed to vote against the worst Nazi.

Yes. But leaving the Nazis off your ballot completely has the same effect.

Centaur

Sad Professor wrote: »

It is if you absolutely don't want your vote to go to FF, which is what Caribs said.

I had lectures by Richard Sinnott (who knows a thing or two about PRSTV) last year and we asked him this exact question. He said if you don't want your vote to go to a certain candidate or party you should leave them off. Which makes perfect sense. But you should still, of course, fill out the rest of the ballot in order to ensure that somebody else has a chance of being elected ahead of them.

As Victor and others have said, though, a candidate placed last on your ballot has little or no chance of getting your vote anyway. But the point is that many people would rather their vote be wasted than go to FF/whoever, in which case leaving them off is the best thing to do.

Well, say for instance that in the election all of the candidates above the 3 FF'ers on your voting card have either been elected or eliminated. If there is still one seat left it will by defenition go to one of them. If your card has been transferred (not a certainty) it will influence which one of them it is. If you leave them off it won't, but either way it will be one of them.

Zubeneschamali

Buceph wrote: »

Yes. But leaving the Nazis off your ballot completely has the same effect.

If Schindler and Hitler are running in your constituency, voting to the bottom allows you to vote against Hitler.

Sad Professor

Centaur wrote: »

Well, say for instance that in the election all of the candidates above the 3 FF'ers on your voting card have either been elected or eliminated. If there is still one seat left it will by defenition go to one of them. If your card has been transferred (not a certainty) it will influence which one of them it is. If you leave them off it won't, but either way it will be one of them.

Yeah, but in that case I the voter, who detests FF/whoever, doesn't care that one of them is going to get elected anyway, doesn't care that one of them is better at getting potholes fixed than the other. I just don't want them getting my vote under any circumstances. Not even on the ridiculous off chance that there are 14 counts and they end up using my last preference.

But look, everyone is making too big a deal out of this. Put them last or leave them off - as long as you've filled out the rest of your ballot it really doesn't make any difference. Either way you are voting against them. However, the way I look at is, if you hate them that much, why waste the pencil on them?

Zubeneschamali

Sad Professor wrote: »

However, the way I look at is, if you hate them that much, why waste the pencil on them?

To vote against the one you hate most, of course.

Buceph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If Schindler and Hitler are running in your constituency, voting to the bottom allows you to vote against Hitler.

Why are you telling me this. I never said any differently.

If not electing Nazis is your sole aim, then it makes no difference whether you leave them off the ballot or fill out the entire sheet with them at the end.

If you want Schindler ahead of Hitler then not electing Nazis isn't your sole aim.

Zubeneschamali

Buceph wrote: »

If you want Schindler ahead of Hitler then not electing Nazis isn't your sole aim.

It's irrational to say "I don't want my vote to help a Nazi". Given a "Do you want to elect Hitler?" referendum, you would vote no. This is the same question. Voting all the way to the bottom is voting "Anyone but Hitler".

Sad Professor

Zubeneschamali, I think everyone in here agrees that you should fill out your ballot as completely as possible. That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether we should put our most hated candidate last or not at all.

i.e.:

a) Fill out candidates 1-13 and put the Nazi/FFers as 14 and 15.

vs

b) Fill out candidates 1-13 and leave our 14th and 15th preference blank.

As already said, it doesn't really make any difference, but imo if you hate that party/candidate that much you should leave them off.

Buceph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's irrational to say "I don't want my vote to help a Nazi". Given a "Do you want to elect Hitler?" referendum, you would vote no. This is the same question. Voting all the way to the bottom is voting "Anyone but Hitler".

I'm not saying anything to the contrary.

And why is it irrational to say "I don't want to vote for the Nazis?"

I'm saying if your opinion is "Anyone but the Nazis" then it wouldn't make a difference to you whether you give no preference to the Nazis or whether you put the Nazi at the very bottom of a fully filled out ballot.

"Anyone but Hitler" is different to "Anyone but the Nazis" and people are entitled to choose either of them, and depending on which attitude you choose it would have an effect on how you would vote.

Riskymove

I think you might be also be overlooking that some people may not want more than one person or party elected which makes the idea of voting for everyone more complicated

some people may only want to vote for one person or party for example

Zubeneschamali

Sad Professor wrote: »

We are talking about whether we should put our most hated candidate last or not at all.

But leaving people off your ballot because you don't want your vote to help them is silly. In the case where you vote for everyone else and leave one name off, it makes no difference. But next people leave off a whole party. Then they leave out independents because they don't know enough about them. Then they leave out a party because they don't want their vote to help the leader of that party be Taoiseach.

They end up voting just 1,2 for their favourite party because they don't want their vote to help anyone else, which is the wrong way to look at it.

I think it's the wrong way to look at it even if Hitler is on the ballot.

K-9

Victor wrote: »

If you don't want a particular candidate elected, put them as the very last choice. If there is more than one that you don't want, then you will have to select which one you dislike the most. If you don't choose between them, someone else gets to choose between them.

What I can't understand is say a candidate gets eliminated and their 2nd preferences get distributed.

If say that candidate was my 5th choice and my Nos. 1-4 have been eliminated, my 5th preference gets distributed and treated the same as somebodies No.2?

Riskymove

K-9 wrote: »

If say that candidate was my 5th choice and my Nos. 1-4 have been eliminated, my 5th preference gets distributed and treated the same as somebodies No.2?

well yes, everyone's vote continues to transfer for as long it can

K-9

Riskymove wrote: »

well yes, everyone's vote continues to transfer for as long it can

Cheers. The wonders of PR. I suppose it is unlikely that the eliminations would happen exactly like that but strange that somebodies lower preferences could count the same as a No.2.

Zubeneschamali

K-9 wrote: »

What I can't understand is say a candidate gets eliminated and their 2nd preferences get distributed.

If say that candidate was my 5th choice and my Nos. 1-4 have been eliminated, my 5th preference gets distributed and treated the same as somebodies No.2?

Yes. Also, say your next 3 preferences are already elected or eliminated, your vote goes to your next preference who's still in the race, which is your 9th preference (assuming you filled one in!).

Victor

K-9 wrote: »

What I can't understand is say a candidate gets eliminated and their 2nd preferences get distributed.

If say that candidate was my 5th choice and my Nos. 1-4 have been eliminated, my 5th preference gets distributed and treated the same as somebodies No.2?

Yes. However, think of it as "everyone's vote is treated equally*, in all counts"


* Unless its non-transferable.

Victor

Riskymove wrote: »

I think you might be also be overlooking that some people may not want more than one person or party elected which makes the idea of voting for everyone more complicated

Then people may need to take some personal responsibility. If you were hungry and all there was to eat was turnip or cabbage and you didn't really like either, would you decide to not eat at all?

In not continuing preferences, all they are really doing is abdicating responsibility for the choice to someone else. Why should someone else get to say who represents **you**?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70848587&postcount=50