Quick question about voting system

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

tractor11

we are all talking about voting this way and that .may be some one can e
explain why there is a no. printed on every voting paper 001.....00342 etc
a good impersonating officer can match the no. to the name on the register
so your vote can be know .
can anyone help me

Victor

It is absolutely secret. The only people that know are the ones you tell.

tractor11 wrote: »

we are all talking about voting this way and that .may be some one can e
explain why there is a no. printed on every voting paper 001.....00342 etc
a good impersonating officer can match the no. to the name on the register
so your vote can be know .
can anyone help me

While the electoral register has a number against your name, say YA874, it is in no way connected to the number on you ballot paper which might be 123456. Back in the day though, it was different, but he Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional.

The number on the ballot paper is there so they can reconcile the amount of votes cast in each polling station. Sometimes in larger polling locations there is more than one box and sometimes people put their vote in the wrong box. If only 100 people voted, but there are 200 votes, you know that something is askew.

When you go in to collect your ballot, the polling clerk merely crosses off your name, no record is taken of the number of your ballot paper.

Riskymove

Victor wrote: »

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

I understand all that but there are people who only care about certain people and dont really care who the other TDs are, especially in our 'all politics is local' country


if it makes you feel any better I voted all the way down the list this morning!