How to max your vote under PR-STV

Cavehill Red

Handy guide to maximising the use of your vote under PR-STV here by a mate of mine:

http://skinflicks.blogspot.com/2011/02/jc-skinners-guide-to-pr-stv-tactical.html

Hopefully it'll help anyone who's unsure how to tactically vote under our electoral system.

SugarHigh

This is beyond stupid.

5. Consider saving the deposits of brave independents who have no chance of winning a seat. They've done what you and I didn't have the stones to do - put their money and neck on the line, and tried to take on the big boys in a David and Goliath struggle that they cannot win, just to make their point. If there are two or three of these in your constituency, they'll be the first ones to be eliminated.

But if they get sufficient preferences, they'll at least get their deposit back. Once they are eliminated, your vote can then drop down to the candidates you actually want to see elected. So consider giving your number one to the brave independent with no chance of election. It costs you nothing, voting wise, as your vote will remain in play. But it could save them their money.

Also there is nothing wrong with voting locally if that is what you wish to do,

. Don't think locally - think nationally. These are Dail elections, not a popularity X-factor vote on which gombeen is most likely to fix the road. Currently, this means your choice is between three options - Fine Gael, Fine Gael and Labour, or Fine Gael minority with Independent support. (Fine Gael and Green or Fine Gael and Sinn Fein are both extremely unlikely, and anything involving Fianna Fail is a non-runner.)

It isn't so much a guide on voting tactically it's a guide on voting for who this guy wants you to. This guy clearly wants people to vote for SF/Independents and that's what most of the article is trying to make you do.

Cavehill Red

SugarHigh wrote: »

This is beyond stupid.

Not at all. Voting an independent with no chance of election no. 1 then proceeding according to your own preferences doesn't change your vote in the slightest, but it may save that independent's deposit, therefore encouraging others to be brave enough to go forward for election.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Also there is nothing wrong with voting locally if that is what you wish to do,

Unfortunately, our multi-seat constituency system encourages parish-pump politics. People need to realise that's relevant at council level, not at Dail Eireann.

SugarHigh wrote: »

t isn't so much a guide on voting tactically it's a guide on voting for who this guy wants you to. This guy clearly wants people to vote for SF/Independents and that's what most of the article is trying to make you do.

I know for a fact he's actually a Labour voter! Yeah, there's an anti-FF bias in there, but otherwise it seems a perfectly good guide on how to make your vote work hardest for you.

Inquitus

This is nonsense, you should give no preference to anyone you dont want to see elected. Not start at 12 and work your way up.

Stabshauptmann

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not at all. Voting an independent with no chance of election no. 1 then proceeding according to your own preferences doesn't change your vote in the slightest.

Wow.

And what if everyone followed this advice? We'd have a Dail full of the least likely candidates!

People, this is like filling in your CAO. Its not about likely outcomes, put your preferences down in the order you want to see them elected.

Cavehill Red

Inquitus wrote: »

This is nonsense, you should give no preference to anyone you dont want to see elected. Not start at 12 and work your way up.

Not if you want to maximise the work your vote does. You can vote 1,2,3 and stop if you want. You could even pretend it's first past the post and just put an X next to one name. But that way, you're not utilising your vote to the greatest possible extent, it seems to me. Of course, not everyone wants to maximise the use of their vote. Party apparatchiks, or tribalists, for example. But for the average voter, working all the way through the ballot is a great way to ensure their voice is heard to the greatest possible extent.

Cavehill Red

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Wow.

And what if everyone followed this advice?

Then they wouldn't have no chance of being elected and this advice wouldn't apply? There's a category difference between an Independent like Shane Ross in Dublin South and some unemployed fella. Shane Ross is almost definitely going to be elected. The unemployed lad is 66/1 minimum at the bookies. If people do their homework, they can easily know which candidates they can spare a preference for, I'd have thought.

SugarHigh

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not at all. Voting an independent with no chance of election no. 1 then proceeding according to your own preferences doesn't change your vote in the slightest, but it may save that independent's deposit, therefore encouraging others to be brave enough to go forward for election.

I am voting for who I want to elect not to save someone cash. If enough people did this that no hoper would in fact get elected.

Unfortunately, our multi-seat constituency system encourages parish-pump politics. People need to realise that's relevant at council level, not at Dail Eireann.

There is nothing wrong with voting locally.
If I care about services in my area and believe a certain TD can get those services why shouldn't I vote for them?
It's not as simple as saying voting nationally = good voting and voting locally = bad voting.

It's simply a preference.

Cavehill Red

SugarHigh wrote: »

I am voting for who I want to elect not to save someone cash. If enough people did this that no hoper would in fact get elected.

And if you gave your no 2 to that person, they'll still get your vote after it's transferred down from the no hoper. By definition, a no hoper isn't getting elected. Otherwise, they'd be a hoper, no?

SugarHigh wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with voting locally.
If I care about services in my area and believe a certain TD can get those services why shouldn't I vote for them?
It's not as simple as saying voting nationally = good voting and voting locally = bad voting.
It's simply a preference.

At council level, you're spot on. But these are Dail elections. Your local hospital won't be saved by voting in a Healy-Rae. It'll only be saved if you vote for the party with the health policies that will preserve that hospital.
But what good is keeping your hospital open if the cost is the further collapse of the economy? After all, we've had two governments in a row held to ransom by independent parish pumpers and much good it did us.
It's time people learnt the difference between national elections and council elections, I think.

Zubeneschamali

Some of this is good: vote all your preferences, good at the top, bad right at the bottom.

The tactical stuff is not so good. If you favour a party, they may have a vote management plan in place. You voting tactically according to this guide will not necessarily help the party.

Voting for independents to save their deposits? Why? I don't want a lot of independents in the Dail, why should I encourage them?

SugarHigh

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And if you gave your no 2 to that person, they'll still get your vote after it's transferred down from the no hoper. By definition, a no hoper isn't getting elected. Otherwise, they'd be a hoper, no?

They may appear to be a no hoper but if enough people followed your stupid advice they would get elected not because people agree with their policies but because people wanted to save them some cash. It's one of the worst reasons I have ever heard for voting for someone.

At council level, you're spot on. But these are Dail elections. Your local hospital won't be saved by voting in a Healy-Rae. It'll only be saved if you vote for the party with the health policies that will preserve that hospital.
But what good is keeping your hospital open if the cost is the further collapse of the economy? After all, we've had two governments in a row held to ransom by independent parish pumpers and much good it did us.
.

Again national voting is simply your preference. It doesn't make your vote more valid it isn't making more use of your vote like the blog post suggests.

It's time people learnt the difference between national elections and council elections, I think

You are still voting for a local representative in the dail. They can have sway in favor of your area if they are influential enough, If you want to put your locality ahead of the national interest that is completely your choice and has nothing to do with making the most of your vote.


You and the person who wrote that blog(Possibly you again) are saying that people who agree with your opinions are making the most of their vote and people nwho disagree are simply wasting it. It's a rediclous viewpoint and a pointless blog post because of how biased it is. It would be like me writing an article on how to get the cheapest car insurance and then simply saying "Go with quinn"

SugarHigh

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Some of this is good: vote all your preferences, good at the top, bad right at the bottom.

The tactical stuff is not so good. If you favour a party, they may have a vote management plan in place. You voting tactically according to this guide will not necessarily help the party.

Voting for independents to save their deposits? Why? I don't want a lot of independents in the Dail, why should I encourage them?

The good parts of the blog posts are simply stating the obvious. The rest is just biased rubbish.

Cavehill Red

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Some of this is good: vote all your preferences, good at the top, bad right at the bottom.

The tactical stuff is not so good. If you favour a party, they may have a vote management plan in place. You voting tactically according to this guide will not necessarily help the party.

I agree with that, and that's how I'll be voting. But I suppose my mate's trying to present all the options of tactical voting open under this system. I'd take what he's saying as an a la cart type of thing. Use what applies and disregard the rest. You could be a while working out your vote if you tried to implement all of it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Voting for independents to save their deposits? Why? I don't want a lot of independents in the Dail, why should I encourage them?

The argument seems to be to encourage a healthy democracy. I agree that it's healthy to have as many options as possible on the ballot paper, but I've always been opposed to the idea of the deposit anyway. I remember Deirdre de Burca losing a no-chance election in Europe, and I spoke to her afterwards and she was down a fortune.
Now, I've no evidence of this, but I reckon she only ran because she had been given the nod that she'd get a gig from the government. It certainly seemed like that later on, when she went postal over not getting a gig in Go-go Quinn's Euro-cabinet.
The deposit system favours parties and the rich Independents like Shane Ross or Jackie Healy-Rae. It's not actually a level playing field. So what if there are forty names on the ballot paper? I don't have a problem with that, personally. Let them all run and let them all put their platforms out there for the public, I reckon.

Cavehill Red

SugarHigh wrote: »

They may appear to be a no hoper but if enough people followed your stupid advice they would get elected not because people agree with their policies but because people wanted to save them some cash. It's one of the worst reasons I have ever heard for voting for someone.

It's not my advice. And you seem to miss the logic that if enough people did it, they wouldn't be a no hoper and therefore it wouldn't apply.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Again national voting is simply your preference. It doesn't make your vote more valid it isn't making more use of your vote like the blog post suggests.

You are still voting for a local representative in the dail. They can have sway in favor of your area if they are influential enough, If you want to put your locality ahead of the national interest that is completely your choice and has nothing to do with making the most of your vote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsnLyHKWtrg

Says it better than I could.

SugarHigh wrote: »

You and the person who wrote that blog(Possibly you again) are saying that people who agree with your opinions are making the most of their vote and people nwho disagree are simply wasting it. It's a rediclous viewpoint and a pointless blog post because of how biased it is. It would be like me writing an article on how to get the cheapest car insurance and then simply saying "Go with quinn"

Not at all. He's very anti-FF. But a FF voter could easily adapt what he's saying to maximise their vote.

SugarHigh

Isn't the deposit €500?

It really isn't that much compared to how much they will spend publicising their campaign. I agree wealth does give an unfair advantage but your solution isn't a good one.

Mountjoy Mugger

So to sum it up, we're to give our No. 1 to the Independent but make sure not to think locally, but nationally. Right!

SugarHigh

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's not my advice. And you seem to miss the logic that if enough people did it, they wouldn't be a no hoper and therefore it wouldn't apply.

But you only find this out after they have been elected. SO you have just elected someone that you didn't want to simply because you wanted to save them money.

Says it better than I could.

Having a national preference over a local preference does not maximise your vote. I'm not sure how that video showed otherwise.

SugarHigh

Mountjoy Mugger wrote: »

So to sum it up, we're to give our No. 1 to the Independent but make sure not to think locally, but nationally. Right!

Yes and this will maximise your vote because it agree with the writers preferences.:D

Also don't forget to not vote for FF because that isn't making the maximum use of your vote.:D

The whole blog post is basically saying "agree with my points of view or you are wasting your vote".

Just for the record I am not voting locally or voting FF. I am simply saying that the claim doing so is somehow not making the maximum use of your vote is biased rubbish.

Cavehill Red

SugarHigh wrote: »

Isn't the deposit €500?

It really isn't that much compared to how much they will spend publicising their campaign. I agree wealth does give an unfair advantage but your solution isn't a good one.

My solution would be to eradicate the deposit system entirely, as I just said. Why have a systemic disincentive anyway? 500 quid is a load of money for someone on the dole. Should they therefore be prevented from running?
In any case, I don't personally see a problem with the suggestion of sparing a single preference for a decent no-hoper candidate, be they independent, or Fis Nua, or Fianna Fail or whatever.

Cavehill Red

Mountjoy Mugger wrote: »

So to sum it up, we're to give our No. 1 to the Independent but make sure not to think locally, but nationally. Right!

Plenty of Independents aren't parish pumpers. I don't think Shane Ross will fall into that category, for example.
In any case, as I said, I'd see it as an a la cart list of things you can do to make your vote work hard. For me, thinking nationally rather than locally would be more important than sparing an independent's deposit. Someone else might think differently, Sugarhigh for example.

Cavehill Red

SugarHigh wrote: »

But you only find this out after they have been elected. SO you have just elected someone that you didn't want to simply because you wanted to save them money.

If you've done your homework, you know who's got a chance and who has no hope. I can categorically state now that there are at least five candidates here in Dub Central who will not get elected. And I could go out and put any one of them top of my ballot in sure knowledge that it won't make a blind bit of difference to their chances of election. But the threshold for sparing a deposit is much lower, so I could see how it might save their deposit. Probably, it wouldn't even do that. In any case, I have other agendas than sparing an independent 500 quid with my 1st preference. But I can see the point that it would encourage more people to run.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Having a national preference over a local preference does not maximise your vote. I'm not sure how that video showed otherwise.

Wasn't your argument that you should vote for the local candidate to get local services before considering the state of the nation? So's his.

SugarHigh

Cavehill Red wrote: »

My solution would be to eradicate the deposit system entirely, as I just said. Why have a systemic disincentive anyway? 500 quid is a load of money for someone on the dole. Should they therefore be prevented from running?
In any case,

They simply have to do a fundraiser campaign. If they can't do this than what chance would they have of getting elected anyway?

If the €500 is too much than you aren't going to be able to afford to run a successful campaign. Posters are something like €6 each.

If you don't have a €500 deposit you could end up with 100's of people who haven't proven they are serious just having a go. This would make the administration of an election a bigger nightmare than it already is. Not to mention it would divide the vote so much quotas would be quite small and the majority of people may not have voted for the elected candidate.

I don't personally see a problem with the suggestion of sparing a single preference for a decent no-hoper candidate, be they independent, or Fis Nua, or Fianna Fail or whatever.

By all means if you agree with their policies vote for them but not because you want to save someone money.

SugarHigh

Cavehill Red wrote: »

For me, thinking nationally rather than locally would be more important than sparing an independent's deposit. Someone else might think differently, Sugarhigh for example.

This doesn't make any sense.
I never said I vote locally I simply said that doing so is not wasting your vote like you claim. It is simply stating your preference on your ballot sheet. You are also the one suggesting to vote for independents to save them money, not me. Which is what your badly constructed sentence implies.

SugarHigh

Cavehill Red wrote: »

If you've done your homework, you know who's got a chance and who has no hope. I can categorically state now that there are at least five candidates here in Dub Central who will not get elected. And I could go out and put any one of them top of my ballot in sure knowledge that it won't make a blind bit of difference to their chances of election. But the threshold for sparing a deposit is much lower, so I could see how it might save their deposit. Probably, it wouldn't even do that. In any case, I have other agendas than sparing an independent 500 quid with my 1st preference. But I can see the point that it would encourage more people to run.

Do you not understand that if everyone decided to vote for the least likely candidate(Based on earlier polls) they would in fact get elected in the vote that matters?

Wasn't your argument that you should vote for the local candidate to get local services before considering the state of the nation? So's his.

My argument was that doing so is not wasting your vote because you are showing your preference which is the whole point of the vote in the first place.

Voting nationally is not maximising your vote you are simply showing your preference.
Voting locally is not maximising your vote you are simply showing your preference.

Why is this so complicated to you? Someone voting differently to you does not mean they are wasting their vote.

Dodge

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Unfortunately, our multi-seat constituency system encourages parish-pump politics. People need to realise that's relevant at council level, not at Dail Eireann.

blog

Consider saving the deposits of brave independents who have no chance of winning a seat. They've done what you and I didn't have the stones to do - put their money and neck on the line, and tried to take on the big boys in a David and Goliath struggle that they cannot win, just to make their point.

So how would the indies survive in any other system? Your blog, soprry your mate's blog that you're defending vehemently, is full of contradictions like this.

Cavehill Red

SugarHigh wrote: »

They simply have to do a fundraiser campaign. If they can't do this than what chance would they have of getting elected anyway?

If the €500 is too much than you aren't going to be able to afford to run a successful campaign. Posters are something like €6 each.

If you don't have a €500 deposit you could end up with 100's of people who haven't proven they are serious just having a go. This would make the administration of an election a bigger nightmare than it already is. Not to mention it would divide the vote so much quotas would be quite small and the majority of people may not have voted for the elected candidate.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with as many people running as want to run. That's true democracy in action. Plenty of people run without a hope of getting elected. They run to make a point, to represent a minor party in an area, to gain profile for future council elections, to raise a single issue in public awareness. All legitimate reasons, imho.

SugarHigh wrote: »

By all means if you agree with their policies vote for them but not because you want to save someone money.

Like I said, it's not a compelling motivation for me. But I can see the point being made.

Cavehill Red

SugarHigh wrote: »

This doesn't make any sense.
I never said I vote locally I simply said that doing so is not wasting your vote like you claim. It is simply stating your preference on your ballot sheet. You are also the one suggesting to vote for independents to save them money, not me. Which is what your badly constructed sentence implies.

I'm not suggesting it. It's one thing listed in a blogpost I thought might be of use to people, especially first time voters. Look at the amount of people confused about the much simpler AV system they're thinking of introducing in the UK. How to vote isn't taught in schools. I think it's useful for such tactics to be aired widely, whether individual ones are of interest to individuals like me or you or not.
As for voting locally, I do generally believe this is one of the problems with the malaise of politics in this country, along with voting tribally and not voting out of apathy.
The more people confuse a Dail election for a say-so about their own backyard, the longer we'll elect political representatives more concerned about protecting their backside in their constituency than doing the right thing for the nation.

SugarHigh

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm not suggesting it. It's one thing listed in a blogpost I thought might be of use to people, especially first time voters. Look at the amount of people confused about the much simpler AV system they're thinking of introducing in the UK. How to vote isn't taught in schools. I think it's useful for such tactics to be aired widely, whether individual ones are of interest to individuals like me or you or not.

As for voting locally, I do generally believe this is one of the problems with the malaise of politics in this country, along with voting tribally and not voting out of apathy.
The more people confuse a Dail election for a say-so about their own backyard, the longer we'll elect political representatives more concerned about protecting their backside in their constituency than doing the right thing for the nation.

Again this is just a preference. One I happen o agree with but it has NOTHING to do with maximising your vote. People who disagree and vote for different reasons to you are not wasting their vote. It shows your incredible arrogance and strong bias that you seem to think it does.

Your "friends" blog post tries to imply it does. It also tries to imply that voting for FF is somehow not making use of your vote.

Dodge

Cavehill Red wrote: »

How to vote isn't taught in schools

Was taught in my school. And most others I've spoke too about it.

Without bias too in fairness

Cavehill Red

SugarHigh wrote: »

Do you not understand that if everyone decided to vote for the least likely candidate(Based on earlier polls) they would in fact get elected in the vote that matters?

I've gone through your logic fail on this three times now. I refer you back to my previous answer. Liam Johnson of Fis Nua is not going to get elected in Dublin Central. There are at least another four candidates like him here, and hundreds more across the country. They aren't getting elected, simple as. One could consider as I do a vote for them to be a wasted vote, or you could consider a vote for them as a vote endorsing the fact they'd the balls to stand to help them try to save their deposit. I can see the point being made without putting it into practice.

SugarHigh wrote: »

My argument was that doing so is not wasting your vote because you are showing your preference which is the whole point of the vote in the first place.

In a first past the post system you show your preference. In PR-STV, you get more than one say and you can express a range of preferences.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Voting nationally is not maximising your vote you are simply showing your preference.
Voting locally is not maximising your vote you are simply showing your preference.

I think I made clear my position on the parish pump cancer in Irish politics in the post above.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Why is this so complicated to you? Someone voting differently to you does not mean they are wasting their vote.

By that score, someone spoiling their ballot or not voting at all is expressing their preference and not wasting their vote. Voting X isn't wasting a vote. But to vote maximally, you do need to go down through the whole ballot to be sure that your vote will achieve as much as possible for you.

Cavehill Red

SugarHigh wrote: »

Again this is just a preference. One I happen o agree with but it has NOTHING to do with maximising your vote. People who disagree and vote for different reasons to you are not wasting their vote. It shows your incredible arrogance and strong bias that you seem to think it does.

Your "friends" blog post tries to imply it does. It also tries to imply that voting for FF is somehow not making use of your vote.

That's a very good point. I guess his anti-FF bias is showing there.
Can I just clarify for you - it's not my blog. I've been accused of writing it before when I've shared a link to it. I do agree with lots said on it, but certainly not everything.
The confusion seems to stem from my username here and his email address. It's a tag I used on an online footie game, which he nicked for his email.

SugarHigh

Isn't there a way of not having to pay the €500 if you can get 30 signatures or something. If someone isn't capable of that then they don't deserve to run.

Cavehill Red

SugarHigh wrote: »

Isn't there a way of not having to pay the €500 if you can get 30 signatures or something. If someone isn't capable of that then they don't deserve to run.

I thought they'd brought in something like that around the millennium alright.