Our weird and wonderful PR system

Madd Finn

I LOVE the mechanics of our electoral system. It's like waiting for the results of X-Faxtor or the Eurovision without having to watch any of the drivel that makes up the contestants' performances in either of those Scmhaltz-fests.


I also firmly believe that Irish people are perfectly happy with it and understand how it works sufficiently to have faith in it. Way better than the ridiculous first past the post system that leads to political bipolar disorder in such self--styled bastions of democracy like the UK and US.

But I am slightly confused by the counting in the Dublin Euro constituency.

I always thought that if a candidate exceeds the quota on any count, his or her surplus is then distributed before any further candidates are eliminated from the bottom. But that is not what seemed to happen in Dublin today. (As I write a recount has been called for).

It would appear that although Lynn Boylan (SF) was elected on the third count, her surplus was not distributed until the seventh count, ie not until another three candidates had been eliminated.

Why weren't her surplus votes distributed first?

Godge

Madd Finn wrote: »

I LOVE the mechanics of our electoral system. It's like waiting for the results of X-Faxtor or the Eurovision without having to watch any of the drivel that makes up the contestants' performances in either of those Scmhaltz-fests.


I also firmly believe that Irish people are perfectly happy with it and understand how it works sufficiently to have faith in it. Way better than the ridiculous first past the post system that leads to political bipolar disorder in such self--styled bastions of democracy like the UK and US.

But I am slightly confused by the counting in the Dublin Euro constituency.

I always thought that if a candidate exceeds the quota on any count, his or her surplus is then distributed before any further candidates are eliminated from the bottom. But that is not what seemed to happen in Dublin today. (As I write a recount has been called for).

It would appear that although Lynn Boylan (SF) was elected on the third count, her surplus was not distributed until the seventh count, ie not until another three candidates had been eliminated.

Why weren't her surplus votes distributed first?

Because her surplus votes were insufficient to affect the count.

For example, if you have a surplus of 1,000 votes and the gap between the lowest two candidates is 1,001, then even if all of your surplus votes go to the last candidate he will not catch the second-last candidate. Also if everyone else is more than 1,000 short of the quota, your surplus votes will not elect anyone. Therefore the returning officer eliminates the last candidate.

On the other hand, if you look at the South, Crowley's surplus is enough to elect half of the other candidates and change the position of the rest, so it is being distributed.

Scofflaw

Godge wrote: »

Because her surplus votes were insufficient to affect the count.

For example, if you have a surplus of 1,000 votes and the gap between the lowest two candidates is 1,001, then even if all of your surplus votes go to the last candidate he will not catch the second-last candidate. Also if everyone else is more than 1,000 short of the quota, your surplus votes will not elect anyone. Therefore the returning officer eliminates the last candidate.

On the other hand, if you look at the South, Crowley's surplus is enough to elect half of the other candidates and change the position of the rest, so it is being distributed.

Which means that surpluses may not be distributed at all if they won't at any point materially affect the results.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which means that surpluses may not be distributed at all if they won't at any point materially affect the results.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Correct, Lynn Boylan's surplus was only distributed because of the closeness of the race behind her. If Childers and Hayes had been further ahead of Ryan, her surplus would never have been distributed.

gizmo555

Distribution of votes even where it cannot affect the outcome may also occur if it could decide whether or not a candidate can claim state reimbursement of expenses.

If you reach 1/4 of a quota you can claim this payment.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

For example, if you have a surplus of 1,000 votes and the gap between the lowest two candidates is 1,001, then even if all of your surplus votes go to the last candidate he will not catch the second-last candidate.

A perfect illustration of this is the situation that lead the the recheck of ballots in the Midlands-North-West constituency. There are 275 votes between Harkin & Gallagher while Ming's surplus is 271 and remains undistributed.

Riskymove

antoobrien wrote: »

A perfect illustration of this is the situation that lead the the recheck of ballots in the Midlands-North-West constituency. There are 275 votes between Harkin & Gallagher while Ming's surplus is 271 and remains undistributed.

interesting

so if after a recount the gap reduces below 271 they will have to distribute

antoobrien

Riskymove wrote: »

interesting

so if after a recount the gap reduces below 271 they will have to distribute

Presumably, but I'd wager that if there is any changes to the number of votes that would narrow the gap will result in a full recount.

Colm R

How are votes selected in the case of a surplus? I've heard different opinions on this. Taking Mings 271 votes for example if they are needed, is it:

1. All of Mings No. 2 preferences are counted and then the 271 surplus are split according to a proportion of all of Mings No. 2s?

2. A random sample of Mings first preference is taken, and his numbers 2s are then counted?

3. Some other mechanism?

Godge

Colm R wrote: »

How are votes selected in the case of a surplus? I've heard different opinions on this. Taking Mings 271 votes for example if they are needed, is it:

1. All of Mings No. 2 preferences are counted and then the 271 surplus are split according to a proportion of all of Mings No. 2s?

No

Colm R wrote: »

2. A random sample of Mings first preference is taken, and his numbers 2s are then counted?

No

Colm R wrote: »

3. Some other mechanism?

Yes.

In Ming's case he did not reach the quota on the first count, he reached the quota on the second count. The second count saw the elimination of fringe candidates Deary, Gilroy, Fitzsimons, Fay and Nic Fhearraigh.

It was their second preferences that elected Ming.

If Ming's surplus is needed in the count, it is the last bundle of votes given to him - the ones that got him elected on the second count - which will be ones examined to determine his surplus.

This means that if you voted 1 Ming, 2 somebody else, you will have no say in how the surplus is distributed. If you voted 1 Gilroy, 2 Ming, 3 Carthy, you will end up having a say in how Ming's surplus is distributed.

Given the way in which the election is organised i.e. pencil ballots and counting by hand, there is no way of practically organising the count differently and taking into account the views of all of Ming's first preferences. Of course, an electronic count would be well able to handle this.

Riskymove

and also...anyone who voted Pat the Cope #1 will have no say at all if he is the last eliminated

gizmo555

Godge wrote: »

Of course, an electronic count would be well able to handle this.

Ridiculously enough, the scrapped evoting system was designed to replicate the manual count including, for example, random selection of transferred surpluses.

As you say, it would have been trivially easy to do it accurately by transferring fractional votes, as I believe is done in the Senate elections.

The Franchise Section of the Dept of the Environment in its wisdom deliberately chose to keep a less accurate representation of the people's choice.

Colm R

Godge wrote: »

No

In Ming's case he did not reach the quota on the first count, he reached the quota on the second count. The second count saw the elimination of fringe candidates Deary, Gilroy, Fitzsimons, Fay and Nic Fhearraigh.

It was their second preferences that elected Ming.

If Ming's surplus is needed in the count, it is the last bundle of votes given to him - the ones that got him elected on the second count - which will be ones examined to determine his surplus.

This means that if you voted 1 Ming, 2 somebody else, you will have no say in how the surplus is distributed. If you voted 1 Gilroy, 2 Ming, 3 Carthy, you will end up having a say in how Ming's surplus is distributed.

Given the way in which the election is organised i.e. pencil ballots and counting by hand, there is no way of practically organising the count differently and taking into account the views of all of Ming's first preferences. Of course, an electronic count would be well able to handle this.

Thanks for that.

So in the distribution of Mings surplus, they counted Deary, Gilroy, Fitzsimons, Fay and Nic Fhearraigh 3rd choice.

There is nothing wrong per se with that - but I just think it odd that these peoples 3rd choice carries more sway over the No 2 choice of Mings first prefenence votes. But anyway, I'm more interested in how it works currently, rather than how it should work, so I have two further questions:


1. In the case Crowley in the South, he came in well over the surplus on the first count. So all his surplus can be allocated according to their second preference - but how is this done - are all his 2nd preferences counted and then the number of votes over an above the quota split proportionally - or are the number of votes over an above the quota selected randomly to be counted.


2. In the case of elimination - in the first count, thats easy. All of an eliminated candidates votes are allocated according to preference. However, say a candidate is not eliminated in the first count, and then receives some more votes in the second count but not enough and is hence eliminated. Are this candidates 1st preference votes the only ones to be distributed, or are the third preferences where this candidate was a second preference also distributed.

I hope I explained the question clearly - its confusing to type.

Riskymove

Colm R wrote: »

but I just think it odd that these peoples 3rd choice carries more sway over the No 2 choice of Mings first prefenence votes.

they don't.... everyone has one equal "transferable" vote

but how is this done - are all his 2nd preferences counted

No - afaik it's a random sample equal to his surplus

Are this candidates 1st preference votes the only ones to be distributed, or are the third preferences where this candidate was a second preference also distributed.

all his votes are examined and transferred where relevant

echo beach

Colm R wrote: »

There is nothing wrong per se with that - but I just think it odd that these peoples 3rd choice carries more sway over the No 2 choice of Mings first prefenence votes.

Each vote can only be used to elect one person. All the votes of the people who gave Ming no 1 were needed to elect him. None of those votes were surplus or extra.
Some people who who voted Gilroy no 1, Ming no2, didn't have their vote used to elect Gilroy and it wasn't needed to elect Ming who had enough votes so it goes to their third preference, say Carthy, and does count to elect him.

It is their third choice but it is the first chance for their vote to elect somebody, while those who gave Ming no 1 have already had their votes 'used up' so to speak. They had their say in electing one candidate so it would be unfair to give them another say with their second preference.

Colm R

echo beach wrote: »

Each vote can only be used to elect one person. All the votes of the people who gave Ming no 1 were needed to elect him. None of those votes were surplus or extra.
Some people who who voted Gilroy no 1, Ming no2, didn't have their vote used to elect Gilroy and it wasn't needed to elect Ming who had enough votes so it goes to their third preference, say Carthy, and does count to elect him.

It is their third choice but it is the first chance for their vote to elect somebody, while those who gave Ming no 1 have already had their votes 'used up' so to speak. They had their say in electing one candidate so it would be unfair to give them another say with their second preference.

When you put it like that, it makes sense. Cheers

oscarBravo

echo beach wrote: »

Each vote can only be used to elect one person.

That's quite possibly the best, most succinct definition of PR-STV I've ever seen.

echo beach

Colm R wrote: »

When you put it like that, it makes sense. Cheers

You're welcome. Because the STV method of PR that we use is complex it is easy to lose sight of the underlying logic and sense behind it.

hardCopy

This is a fantastic thread

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

and also...anyone who voted Pat the Cope #1 will have no say at all if he is the last eliminated

Well, no. If he's eliminated, then his votes are being transferred somewhere. If he's not elected but not eliminated because his votes on transfer wouldn't make any difference, then, yes, those people's votes have failed to get anyone elected.

cordially,
Scofflaw

echo beach

Scofflaw wrote: »

If he's not elected but not eliminated because his votes on transfer wouldn't make any difference, then, yes, those people's votes have failed to get anyone elected.

I have a fear of my vote becoming non-transferable and so not counting and for that reason I express a lot of preferences, usually marking the full ballot to be on the safe side.
However it has happened a couple of times that after I have carefully considered every candidate and voted accordingly my number 1 choice has hung in until the every end, like Pat the Cope, before losing out on the last seat. I felt slightly cheated but accept that I still played my part.