PRSTV - Our voting system explained

Brussels Sprout

The general election is on this Saturday, so I’d like to write a relatively basic explainer on how our voting system (PR-STV) works. I know from talking to friends and family that it confuses a lot of people. I’m going to try to explain it without using any maths or too much technical jargon. I will then finish up with addressing some common questions and comments that I hear.

I’m placing this in After Hours rather than say, the politics forum, as I want this to be seen by a wider audience.


The STV in PR-STV stands for Single Transferrable Vote and that is what we have in a nutshell. Let me explain.

Single

This is not the Eurovision. When you rank your preferences, they don’t all get varying levels of vote scores depending on what number preference you gave them. At any one time your vote can only be counted for a single candidate. At the count centre this is done by physically placing your ballot paper into a pile along with all of the other votes for that candidate. On the first count this will be dictated by whoever you gave your #1 preference to. At that stage, they don’t even look at the rest of the numbers that you have written down so all that matters at this point is your #1. For this reason, your #1 preference is significantly more important than your lower preferences. At the end of the first count, candidates will begin to be either elected or eliminated from the process and that’s when the transfers kick in.

Transferable

In every constituency there will be a magical number that represents the number of votes that a candidate needs to be elected. This is known as The Quota. The actual value of this depends on how many people voted in the constituency and the number of seats on offer. It’ll be a different number in each constituency but it’s typically around the 11,000 mark. If any candidate gets more votes than the quota after any count, then they’re elected. If, on the other hand, nobody has reached the quota then the candidate with the lowest vote total is eliminated. In both of these scenarios votes will subsequently be transferred. Let’s look at these in turn:

When a candidate is eliminated:
The people in the count centre will go through all the ballots in the eliminated candidates pile and look for the next, lower numbered preference who is still in the race (ie not already eliminated or elected). They will then physically take that ballot and transfer it into the pile of that next numbered candidate, which adds to their vote total. If they don’t find any further preferences who can be transferred to on a ballot then the vote is effectively dead (The technical term is Non-Transferable and it’s a shame when this happens as that voter has lost their power to elect anyone else with their ballot).

When a candidate is elected:
When a candidate is elected only some of their votes are transferred (usually a small fraction). Imagine the quota is 10,000 votes and the candidate has 12,000 votes after a count has been completed. The rule is that a candidate only needs the quota number of votes to be elected. That means that they can afford to give away their excess votes to other candidates. In this example 2,000 of their votes will be transferred. Which 2,000 votes of their 12,000 are chosen to be transferred is frankly beyond the scope of this explainer.

The counts and transfers continue until all the seats have been allocated.

I want to finish by addressing some common questions or comments that I have heard over the years:

I would like to vote for a candidate from Party XYZ but I know that she has no hope of being elected. Am I wasting my vote?

No. In this scenario give that candidate your #1 but be sure to continue your preferences for other candidates. When your #1 candidate is eliminated your vote will transfer to your #2 preference (or your #3 if your #2 has alreaady been eliminated or elected).

I really hate that candidate from party QRS. How do I make certain that I don't help to elect them by accident?

If there is a candidate or candidates that you want to be sure that your vote will never transfer to you can simply not give them a preference. If it's just a single candidate then giving them your final preference will have the same affect.

I like that candidate. I'm thinking of giving him a vote, either my #3 or #4

This is a common misconception that I hear a lot. As explained already you don't have multiple votes. You do have multiple preferences but it's unlikely that your #3 or #4 preference is going to help a candidate. This is because the majority of ballot papers are not transferred beyond the #1 preference. This is because they either end up helping the #1 choice to get elected or the #1 choice is the final candidate to be eliminated on the final count and the ballot is not transferred.
The thing is though that when they do transfer they are very important and for this reason you should always have plenty of lower preferences. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that they'll be used most of the time. This is the reason why the #1 preference is so massively important and why candidates explicitly ask for it.


I could write a lot more about this but this post has already gotten way longer than I wanted. I can answer any follow up questions in the thread below. My hope is that this will have helped people to understand things a little better.

Ger Roe

Thanks for that, a very useful explanation. I never fully understood how it all works and I suspect very few people actually do.

Why is there not more official explanation of the actual vote process for every election?. Every house should get an instruction leaflet on how the system works.... we get all the carefully crafted party blurbs, but why no independent explanation of the complicated tactical vote opportunity that we are being asked to participate in - surely it should be sent out with the polling cards?

The politicians ensure that their messages are clear and understood with procedures in place to obtain appropriate media exposure for all their utterances, but no one seems too keen to actually explain how the vote process works.

In the end, they all like to defend their subsequent actions as 'the will of the people', but seeing as most people don't understand how the PR system works, how can the result be a realistic expression of their will? Would we not have more will, if more people knew how to use the process for maximum effect?

I think we have a very unique and very representative (if not complicated) voting system, but no attempt to explain to people how best to use it.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Would still love an explanation on the way a surplus is allocated. Are all votes counted to determine the ratio, or just the number over the quota?

Collie D

I believe the allocation of surplus votes is a random subset.

EDIT: Correct method given a few posts down

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Collie D wrote: »

I believe the allocation of surplus votes is a random subset.

That was always my fear, as then the "every vote counts" kind of falls down.

Allinall

Collie D wrote: »

I believe the allocation of surplus votes is a random subset.

As far as I know, this is the case.

It is the one flaw in an otherwise excellent system.

Having said that, I have no idea as to how it can be any different.

Hodors Appletart

It's not

they count all the votes again, this time counting the 2nd prefs then allocating a % of the surplus equal to that number from the total

for example

Candidate 1 is elected with 2k surplus

they count the #2 on all 12k voted

then distribute the 2k based on the breakdown

Cand 2 - 20%
Cand 3 - 15%
Cand 4 - 45%
Cand 5 - 20%

like that, they'd get a % of the 2k allocated to them in that pattern

https://www.thejournal.ie/how-does-prstv-work-2619448-Feb2016/

Surplus votes

If a candidate receives more than the quota on any count, the surplus votes are transferred to the remaining candidates in proportion to the next available preferences indicated by voters.

Citizens Information has given this breakdown as an example:

If candidate A receives 900 votes more than the quota on the first count and, on examining their votes, it is found that 30% of these have next available preferences for candidate B, then candidate B does not get 30% of all candidate A’s votes, candidate B gets 30% of A’s surplus, that is, 270 votes (30% of 900).

L1011

Wayne Icy Grocery wrote: »

Would still love an explanation on the way a surplus is allocated. Are all votes counted to determine the ratio, or just the number over the quota?

Surplus on first count - ratio of the full count. This ratio is only for the second preference, not the third and subsequent so when they actually randomly pick the ballots to move over you could end up with quite different results each time

Surplus on second or subsequent counts - random selection from the last bundle transferred in (as any surplus on a subsequent count will have come from transfers)

Seanad elections and Northern Ireland can have fractional transfers (Seanad has such few votes they multiply each vote by 1000 to make this look saner!); they're not used in ROI except the Seanad.

Collie D

I stand corrected. Something I have always thought sounded like a major flaw.

Donnielighto

Allinall wrote: »

As far as I know, this is the case.

It is the one flaw in an otherwise excellent system.

Having said that, I have no idea as to how it can be any different.

Electronic ones could do it better but then youve a whole other set of issues that crop up. Happy with the current setup.

2ygb4cmqetsjhx

Votes Surplus to the quota are randomly distributed. So there is an element of randomness in our elections. An alternative would be to transfer all the votes at a fraction of the value as done in australia.

seamus

Every day is a school day. I didn't know there were special rules for the surplus after the first count.

It doesn't really affect the "every vote counts" bit, but it would certainly be interesting to see if a material difference comes from this redistribution versus a random selection of surplus votes after the first count.

I can see the logic behind it. There's a potential for statistical anomaly.

For example, if we imagine that there are 1,000 votes to be redistributed and two candidates left to take them. The actual #2's on the ballots fall 55:45 in favour of candidate A versus candidate B.

If the 1,000 surplus is redistributed according to ratios, candidate A takes 550 votes, B takes 450.

If 1,000 votes were to be randomly selected as the surplus, then the #2 on those randomly selected ballots could easily go 2:3 in favour of candidate B (or 7:3 in favour of A)

This would result in an outcome that's actually not representative of the votes that were cast.

Salary Negotiator

Is it possible to view the count if you're not in any connected to a party or candidate?

Can I turn up at the count center and get in for a look?

L1011

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Is it possible to view the count if you're not in any connected to a party or candidate?

Can I turn up at the count center and get in for a look?

You need a count centre ticket which is only usually available for candidates/parties and media.

Better Than Christ

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Is it possible to view the count if you're not in any connected to a party or candidate?

Can I turn up at the count center and get in for a look?

It varies from constituency to constituency. It's possible in Wicklow (the count centre is in Shoreline leisure centre in Greystones). I wandered in for a look back in 2011 and 2016 and nobody stopped me.

Salary Negotiator

L1011 wrote: »

You need a count centre ticket which is only usually available for candidates/parties and media.

Thought that'd be the case. It'd be interesting to see it all in action.

Ger Roe

L1011 wrote: »

You need a count centre ticket which is only usually available for candidates/parties and media.

The count centres are very much open to the public. You can go in for a look, but the actual ballot papers and counting staff are behind barriers. (maybe you need tickets to enter the actual counting area??) You can get as close as you want to the barriers, in fact that is how the tallymen operate. They crane their necks to see how high a particular pile of votes is and then work out how many papers might be in it.


It's your right to go and observe the count and it's a fascinating process to watch*



* May not be actually fascinating... a certain level of pre-admitted geekness may be required.

Salary Negotiator

Better Than Christ wrote: »

It varies from constituency to constituency. It's possible in Wicklow (the count centre is in Shoreline leisure centre in Greystones). I wandered in for a look back in 2011 and 2016 and nobody stopped me.

Ger Roe wrote: »

The count centres are very much open to the public. You can go in for a look, but the actual ballot papers and counting staff are behind barriers. (maybe you need tickets to enter the actual counting area??) You can get as close as you want to the barriers, in fact that is how the tallymen operate. They crane their necks to see how high a particular pile of votes is and then work out how many papers might be in it.


It's your right to go and observe the count and it's a fascinating process to watch*



* May not be actually fascinating... a certain level of pre-admitted geekness may be required.

Interesting, I might pop down to my local center then and see if I can get in.

L1011

Ger Roe wrote: »

The count centres are very much open to the public. You can go in for a look, but the actual ballot papers and counting staff are behind barriers. (maybe you need tickets to enter the actual counting area??) You can get as close as you want to the barriers, in fact that is how the tallymen operate. They crane their necks to see how high a particular pile of votes is and then work out how many papers might be in it.


It's your right to go and observe the count and it's a fascinating process to watch*



* May not be actually fascinating... a certain level of pre-admitted geekness may be required.

It must be down to the individual centre as you sure as hell aren't getting in to my local one without tickets; which were like hens teeth in May.

Ger Roe

Shoreline in Greystones is where I went for a look at the last election. It was great to see the process in action. I didn't realise that not every centre operates on a full public access basis. I would have thought that everyone should be treated equally and have the same opportunities to see democracy in action?

The Wicklow (Greystones) count takes place in a sports hall and the tiered stadium seating is set up so that you can sit down for a good gawk.

Larbre34

I've counted probably 20 PR elections over the years, so ask me anything.

My one wish (and I've said it to senior officials many times) is that in the run up to election day, a TV slot explaining the process from the voter point of view be arranged, visually going through what the OP explained and also detailing voters' rights and obligations on polling day.

From my experience I would note the following.

The Poll:

- It is numbers, not 'X's. You'd be amazed the % of spoiled votes are for that reason. I refer to my opening remark.

- If you choose to wilfully spoil your vote, like writing in' Dustin' or a political statement or a piece of carefully chosen prose, ain't nobody at the count that gives a f**k, it is set aside without a thought, so whose time have you wasted?

- It is NOT COMPULSORY to extend your preference to the whole ballot, i.e.numbering 1-10 on a ten person ballot. I refer again to my opening remark on voter education, but I have seen a No. 13 preference transfer count towards a candidate in my time, so if you don't like them, don't include them!

- cop on that if you aren't registered, you cannot under any circumstances vote, no matter how long you argue the point. The two most prevalent examples are; recent new citizens all delighted with themselves at the big ole harp tattoo on their ar5e and new found democracy, but haven't (or hasn't been explained to them) that they need to register before that years deadline. I've been accused if all sorts of fraud and fascism over that one. And Mummy and Daddy Proudfoot escorting newly turned 18 Jonny or Mary, who bring a passport to prove their new age of responsibility, but haven't registered them in time. A pig headed father is a difficult and tiring beast. Of course every effort must be made to locate the voters name, but if you aren't on the register, or the supplement to the register, or in another school / station, or on the Council database when they get the phone call to check, then sorry but you're out of luck today.

- the election this time around is on Saturday. The most useful thing about weekday elections are that it naturally spreads the demand - early commuters, creche dropoffs, old folk out of mass, lunchtime, drivetime, the soap operas (yes) the party animals on their way out etc. If this week everyone turns up 15 minutes before kickoff in the rugby or their favourite premier league match, there will be delays and queues and if busy enough you'll have to wait outside in February weather, so come early in the day and reward yourself with a nice croissant on the way home.

The Count:

- The system of counting and transfers has been well explained by other posters, but just to reiterate, it is scientific, it is meticulous and the element of random sampling does bear scrutiny and validity when recounts occur. Trust me, it is the most beautiful and enlightened system of truly representative democracy in the world.

- if you are an ordinary punter / voter and you want to visit the count centre to watch the process, I wouldn't dare stop you. Yes they can be packed and busy and a bit mental, but if the guy on the front door umms and ahhs, persist and ask for a supervisor to be let in to have a look around on the public side of the barriers, you are absolutely entitled to do so without needing to be a party grunt or a newshound.

And remember, vote early and vote often!! (honestly if i had a quid for the number of times I've heard that from punters down the years I'd have about €87.)

Brussels Sprout

Part 2: The Count

To show how the voting process outlined in my previous post feeds into the counting process I’m going to work through an example of an election from the first count all the way to the final count.
This post will include the detail that I omitted from my original post.

So the example is the Cork South-Central election from 2011. At this time the constituency was a 5-seater and the Quota was set at 10,674 votes. This figure is calculated by dividing the total number of valid votes by the number of seats +1 and adding 1 to the result. So (64040/(5 + 1)) + 1 = 10,674

Here's how the counts went:




Count 1
After counting all of the #1 preferences for each of the 17 candidates they ranged from 10,715 votes for Micheal Martin all the way down to 90 for Gerard Linehan . Since Micheal Martin exceeded the quota he was deemed elected and his surplus of 41 needed to then be transferred to other candidates. At this stage all of Martin’s votes are checked and sorted into different parcels based on who the #2 preference was. Any ballots that only had #1 preferences for Micheal Martin and nothing else are deemed Non-Transferrable and set aside. Given that there are 16 candidates remaining that means that there could be as many as 16 different parcels. The surplus of 41 votes is now divided between the remaining 16 candidates in proportion to how large each of the parcels are. This resulted in:

• Michael McGrath: +27 (It makes sense that McGrath gets the bulk of these as he’s Martin’s FF running-mate)
• Ciaran Lynch: +3
• Simon Coveney: +3
• Jerry Buttimer: +2
• Deirdre Clune: +2
• Chris O’ Leary: +1
• Paula Desmond: +1
• Mick Finn: +1
• Dan Boyle: +1

The actual ballots that are physically transferred in each case are taken from the top of each parcel. It should be noted that prior to counting, the ballots are randomised by mixing them up in a large box (about the size of a bath-tub). This adds a degree of randomness to ensure that all of the transferred ballots don’t originate from the same ballot boxes (which might favour one candidate or another for geographical reasons).

Count 2
After Martin’s surplus 41 votes are transferred to the other candidates nobody has exceeded the quota. At this stage what typically happens is the bottom placed candidate is eliminated and their votes are transferred. However an interesting scenario now occurs. The bottom 3 candidates (Linehan, O’Driscoll and Isherwood) combined vote count of 375 is still less than the 4th last candidate’s (Dunphy) current total of 448. This means that if they were eliminated one at a time and even if they transferred all of their votes to each other they wouldn’t be able to bridge the gap to Dunphy. In this scenario, in order to save time all 3 bottom candidates were eliminated and each of their ballots are transferred to their highest remaining (ie not Martin) preference. 14 of these were Non-Transferrable and the remaining 361 were transferred as follows:

• Mick Finn: +53
• Chris O’ Leary: +40
• David McCarthy: +37
• Sean Dunphy: +33
• Ciaran Lynch: +32
• Michael McGrath: +26
• Ted Neville: +24
• Paula Desmond: +23
• Diarmaid Ó Cadhla: +23
• Simon Coveney: +21
• Jerry Buttimer: +20
• Deirdre Clune: +20
• Dan Boyle: +9

Count 3
Nobody exceeds the quota. Dunphy remains in last place. He alone is eliminated and his 481 votes are transferred. Note that this includes the 33 votes that were transferred to him from the bottom 3 candidates in the previous count.

I’ll skip ahead now as the process doesn’t really change much for the next few counts…just the bottom candidate/candidates being eliminated and their votes being transferred.

Count 9
After the 8th count Labour’s Paula Desmond was eliminated and as expected the majority of her 4,127 votes transferred to her running mate Ciaran Lynch who received 2,644 of her transfers. Significantly this was enough to put him over the quota and he became the second candidate to get elected.
He now had a surplus of 1,891 ballots to be transferred. It’s important to note that these do not come from his original votes. They come from the batch of votes that were transferred to him from Paula Desmond. They way they do it is they examine the 2,644 votes and place them into different parcels for each of the remaining candidates. The 1,891 votes to be transferred are then transferred to the remaining candidates in proportion to the size of those parcels. This resulted in transfers of:

• Chris O’ Leary: +549
• Jerry Buttimer: +378
• Simon Coveney: +341
• Deirdre Clune: +326
• Michael McGrath: +273

Note: Those transfers don’t actually add up to 1,891 presumably because there wasn’t actually 1,891 transferable votes in the 2,644 parcel received from Desmond

Count 10
Lynch’s transfers put Coveney over the quota thereby giving him the third seat. His subsequent surplus of 198 votes isn’t enough to bridge the gap between Deirdre Clune and Chris O’ Leary in last place and so Clune is also eliminated at this time

Count 11
Not surprisingly the transfers from FG candidates Coveney and Clune disproportionately go to the remaining FG candidate Buttimer and he exceeds the quota and becomes the 4th candidate to be elected

Count 12
Buttimer’s surplus is distributed between the remaining 2 candidates. After this Chris O’Leary is eliminated and Michael McGrath takes the final seat without reaching the quota.

Muahahaha

Larbre34 wrote: »

- If you choose to wilfully spoil your vote, like writing in' Dustin' or a political statement or a piece of carefully chosen prose, ain't nobody at the count that gives a f**k, it is set aside without a thought, so whose time have you wasted?

Spoiling your vote isnt about wasting your time or anyone elses. I've done it myself once in the past and for me it was literally saying 'Im taking part in the democratic process but there isnt a single candidate here I feel good enough to vote for'.

Theres nothing wrong with spoiled votes, it is literally a way of saying to the body politic that they all need to up their game.If you feel the selection of candidates before you is not worth your vote then spoiling it is the best way to go rather than not voting at all because you've shown you've taken time out of your day to go register your dissatisfaction. Also if you later need help on some matter from a TD and you didnt vote in the previous election then they have ways of knowing this and are a lot less likely to help you. If you spoiled your vote all they know is that you showed up to vote.

- It is NOT COMPULSORY to extend your preference to the whole ballot, i.e.numbering 1-10 on a ten person ballot. I refer again to my opening remark on voter education, but I have seen a No. 13 preference transfer count towards a candidate in my time, so if you don't like them, don't include them!

If you exclude candidates from your vote then the chances of a candidate you do not like getting elected goes up, not down. It is counter intuitive and I dont know the maths behind it but a lad explained it very eloquently on one of the Presidential threads during the 2017 election. Alot of people were saying how they wouldnt be giving Peter Casey any vote but he explained how doing that would actually increase Caseys chance of getting elected. Its some sort of mathematical quirk but what he was saying made sense and Ive since read political science articles outlining the same concept that even if you dont like someone make sure you vote for them as your very last preference. Anything else is actually going to help them out.

Larbre34

On the above

A) This body politic you speak of. Candidates and agents rarely see spoiled votes. If they are very obviously spoiled, they are unlikely to receive the level of scrutiny that some votes get in a tight count or a recount l, if the candidates are engaged with the returning officer to debate a clear intention for a preference, or not, on disputed votes. If your vote is scribbled on with pencil or has an insult directed one way or another, or whatever, it does not require scrutiny to agree it being spoiled and so nobody really looks twice at it. Believe me the 'body politic' does not give a monkeys.

You believe the candidates/parties have ways of ascertaining whether you voted or not. After the close of the poll, the marked registers are sealed in their own envelopes and sent to the count centre along with all the other stationery and things. If there is a discrepancy between the number of votes counted in a box and the number of ballot papers issued from the desk of that box, which is unresolved when the whole polling station is reconciled, the register is unsealed by the returning officer to check the number of voters marked off. Other than that, those registers are destroyed unsealed, so if the candidates or agents by chance see some names marked off on a register as part of a dispute or discrepancy process, thats as far as it goes, they have NO ACCESS to those marked registers after the event for their own research, no matter what you might have heard.

What you have heard about not marking the ballot all the way down, is mathematically possible, but highly improbable in our system.

Basically, not marking a ballot all the way down to your least favourite, if replicated by thousands of voters in the same pattern to the same candidate, can with a slight degree of probability and more likely in 3 seaters than say 5, very slightly lower the effective quota to be reached.

In other words, the positive effect of this for any candidate, requires such a lottery winning level of alignment of the stars, that I am fully confident in my own personal approach of, if you don't like him, don't give him a preference. The chances of a numbered preference counting for him is way higher than one of omission.

I'm sure there's a thesis in this one somewhere, but I won't be doing it..

Laphroaig52

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

It's not

they count all the votes again, this time counting the 2nd prefs then allocating a % of the surplus equal to that number from the total

Doesn't that mean that my vote is used twice....kind of?

I mean my No. 1 get's my man over the quota. That's my 'single vote'.
But then in the 2nd count my vote is considered again in determining the ratio for the distribution of the surplus and so contributes to the number of votes for the candidate that I gave my No. 2 to....

Laphroaig52

Laphroaig52 wrote: »

Doesn't that mean that my vote is used twice....kind of?

I mean my No. 1 get's my man over the quota. That's my 'single vote'.
But then in the 2nd count my vote is considered again in determining the ratio for the distribution of the surplus and so contributes to the number of votes for the candidate that I gave my No. 2 to....

Not as such. The votes that transfer are the surplus to requirements to get over the quota.

dulpit

Laphroaig52 wrote: »

Doesn't that mean that my vote is used twice....kind of?

I mean my No. 1 get's my man over the quota. That's my 'single vote'.
But then in the 2nd count my vote is considered again in determining the ratio for the distribution of the surplus and so contributes to the number of votes for the candidate that I gave my No. 2 to....

No. If your vote is transferred then it was part of the surplus. If your vote wasn't transferred then it remains with the candidate elected as their overall final vote as per the table above.

cdaly_

Larbre34 wrote: »

On the above

A) This body politic you speak of. Candidates and agents rarely see spoiled votes. .

I think the notion there is that the number of spoiled votes is available as a statistic and therefore demonstrates that some number of voters took the trouble to spoil their vote. If this number is large, perhaps there is a message of voter dissatisfaction to be read.

Larbre34

cdaly_ wrote: »

I think the notion there is that the number of spoiled votes is available as a statistic and therefore demonstrates that some number of voters took the trouble to spoil their vote. If this number is large, perhaps there is a message of voter dissatisfaction to be read.

Yes I suppose so, but it hasn't ever varied that much historically. Besides, if the candidates and parties aren't getting a message of dissatisfaction long before polling day, maybe they should consider a different career.

Laphroaig52

dulpit wrote: »

No. If your vote is transferred then it was part of the surplus. If your vote wasn't transferred then it remains with the candidate elected as their overall final vote as per the table above.

That would be true if the transfer was done through a random selection of votes.
But since ALL the (12000) votes are aggregated to determine the transfer distribution, it seems that my ballot paper is used twice and contributes to both the first and 2nd count - albeit in a very indirect way on the 2nd count.

Mathematically, perhaps it could be argued that I am giving .83333 of my vote to Candidate 1 and .16666 of my vote to candidate 2?

Ten Pin

That would be true if the transfer was done through a random selection of votes.
But since ALL the (12000) votes are aggregated to determine the transfer distribution, it seems that my ballot paper is used twice and contributes to both the first and 2nd count - albeit in a very indirect way on the 2nd count.

Mathematically, perhaps it could be argued that I am giving .83333 of my vote to Candidate 1 and .16666 of my vote to candidate 2?

The total (12k) is only used to determine the percentage of his/her surplus to be allocated to each next preference candidate. Only the surplus is transferred, the elected candidate still retains the quota they already have.

Badly Drunk Boy

cdaly_ wrote: »

I think the notion there is that the number of spoiled votes is available as a statistic and therefore demonstrates that some number of voters took the trouble to spoil their vote. If this number is large, perhaps there is a message of voter dissatisfaction to be read.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Spoiling your vote isnt about wasting your time or anyone elses. I've done it myself once in the past and for me it was literally saying 'Im taking part in the democratic process but there isnt a single candidate here I feel good enough to vote for'.

The thing about spoiling your vote is that...yeah, you're showing that you engaged in the democratic process, but in the statistic, there is nothing to differentiate you from the voter who is a bit stupid/careless and can't vote properly. And ultimately, it doesn't do anything...

Donnielighto

Zainab Greasy Violin wrote: »

Votes Surplus to the quota are randomly distributed. So there is an element of randomness in our elections. An alternative would be to transfer all the votes at a fraction of the value as done in australia.

Randomly selected not randomly distributed. I think that's what you meant anyway though.

Laphroaig52

Ten Pin wrote: »

The total (12k) is only used to determine the percentage of his/her surplus to be allocated to each next preference candidate. Only the surplus is transferred, the elected candidate still retains the quota they already have.

Right. So the entire 12K (10 of which have already elected another candidate) are used to determine the distribution of the 2000 votes for the 2nd count.

So, if you voted No 1 for the candidate elected in the 1st count and No 2 for the candidate elected in the 2nd count, both candidates will benefit from your single vote.

Laphroaig52

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

The thing about spoiling your vote is that...yeah, you're showing that you engaged in the democratic process, but in the statistic, there is nothing to differentiate you from the voter who is a bit stupid/careless and can't vote properly. And ultimately, it doesn't do anything...

Well, it's a 'protest' vote. Yeah, I know....but walking up and down the street with a banner doesn't either.
If there was an extremely high number of intentionally spoiled votes, it is a clear signal that the electorate want a radical change to policies and approach.

Also, it prevents someone else from fraudulently using your vote.

eeepaulo

Very interesting stuff. When they do a recount when it's really close on the 2nd and subsequent redistributions do they use the same randomly selected ballots or do they pick new ones?

davidjtaylor

Larbre34 wrote: »

Basically, not marking a ballot all the way down to your least favourite, if replicated by thousands of voters in the same pattern to the same candidate, can with a slight degree of probability and more likely in 3 seaters than say 5, very slightly lower the effective quota to be reached.

Aha. I said this in another thread and was told I was wrong! #smug :D

Laurathesis

Can someone please tell me the best way to make sure my vote does not go to a particular party? Option 1 or 2?

1. Vote for only the candidates I want, leaving rest blank

Or

2. Vote all preferences1-12, giving my least preferred the 12.

Ten Pin

Can someone please tell me the best way to make sure my vote does not go to a particular party? Option 1 or 2?

1. Vote for only the candidates I want, leaving rest blank

Or

2. Vote all preferences1-12, giving my least preferred the 12.

Option 1

If you don't want a particular candidate/party elected then leave them blank.

Each vote is transferrable. As each 1,2,3 etc preference is either elected or eliminated, the next preference is effectively a number 1 so if you wouldn't give them a number 1 then don't give them any preference.

Every candidate down to the last preference on a filled ballot can benefit from your vote as it moves between candidates as the counts progress and your number 10 can theoretically get elected if there's still a seat to fill at that stage. If number 10 is still in the count then your vote could prevent him/her from being eliminated in a close contest.

Xertz

There was a fantastic animation of PR STV I’m counting and redistribution using a histogram doing the rounds on Twitter a couple of years ago. If anyone has it a link, perhaps post it.

Laurathesis

Thank you. That is what i thought, but people are telling me that by doing option 2 in a recount it would dilute the votes of people who filled out all preferences. Its a bit confusing

Ten Pin wrote: »

Option 1

If you don't want a particular candidate/party elected then leave them blank.

Each vote is transferrable. As each 1,2,3 etc preference is either elected or eliminated, the next preference is effectively a number 1 so if you wouldn't give them a number 1 then don't give them any preference.

Every candidate down to the last preference on a filled ballot can benefit from your vote as it moves between candidates as the counts progress and your number 10 can theoretically get elected if there's still a seat to fill at that stage. If number 10 is still in the count then your vote could prevent him/her from being eliminated in a close contest.

murpho999

Laurathesis wrote: »

Can someone please tell me the best way to make sure my vote does not go to a particular party? Option 1 or 2?

1. Vote for only the candidates I want, leaving rest blank

Or

2. Vote all preferences1-12, giving my least preferred the 12.

Leave out the people/party you don't want. They cannot get a vote that you did not give.

Larbre34

murpho999 wrote: »

Leave out the people/party you don't want. They cannot get a vote that you did not give.

As I said above, you're absolutely right, but mathematically it could slightly possibly lower the bar for them to reach instead. Its important that be clear to people, but I agree with you, not giving a preference is far more likely to have the effect you desire.

Capt'n Midnight

Laurathesis wrote: »

Can someone please tell me the best way to make sure my vote does not go to a particular party? Option 1 or 2?

1. Vote for only the candidates I want, leaving rest blank

Or

2. Vote all preferences1-12, giving my least preferred the 12.

Option 1 means you only vote against them on the first count.
It means your vote doesn't get transferred in case of surplus or elimination.

Option 2 means you are voting against them in every count in the event your keeps getting transferred right down to your 11th preference*.



* Some people say you should leave the 12th place blank and fill in the other 11 to be totally sure, but I can't see how with two candidates left the final preference is reached.

Sir Oxman

Laurathesis wrote: »

Can someone please tell me the best way to make sure my vote does not go to a particular party? Option 1 or 2?

1. Vote for only the candidates I want, leaving rest blank

Or

2. Vote all preferences1-12, giving my least preferred the 12.

Option 1

Brussels Sprout

Laurathesis wrote: »

Can someone please tell me the best way to make sure my vote does not go to a particular party? Option 1 or 2?

1. Vote for only the candidates I want, leaving rest blank

Or

2. Vote all preferences1-12, giving my least preferred the 12.

If, by "only the candidates I like" you mean the other 11 candidates in your example then both of those options are the exact same.

This is because in both scenarios there is no way that the ballot can end up transferring to your despised candidate AND by filling in all of the other preferences you maximise the chance that the ballot ends up helping one of the other candidates at the expense of the person you dislike.

If on the other hand, you only like 4 of the candidates and are neutral on the other 7 so were thinking of only giving preferences for 1-4 then you'd be better going for Option 2 to keep out the disliked candidate.

Capt'n Midnight

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

If, by "only the candidates I like" you mean the other 11 candidates in your example then both of those options are the exact same.

This is Ireland, the land of begrudgers. Everyone has at least disliked candidate.

So pick the one you like least and work back.
Or pick the ones who are closest to getting elected at the bottom.

It's your civic duty and you'll sleep better knowing that at least one sleeveen has been denied any benefit from your vote.

glack

Candidate A reached the quota of 14000 and has a surplus of 1000 after the first count.

His surplus of 1000 votes will be distributed in the second count.

After examination, he had 600 non transferable votes.

Does that mean that only 960 votes get transferred? 600 out of 15000 of 4%, 4% of 1000 is 40 so 960 remaining.

Or how does that work??

Brussels Sprout

glack wrote: »

Candidate A reached the quota of 14000 and has a surplus of 1000 after the first count.

His surplus of 1000 votes will be distributed in the second count.

After examination, he had 600 non transferable votes.

Does that mean that only 960 votes get transferred? 600 out of 15000 of 4%, 4% of 1000 is 40 so 960 remaining.

Or how does that work??

He will still transfer 1000 votes. They will be chosen from the 14,400 transferable votes in proportion to the number of #2 preferences each of the candidates have.

glack

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

He will still transfer 1000 votes. They will be chosen from the 14,400 transferable votes in proportion to the number of #2 preferences each of the candidates have.

Thank you. Trying to inform myself but it’s difficult to get all of the scenarios explained in one place.

joeysoap

If you number 1 gets eliminated and your after numbers 2,3,4 ,5 are already eliminated does your number 6 still count? And if you transfer to number 6 (if they are still running)and then get he/she gets. eliminated and your 7 an 8 are already eliminated does it carry on to number 9 ? Ie does your number 9 carry the same weight as candidate 6 number 2’s ?.

Apologies for the convoluted question.