Voting method

geographica

if say you have 10 people on the ballot, and you only want to vote for say 2 people, and you want no one else to get transfers from your vote, does one just put 1 and 2 on the paper and leave everything else blank? Does this ensure no other candidate benefits from your vote?

TheSunIsShining

Yes. But note that if your number 1 and 2 are eliminated in early counts then your vote essentially dies

geographica

ok, I guess the opposite is, for eg, give 1 to 10 a vote, then one is possibly electing someone they don’t want by default (transferred vote)?

zell12

You should vote to ensure your ballot goes as far as possible. Obviously the candidates you detest, leave blank. Otherwise it is a missed opportunity, where other voters who fill the ballot up have a greater say.

magicbastarder

You are correct that no other candidates would benefit from your vote, but it's essentially giving equal preference to all 8 other candidates. If you genuinely have no preference inside that group of 8, stopping after 1 and 2 is a perfectly logical way of voting.

Capt'n Midnight

To vote against a candidate you leave their box empty and vote for all of the others in order of preference.

ToweringPerformance

Never vote down the sheet.

Brussels Sprout

As others have said there's nothing inherently wrong in stopping at 2 preferences if you dislike all of the others equally. However what you are really ensuring here is that when if comes down to electing those others or not then other voters will have that power and you are choosing to give up yours.

For that reason, I always rank everyone*. Most of the candidates, I would not like to see elected but there are degrees of dislike within those ranks.

For what it's worth, if either of your #1 or #2 two people are likely to win a seat then all of this is kind of a moot point. That's because the most likely scenario then is that your ballot will end up in the pile that got them elected and not transfer any further.

On the other hand if your #1 and #2 are both unlikely to win seats then your ballot will almost certainly transfer to your #3 preference.

*There is no material difference between not ranking a candidate and ranking them last. I choose to rank them last but that's just a personal styling thing with me.

blackbox

If you give someone your last preference there is a small chance they will benefit from it. If you don't vote for them they will never get your vote.

csirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122185215#Comment_122185215

That's not true. If you give someone your last preference you are guaranteeing that they will.never benefit.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058353250/voting-method

It depends on what you mean by benefit by your vote…. If you only vote 1 and 2 then you only have a say in the process up until third preferences come into play, which in most case means you have given up any chance influencing the final outcome as your vote died. If you want to try and ensure someone does not get elected, then your objective should be to keep you vote alive and try to push as many votes away from that candidate as you can by voting down the line against that candidate as we used to say.

Roald Dahl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058353250/voting-method

Is it a certain Dublin MEP who is in danger of losing their seat that you have in mind?

I am considering similar tactics myself.

Calahonda52

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122185353#Comment_122185353

How do you make that out as the import is that a blank or last is the same

magicbastarder

Given the post they were responding to, it was unclear whether the context was voting to N or voting to N-1; those two are functionally identical.

HazeDoll

If there are five candidates - two good guys, two middling eejits and one terrible psycho - on the ballot, ask yourself what the last guy wants from your vote.

If you vote 1 and 2 for the good guys, the bad basturd is hoping you don't go any further because he in effect gets the same share of your vote as the share you gave the middling eejits.

If you vote 1, 2 and 3 for the good guys and the better of the two eejits, you have denied the bad basturd a share of your third preference by giving it to somebody else.

Vote 1, 2, 3 and 4 and you have pushed the bad guy down even further. It doesn't really matter if you give him your number 5 or not. The others would be deemed elected before the fifth transfer.

A vote FOR somebody is always a vote AGAINST somebody else. Not voting all the way down means not voting against the bad guys.

csirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122185846#Comment_122185846

If you leave blanks, its as if you never voted in that round of the election. Putting in the last means that you are there for the duration and every other candidate will have an advantage over your last place. I've always thought of the last place as almost like a minus vote.

Goldengirl

I agree with those saying vote as far down as you can .

That person you detest will never get that last preference vote and you have had your say whatever it is over the other candidates.

I like the thought that my little vote is influencing 3rd , 4th and fifth places in any election .

For instance if everybody opted out after the first two does that not mean that those you detest have just as much of a chance of getting elected as the ones you don't rate but are not that bad ?

We are lucky with our system . Use it to the full .

Furze99

I never, ever vote for candidates that I don't want to see elected. Sometimes people will argue this gives them a benefit if they're still in the race. Something to do with distribution of surpluses, eliminated candidates etc. But they ain't getting no votes from here.

HazeDoll

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122186359#Comment_122186359

This depends on how many places need to be filled. If, with a list of 10 candidates, there are three offices to fill, it makes sense to have your say as much as possible. I don't see the point at all in just voting for your two faves if it means you have no input into who gets the third spot.

People who understand the system vote all the way down. If you get a chance, try to get into the count some time. It really shows you how your vote moves around.

This is a really quick video (and you can skip the first 40 secs) that shows it simplified.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M91jraoo6t8

Galwayguy35

The British way of voting seems to be a lot simpler than what we have.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122187048#Comment_122187048

And is terrible.

Galwayguy35

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122187055#Comment_122187055

Why?

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122187061#Comment_122187061

Its completely non-proportional. A party can be in government on their own, with a huge majority, on 40% of the vote

You can get elected as the only MP for an area on significantly less than a majority of the vote - Belfast South in 2015 had someone elected on 24.5%.

Parties can get vote % nationally that would give them ~50 seats in a proportional setup and get one (UKIP, Green) or none (same parties in different elections); and there's the potential outcome this time around of the Lib Dems equalling or outdoing the Tory vote and still having half the seats they do. This limits the potential for different parties to actually get in

Basically, what you vote for and what you get are only tenuously related.

osarusan

It's not all FPTP in the UK. Scotland uses STV for local elections.

standardg60

If someone exceeds the quota how are their excess votes redistributed? Is the entire vote recounted and the excess distributed proportionally based on the % of the next vote, or is it chosen at random which reduces the redistribution to pot luck?

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122187167#Comment_122187167

On the first count, the seconds are counted and ballots to match that proportion as closely as possible are transferred. There is no inspection of third plus preferences.

On further counts, the votes are taken from the last transfer at random. The last transfer in is always bigger than any potential transfer out. It isn't that common for there to be a lot of votes to transfer when someone exceeds the quota after the first count, but it does happen - someone can be very close to the quota and then get a huge transfer from a running mate who wasn't far behind.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122187061#Comment_122187061

a constituency which is predominantly right wing could have say three right wing candidates and one left wing candidate, because that constituency is 26% left wing and 74% right wing (i'm clearly picking numbers to suit my argument)

come election time, the left wing candidate gets 26% of the vote and each of the right wing candidates get 24.something% of the vote. the left wing candidate wins, and thus a candidate who represents a minority of voters in that constituency.

FPTP fosters a two party system as a result; i'll see if i can find an explainer video (should you wish to watch one)

Brussels Sprout

To add to an earlier post, First Past The Post also ends up in a scenario where the vast majority of races are a foregone conclusion. This is the case in both the USA and the UK, where only a small minority of contests are actually competitive.

These safe seats only aid in voter cynicism and apathy - "Why should I bother voting? The Labour candidate always win in my constituency". It can also feed extremism (we see that in the USA where the real elections are often the party primaries so often it's the more far-left or far-right candidates who end up getting elected since thjey only need to win over their own party base)

Our system isn't that complicated for the voter. You just rank your favourites. A child can work it out. The complexity comes in the counting but the average voter doesn't need to worry about that. Needless to say though that that count is both transparent and fair.

For me nothing shows up the inherent unfairness of FPTP more than the 2015 UK elections where UKIP got 12.6% of the vote but only 0.2% of the seats in the House of Commons.

JVince

In many cases I'll give #1 to a candidate that has zero chance of election (unless I disagree with their politics)

Then #2 to who I really prefer.

Part of it is for fun and part of it is because it's good to have people put their name forward and nice to reward them.

zell12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122187048#Comment_122187048

is less representative and less democratic.

zell12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122187610#Comment_122187610

Me too! I like to think it gives the no-hoper some confidence, that people care he put his name forward. If everyone voted the same way though 😊

Goldengirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122186415#Comment_122186415

This

Was explained to me back in my late teens by a local tallyman but for a good few years after I only voted for who I liked because I thought he surely hadn't a clue and was only trying to influence my vote!

Maybe he was ;)

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122187048#Comment_122187048

FPTP leads to stuff like -

In 2019 a third of UK voters opted for a tactical vote, instead of choosing their preferred party or candidate.

It took on average 50,835 votes to elect a Labour MP, whilst only 38,264 votes were needed to return a Conservative MP.

In 2015 UKIP got a single MP from 3,881,099 votes vs the SNP getting 56 MP's from 1,454,436 votes.

Also in 2015 Alasdair McDonnell was elected on 24.5% of the votes.

Safe seats with parachute candidates. Not so easy here with multi seat constituencies.

Peregrinus

The UK system is dreadful, just dreadful. It's designed to minimise the power and value of the individual vote, maximise the power of the two dominant parties, and marginalise as much as possible all other parties. Basic democratic considerations aside, it makes for very poor accountability. However badly one of the dominant parties or its leaders perform — however incompetent, delusional or corrupt they are — the worst sanction they face is becoming the official opposition, and government-in-waiting, with a virtual guarantee of being returned to power in due course. In more mature democracies failed political movements can in fact disappear, making room for newer alternatives. This is virtually impossible in the UK.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122187957#Comment_122187957

In 2015 UKIP got a single MP from 3,881,099 votes vs the SNP getting 56 MP's from 1,454,436 votes.

UKIP stood in ten times as many seats, so it's not really comparing like with like

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122188060#Comment_122188060

UKIP and the SNP aren't like and like, but this just highlights the absurdity of the system. A party with a strong local focus and policies of local interest running candidates in fewer than 1/10th of the constituencies gets more than 50 MPs; a party with a UK-wide focus that campaigns on issues of interest and importance to the whole of the UK and stands in almost every consituency gets well over twice as many votes, but just 1 MP.

And this isn't entirely down to candidate numbers. In the same election, UK and the Lib Dems ran similar numbers of candidates (624 vs. 631) but in the resulting Parliament Lib Dem voters were more than 10 times better represented than UKIP voters (3.88 milliion votes per UKIP MP; 302,000 votes per Lib Dem MP). Tory voters were 10 times better represented again (34,200 votes per Tory MP). It's absurd.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122186359#Comment_122186359

It is not a question of arguing it is a question of understanding. In a multi seat PR system if enough people follow your strategy then you'll end up with the outcome you did not want. That is why you are advised to vote down the line.

It is decades ago since I was involved in Irish politics, but back then opposing parties used to try and encourage voters for the opposition to do exactly what you are doing because it benefits them when comes to the fight for the last seat.

StrawbsM

When does the Number 2’s, 3s, etc of the candidate who is eliminated 1st come into play? And if it’s only a proportional amount, how is the proportion worked out?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122188168#Comment_122188168

If you give your first preference to a candidate who is eliminated, it comes into play immediately after that candidate has been eliminated — e.g. if your first preferene candidate is eliminated on the third count, then your vote counts for your second preference candidate on the fourth count (assuming, of course, that your second preference candidate hasn't already been elected or eliminated).

All of the votes for the eliminated candidate will be redistributed to the next effective preference, not just a proportion of them.

magicbastarder

another thing to bear in mind is that FPTP not only means the popular vote is less likely to be represented by the number of seats ultimately held, it also means that unlike in ireland, you have a single MP in your constituency. so it's not just at a national level you might find an imbalance, it percolates down to the local level too; in ireland if you've an issue locally you are probably more likely to find a TD who is sympathetic to the issue as you've several TDs to approach.

blackbox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122185353#Comment_122185353

I'm not disagreeing with you, but if it goes to the final count, could your last preference not have an influence?

StrawbsM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122188236#Comment_122188236

So you should not only be thinking about who you’re giving your top preferences to but also who the voters whose No1 will probably exit the race early give their 2s, 3s, etc to as they may have the one you don’t want to get elected in that slot?

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122188310#Comment_122188310

No. They're talking about the difference between voting all the way down the sheet versus voting all the way down bar one. Say it's a 4 seater constituency, and there's only 5 candidates. Voter A fills out their vote with 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Voter B gives vote 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the exact same order, but leaves 5 blank. These two votes are functionally identical. Voter A's paper can never transfer to candidate 5 - either candidate 5 is already elected by the time it gets to the last count, or only one other candidate is remaining, in which case the higher preference will kick in for one of the other candidates.

So long as you vote the whole way down the rest of the sheet, whether you enter a preference in the last candidate's box makes no difference

StrawbsM

Can I throw up an example for us to play with and how far down the list I should vote?

12 candidates running for 6 seats

Chicken Licken Party 1

Chicken Licken Party 2

Henny Penny Party 1

Henny Penny Party 2

Cocky Locky Party 1

Cocky Locky Party 2

Ducky Lucky Party

Drakey Lackey Party

No Party 1

No Party 2

No Party 3

No Party 4

My preference would be 1,2,3 of No Party, Henny Penny Party 1&2 and Chicken Licken Party 1.

My gut says the result will be Chicken Licken 1, Henny Penny 1, Cocky Locky 1, No Party 1 & 2 and final seat either Ducky Lucky or No Party 3.
I DO NOT WANT Drakey Lackey Party. Transfer friendly with them would be Cocky Locky Party 1&2 and Ducky Lucky 1.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122188107#Comment_122188107

Maybe but I ain't giving any vote to certain people and that's that.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122186359#Comment_122186359

It's not about whether you want to see them elected - it's about whether you want to see them elected more than whoever's left. I don't ever want to see (the Irish equivalent of) the Monster Raving Loony party elected, but if it comes down to a choice betweeen them and a literal fascist like Justin Barrett, I'll take the satirical Monsters every time.

As soon as you stop voting down the page, you are saying that every candidate remaining is exactly equal to you.

magicbastarder

Speaking of personal voting methods, I'd often have say two candidates in my head who I'd like to win. Regardless of preference between them, if I think one is more likely to get the seat than the other, I'll sometimes give my number 1 to the one I think is less likely, who might need my number one more.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122188544#Comment_122188544

Order the candidates in your preference 1-12. Vote in that order. That's it.

Tactical voting basically isn't a thing in PR-STV.

Boardnashea

I will vote 1, 2, 3 for the people I want elected, and then vote from the bottom up for the one I definitely DON'T want elected (make sure they don't get my vote but my vote will still count) and then fill in the middle ground with those that remain.

So in the Locals, there will be 12 candidates in my area. I will work from both ends of my preferences so might do something like 1, 2, 12, 11, 3, 4, 10, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

StrawbsM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122188607#Comment_122188607

If the candidate that I select as No10 gets in on the 5th or 6th count, am I able to say that I didn’t vote for them?

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122188734#Comment_122188734

That's a pointless question. What if it does go to the nth count and your vote does end up being counted for them? Are you going to claim you voted for them then?

The only meaningful statement is that you ranked them 10th out of 12 available options.