Electoral systems discussion

walkonby

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122919858#Comment_122919858

I have never been able to get my head around how this system works. If a candidate is elected on all first preferences, all the ballots are examined for second preferences, and if the no. of transferable votes is greater than or equal to the surplus (and it would be greater in early counts) then the surplus is distributed proportional to the 2nd preferences. Which means all the second preferences cast for that candidate have some weight? But in subsequent counts its the “last bundle of votes” for the candidate in question are examined to determine how the surplus is distributed, which I think means the votes transferred to that candidate at the start of that count.

And there are considerations like does a vote allow an eliminated candidate to reach the threshold for returning their deposit, in which case it should count for them rather than transfer (I think).

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122920943#Comment_122920943

I think the first thing to understand is that all votes are mingled to 'ensure' a level of randomization so that the original box a vote started in has no effect on its travel through the counting.

The difference between the first count and the subsequent ones relates to the presence of celebrity candidates, and vote management by parties. A candidate like Bertie Ahern could get over two quotas on the first count, with party colleagues in No. 2. Clearly this needs special treatment, as some of those colleagues might have zero No. 1 votes, but significant transfers.

They have been doing this counting of STV/PR for a very long time and have got it down to a fine art.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122920943#Comment_122920943

The only time there's a consideration to save a deposit/expenses is when there are surplus(es) available that could not save a candidate but could save their expenses.

E.g. they're 500 behind, but 100 off the expenses limit and there's a 200 surplus that cannot change the results in any other way. That'll be distributed.

Sometimes small surpluses never get distributed at all as they can't change any results. Electoral Act funding is off FPV not final votes, expenses will be attempted to be rescued.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122920943#Comment_122920943

Yes if the candidate is elected on the first count then all of their ballots are examined and the #2 preferences are factored into the calculation of how many ballots the other candidates will receive in transfers from the surplus.

Yes if they are elected in subsequent counts then only the ballots received in that count are examined to determine transfers.

If a candidate is eliminated then they're eliminated and not available to receive further transfers. The confusion there may be sometimes a small surplus will be distributed even though it's size is not large enough to bridge the gap between the lowest candidate(s) and those who can still be elected. That will happen if that surplus could possibly push one of those lower candidates over the threshold for the expenses/deposit. In that scenario they have not been yet been eliminated but will be after that surplus has been distributed.

Sam Russell

One candidate was on 9 ballots and barely got double digit votes. I think that appearing on more than one ballot should not be allowed.

Also, all candidates should be required to place a deposit of, say, €500 - refunded if they get 2% FPV, or so, of a quota. Having 29 candidates for 4 or five seats is ridiculous. Perhaps excluding candidates at the first count who fail to retain their deposit might help.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122921664#Comment_122921664

Most of the lunatic candidates do pay €500, due to not being able to get 30 signatures in constituency; and don't get it back unless they get a quarter quota.

We've already gone over your idea about excluding people on the first count; it isn't plausible or equitable. Multiple exclusions occur where possible, all the time.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122920788#Comment_122920788

In the UK households have to confirm whether a given person is still in place annually so gone-away are normally culled quite quickly. In contrast I'm not even sure if it is possible to get my Irish record deleted.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122922609#Comment_122922609

Ive still got 2 cards from previous residents that come every election, weve lived here 8 years, ive made several attempts at delisting them from my address at least but they still keep coming.

Brussels Sprout

From what I've heard the new Electoral Commission's focus so far has been getting unregistered people on to the registers. In the future they will be focusing on centralising that register and getting people off of it (duplicates, emigrants, the dead).

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122918920#Comment_122918920

Postal voting is wide open to fraud, coercion and vote-buying.

Nobody bothers to attempt these things for the Seanad elections because it's only six seats and it's the Seanad.

Postal voting should never become widespread for Dail elections.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122924884#Comment_122924884

Postal Voting on Demand is available in Germany, Switzerland, the UK and almost every single American state. Do any of those countries or states have large problems with any of the things that you describe?

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122924884#Comment_122924884

I don't see a specific issue with postal voting, but the issue I think it's addressing is important - elections are called with relatively short notice and people who are not at home don't get to vote. Something should be done to address that - be it postal voting, early voting or something else.

Sam Russell

We have Eircodes that are unique for every house.

So if every entry on the register had to have an Eircode, then new register applications would indicate a change of occupants which should trigger a check for previous occupants possible moving out. The new registrations should trigger a check as to their previous address and were they registered at that address.

Both these activities would maintain the register in better shape without the huge cost of a new national database, but that is not to say such a database is not needed. It needs to be developed, together with certification by PPS number, and validity of entitlement for the various possible votes. [President, GE, Senate, LAE, and Referendum].

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122925901#Comment_122925901

All new registrations and moves use eircodes. Have done for a few years. Pretty certain they ask for PPS also now, and they have long since had the info on entitlement.

Problem is there's >25 years of slop on the register as it is; ever since rate/charge collection and the constant presence of council staff on doorsteps ended.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122925921#Comment_122925921

Well, do those controlling the register check new registrations against previous address for those registering, and previous occupants on the register for that address are still at that address or for their new address if not?

I doubt it, but would be impressed if they do.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122925964#Comment_122925964

You are asked for details of previous addresses. You are then removed from the old ones. People often don't supply these. Once linked to PPS, that can be handled automatically.

They do not remove existing registrations at your new address, as how would they know if they are still there? Not every case of someone moving in/registering somewhere requires anyone else to leave.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122925975#Comment_122925975

They would know who is living at the new occupant's home by asking them for details of other occupants of at that address. If it does not include currently registered names, the ask them where they have moved to.

What is so hard doing this?

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122926254#Comment_122926254

Asking someone to reveal other peoples personal info for something unconnected to those people is absolutely, utterly, never going to happen.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122926261#Comment_122926261

Well, do not ask them.

Just delete other registrations at that address and ask all occupants at that address to reapply.

Simples.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122926268#Comment_122926268

Absolutely not going to be acceptable either.

Who is going to do the asking? What stops me registering myself at your house and getting you deleted without your knowledge?

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122926279#Comment_122926279

Read he post again.

The LA currently is responsible for the register, so it is their responsibility to have an accurate register so it is the LA that is asking. They have, or should have, legal authority to seek the information.

This is what should happen. When you apply to be registered at my address, they will, or should, ask you for your previous address, your rights to vote, your PPS number, etc. etc. They will then write to all registered voters at my address, including you, asking them to confirm that this is their address, and renew their registration by reapplying.

Your ruse will be uncovered. Of course your previous registration will be cancelled - so do not do it.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122926335#Comment_122926335

And if the letter gets lost or delayed in the post coming up to an election?

This simply isn't workable

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122926340#Comment_122926340

Not much post gets lost or delayed. The LA can follow up with further requests if they are unanswered, The LA used to have officials call door to door to check the register, but not do so much recently.

Check the register @ chechtheregister.ie - everyone should do this to be sure.

Before you raise the issue that some do not have access to the web - well there is access at public libraries - and also access to the register.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122926387#Comment_122926387

But some does. And the timeline for a postal response and postal confirmation reply is many days to weeks, which cannot work if someone needs to be re-registered close to an election

AndrewJRenko

Folks, we don't need to work out the nitty gritty of the processes to update the register. The Electoral Commission will work it out, when they get the time and resources.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122926503#Comment_122926503

Maintenance of the register is a long term project, not a rush job to be done at the last minute. Those that want to register at the last minute have only themselves to blame if they miss the deadline.

The need for reform is well understood by the relevant authority and will no doubt demand the resources and will do the job well. [Assuming they get Gov buy in.]

Anyway, enough of this.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122927425#Comment_122927425

The deadline for General Elections can be days as it is.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122927494#Comment_122927494

Look, I can check the register 365 days of the year. If I move, I should check it then - not wait till a GE is called.

This is now ended.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122927515#Comment_122927515

And if your move coincides with a GE?

Your ideas on this thread have all been rather odd and pretty much never practical. This one falls apart on the same grounds.

You also don't need to continue responding me picking holes in this, as I notice you've tried to claim you're stopping twice now!

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122928011#Comment_122928011

Despite me posting I do not wish to continue this rabbit hole survey, but you persist in keeping nit picking.