Full details on PR system and how best to use your vote

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Electronic voting could eliminate the random aspect of surplus distribution, but the broken system we purchased didn't, because yes: it would require a legislative change.

JustSomeone

Still not entirely clear on this - specifically on the "parcel" mentioned above.

Simple example - quota is 16,000 and Joe Bloggs gets 17,000 first prefs, 1,000 of his votes are to be "transferred". What I don't understand is which 1,000.

Are 1,000 ballots selected randomly from the 17,000?

Are they selected from a subset of the 17,000, if so, how is the subset defined?

Is there scope for a candidate/agent to challenge the subset selected on the basis that it is unrepresentative?

If 300 of the 1,000 selected ballots have no next preference, are further ballots selected until 1,000 transferable votes are selected?

In the event of a recount, are the same ballots selected?

Thanks.

JustSomeone

grumpytrousers wrote:

It's why, I guess, in this day and age, the Lottery balls are done with, well, balls and not a computer spewing out 6 numbers from a darkened room.

Wouldn't that be cool... vote transfers being done on that basis? Balls with pictures of candidates' heads bouncing around in a lotto yolkie.

grumpytrousers

JustSomeone wrote:

In the event of a recount, are the same ballots selected?

In the event of a recount, I believe the same ballots are selected; the re-count is ONLY a check that the numbers are 'right'...

would love to hear answers to the other questions you raise tho'...

Zombrex

grumpytrousers wrote:

Indeed; and it was this randomness that made me think that Electronic Voting was never going to work as long as we had PR-STV. From my (admittedly terribly limited ) knowledge of computers, it's rather difficult to *actually* get a truly random stream of numbers etc from one, and even if you could, there's no 'accountability' per se for where they came from.

<Off topic>
That is not quite true. A computer itself cannot generate a truly random number itself, but it can generate a number based on a random input source.

So for example if you are setting up some kind of private key for encrypting email you might be asked to bang keys for a bit on a keyboard in a randomly pattern. This produces a random number for the computer to generate larger random numbers from.

In the case of something like a polling booth a device that feeds in the current light levels, or wind speed and direction on top of the polling booth, or any other random data, could be used to generate a random number.

Of course I've no idea if any of these systems are used in electronic voting. From what I read a lot of these electronic voting machines seem to be put together by people with limited experience in securing systems. They don't seem very well designed at all.

These guys seem to have got it right
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/11/61045
<back on topic>

grumpytrousers

<staying off topic>Yup, that's more or less what my mate who works in computers was saying down the pub...but my point remains, that there isn't, in electronic voting, the random variable that would allow a level of randomness be introduced. And the kicker is, of course, that even if there was, it'd be completely invisible <as you were>

daveirl

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That was only for the trial runs though wasn't it?
Ie they couldnt have the trial e voting not using randomness and the pencil voting being random.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

JustSomeone

Oops, looks like my questions were actually answered in the citizens info link above. Not that it hasn't generated more

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 (i.e., the next preference on each vote for a candidate who has not been elected or eliminated). For example, if candidate A receives 900 votes more than the quota on the first count and on examining all of his or her 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 his/her surplus, i.e., 270 votes (30% of 900).

So, in my example above, all 17,000 votes would be examined to identify how many of the 17,000 votes have selected a second preference, and what percentage of these votes go to each of the other candidates. So, if 12,000 of Deputy Elect Blogg's 17,000 first preferences have indicated a second preference, and of those 12,000, 9,000 listed Mary Moggs as 2nd pref and 3,000 listed Ted Toggs, then Mary would get 3/4 of the surplus (ie 750) and Ted would get 1/4 250.

This seems reasonable enough. No randomness, no subselections and repeating the process should produce the same results.

Interestingly, it only applies on the surplus from the 1st count.

After that:

Where a candidate is elected at the second or at later count, only the votes that brought him/her over the quota are examined in the surplus distribution, i.e., the parcel of votes last transferred to the elected candidate.

In this case the "parcel" is made up of all of the votes most recently transferred to the candidate.

So, to answer my own questions:


Are 1,000 ballots selected randomly from the 17,000?
Nope. They are selected according to very definite rules.

Are they selected from a subset of the 17,000, if so, how is the subset defined?
On the first count, all are taken into account, thereafter the most recent set of transfers are considered.

Is there scope for a candidate/agent to challenge the subset selected on the basis that it is unrepresentative?
Nope.

If 300 of the 1,000 selected ballots have no next preference, are further ballots selected until 1,000 transferable votes are selected?
The full surplus is transferred, according to the ratio calculated by examining the appropriate "parcel" of ballots.

In the event of a recount, are the same ballots selected?
Yes. By definition. There is no room for discretion or randomness.


And the absence of a random element, Wicknight and Grumpy Trousers, means that an electronic system would not need to consult wind, rain, or particle physics to generate a random number, and so those charged with delivering any electronic voting system can continue to concentrate on how to make the system robust, verifiable and tamper-proof.


Cheers!

silvine

Very enlightening.

However, I am still not sure what is the best way to tactically vote?

Should I put my favourite candidate - who is sure to get in - at number one?

Or should I place the shoe in further down my preference list in the hope that:

a) Giving my number one preference to candidate who has a battle on his hands to get elected will do greater good
b) My vote will win the selection lotto for transfers and the shoe in will get my second preference

Voipjunkie

silvine wrote:

Very enlightening.

However, I am still not sure what is the best way to tactically vote?

Should I put my favourite candidate - who is sure to get in - at number one?

Or should I place the shoe in further down my preference list in the hope that:

a) Giving my number one preference to candidate who has a battle on his hands to get elected will do greater good
b) My vote will win the selection lotto for transfers and the shoe in will get my second preference

If the candidates are from the same party then the party should have tried to manage the vote so that people are asked in one area to vote 1 ,2 and in another 2,1
If they are separate parties then keeping your second favourite candidate in the race is more important than plumping for the shoo in ( of course if too many people do that they are no longer a shoo in)
It is one of the things with STV in that a candidate who could have far more lower preferences is eliminated early for lack of first preferences.

Voipjunkie

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That is correct and was one of the arguments against the e-voting machines in that it did not eliminate the random element but tried to replicate the random element.

JustSomeone

Giving your first preference to the struggling candidate ensures that s/he has a better chance of getting in.

If s/he is eliminated, then the vote transfers to your lower preferences. No lotto. your vote continues down your list until it elects someone, ends up in the last eliminated candidate's pile, or runs out of preferences.

Voting for the shoe-in first will probably stop your vote there when the shoe-in is elected, as only surpluses (a fraction of the total vote for the shoe-in) will be transferred.

I wouldn't dream of advising you how to vote, what I propose to do is vote for people in the following order.

The people I want in, and who are unlikely to get in
The people I want in, and who are likely to get in
The people I am neutral on
The people I want to keep out, and are unlikely to get in

The last point above is probably academic, but I like it as a way of annoying the people I want to keep out, and who were seen as likely to get in but are still waiting after umpteen counts.

JustSomeone

Voipjunkie wrote:

That is correct and was one of the arguments against the e-voting machines in that it did not eliminate the random element but tried to replicate the random element.

What random element?
The Citizens Info page (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/elections-and-referenda/voting/proportional_representation) doesn't mention any random element.

JustSomeone

JustSomeone wrote:

What random element?
The Citizens Info page (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/elections-and-referenda/voting/proportional_representation) doesn't mention any random element.

read page one and two of this thread....

JustSomeone

Tristrame wrote:

read page one and two of this thread....

I've read the full thread, and can see that a few people have said that there is a random element.

This doesn't tally (!) with what the Citizen's Info site says, or with what the Dept of the Environment says: http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Voting/FileDownLoad,1895,en.pdf

I'm not denying the knowledge of the people at the start of the thread, just that the official docs don't tell the same story.

Does anyone know of any official documentation which admits the random element?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

grumpytrousers

it's not an official document, but if you read stephen collins in todays irish times at around page 9, top left of the page, he explains how PR-STV works. towards the end of the article, the element (and it's only an element) of randomness is introduced. It tends to occur when a surplus is being distributed, and *while* that happens, somebody hits a quota, the surplus of the surplus (if you will) is distributed in a 'random' fashion...

somebody with an ireland.com login might be able to throw more light...

*edit* don't need login

http://www.ireland.com/focus/election2007/voting/voting20.html

SeanW

The finer details of PR-STV can be confusing.
Ok, here's my problem: I want to vote as tactically as possible, to make it a fine-tuned FF bashing instrument. But I also want good representation for Longford (consitutency Longford/Westmeath).

The bookies http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go_type&category=SPECIALS&disp_cat_id=31&ev_class_id=33&ev_type_id=8065&ev_oc_grp_ids=45148&bir_index=
give the Mullingar based Labour candidate the best odds at 1-50. So he's a dead cert. No low-pref from me.
My intended number one, James Bannon FG, is in a tight, potentially losing fight with Peter Kelly FF. So the first 2 or 3 preferences should be going to FG candidates.
On the other hand, I think this is the first time the Greens are running a candidate here and I'd like not to have theirs lose out in the first count. But the bookies think she's a dead loser anyway so I don't want to waste a first pref.

I am also assuming that either the Greens or Labour would do business with FF in the right/wrong circumstances.

That gives me a choice of 3 schemes to control my first 5 preferences.
1:
Local FG
Green
Other FGs
Labour
Others

2:
Local FG
Other FGs
Green
Labour
Others

3:
Green
Local FG
Other FGs
Labour
Others

JustSomeone

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Must be subtle for me, I'm not seeing the random element.

Maybe I'll read the Times article.

Thanks all.

Voipjunkie

JustSomeone wrote:

What random element?
The Citizens Info page (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/elections-and-referenda/voting/proportional_representation) doesn't mention any random element.

The random element is the votes that are transfered

Lets say that Bertie has 2000 votes surplus all of berties votes are recounted and the surplus is distributed in proportion of the second preferences lets say 1000 go to Brady but Brady only needs 100 to reach the quota so he now has a surplus of 900 these are now the last votes added to Brady so these are the ones distributed the element of randomness is the votes selected from Bertie only the second preference was counted in the original distribution from Ahern which means that depending on where the surplus votes where selected from might determine how they distribute after that for example if the votes distributed where from Cabra then they might distribute more to a local Cabra candidate than to the next FF candidate for example however if they were picked from a different area then they might prefer another candidate that is the randomness

lucernarian

SeanW wrote:

The finer details of PR-STV can be confusing.
Ok, here's my problem: I want to vote as tactically as possible, to make it a fine-tuned FF bashing instrument. But I also want good representation for Longford (consitutency Longford/Westmeath).

The bookies http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go_type&category=SPECIALS&disp_cat_id=31&ev_class_id=33&ev_type_id=8065&ev_oc_grp_ids=45148&bir_index=
give the Mullingar based Labour candidate the best odds at 1-50. So he's a dead cert. No low-pref from me.
My intended number one, James Bannon FG, is in a tight, potentially losing fight with Peter Kelly FF. So the first 2 or 3 preferences should be going to FG candidates.
On the other hand, I think this is the first time the Greens are running a candidate here and I'd like not to have theirs lose out in the first count. But the bookies think she's a dead loser anyway so I don't want to waste a first pref.

I am also assuming that either the Greens or Labour would do business with FF in the right/wrong circumstances.

That gives me a choice of 3 schemes to control my first 5 preferences.
1:
Local FG
Green
Other FGs
Labour
Others

2:
Local FG
Other FGs
Green
Labour
Others

3:
Green
Local FG
Other FGs
Labour
Others

If your first preference gets eliminated in the first couple or few counts, then your next valid preference will be transferred. Therefore I'd go with the third choice.

Voipjunkie

SeanW wrote:

On the other hand, I think this is the first time the Greens are running a candidate here and I'd like not to have theirs lose out in the first count. But the bookies think she's a dead loser anyway so I don't want to waste a first pref.

This seems to be a running theme here that if your first preference candidate is not elected then you have wasted your vote.

You do not waste a first preference if the green get eliminated on the first count or any subsequent count your vote will be transfered to the next available candidate there is nothing wasted.
Rather if you voted Green then Labour then FG for example when the green is eliminated your vote would move to Labour (presuming they are still in the running) if the Labour candidate is then eliminated your vote will move on to FG presuming they have not been elected or eliminated that is not a waste of a first preference instead your vote has been counted 3 times or 5 times or more?

Gobán Saor

JustSomeone wrote:

I wouldn't dream of advising you how to vote, what I propose to do is vote for people in the following order.

The people I want in, and who are unlikely to get in
The people I want in, and who are likely to get in
The people I am neutral on
The people I want to keep out, and are unlikely to get in

That's exactly what I do too.:) I have more fun deciding who to put last.

passive

eh... You probably shouldn't give them a preference if you want to keep them out!?

Voipjunkie

passive wrote:

eh... You probably shouldn't give them a preference if you want to keep them out!?

There might be someone he wants to keep out more than someone else

Lets say he really does not want to vote for FG they have candidates 1 and 2 he dislikes 2 more than 1 so he gives a higher preference to candidate 1 if one of them is going to be elected he would prefer candidate 1 although his preference would be for neither of them it will not affect any of the people he would like elected as his vote will stay with them until they are elected or eliminated