PR-STV: voting transfers

Boulevardier

I was looking over results, and it struck me that in many if not most constituencies, the 3 top-placed candidates in the first count in 3 seat constituencies were the ones elected. Ditto for the top 4 in 4-seaters and the top 5 in 5-seaters.

Could we not hugely simplify things, and keep reasonable proportionality as well, by simply giving each voter a single non-transferable vote in multi-seat constituencies, and get rid of preferences, transfers, 2nd counts, 10th counts, distributions of surpluses, etc etc.?

Obviously it would be cruder than the transferable vote, but it seems that much the same result would be reached anyway. Parties wanting to win more than 1 seat could do so by vote management, as they normally do now in any case

Sam Russell

Boulevardier wrote: »

I was looking over results, and it struck me that in many if not most constituencies, the 3 top-placed candidates in the first count in 3 seat constituencies were the ones elected. Ditto for the top 4 in 4-seaters and the top 5 in 5-seaters.

Could we not hugely simplify things, and keep reasonable proportionality as well, by simply giving each voter a single non-transferable vote in multi-seat constituencies, and get rid of preferences, transfers, 2nd counts, 10th counts, distributions of surpluses, etc etc.?

Obviously it would be cruder than the transferable vote, but it seems that much the same result would be reached anyway. Parties wanting to win more than 1 seat could do so by vote management, as they normally do now in any case

Goodbye Maureen O'Sullivan for one.

The STV system is simplicity itself for the voter - place candidates in the order of your choice. It is only complicated by the politicians and the pollsters.

There are many types of voters: The party man who votes party 1, 2, and 3 and then puts down the pencil; The personal voter who votes for the candidates; Then the strategic voter who tries to 'help' low appeal candidates so the vote travels well; and probably a few more types. Some vote all the way to the end, some only vote 1 or perhaps their first few.

Some make up their mind months in advance and some who only decide with the pencil in their hand. It takes all sorts.

Then there are the voters that don't vote.

Only the last deserve sanction.

echo beach

Boulevardier wrote: »

Could we not hugely simplify things, and keep reasonable proportionality as well, by simply giving each voter a single non-transferable vote in multi-seat constituencies, and get rid of preferences, transfers, 2nd counts, 10th counts, distributions of surpluses, etc etc.?

It would be slightly simpler but it wouldn't be PR. It would be first past the post, (or rather first 3, 4 or 5 past the post) with all the unfairness of that system.
Only those people who voted for the top candidates would have a say in who wins. If I wish I can give my vote to a person I know is a 'no-hoper' knowing that if they go out early on my vote can still have a say in who actually gets a seat. Under your system I would have to choose only between those with a realistic chance of winning if I want to influence the outcome.

The reason those at the top at first usually come out on top at the end is because they are also more popular in terms of further preferences as well as first preferences, with the possible exception are SF who are regarded as less transfer friendly.

Boulevardier

Echo those are fine points in theory, but my point is that transferable voting appears to make little difference to the end result. The voting you prefer is really a kind of placebo vote.

The voting I suggest is not unfair in the way the UK one is, because in my system there would still be proportionality. You would not have 30-40% of the voters winning sole parliamentary representation in any constituency.

Sam Russell

Boulevardier wrote: »

Echo those are fine points in theory, but my point is that transferable voting appears to make little difference to the end result. The voting you prefer is really a kind of placebo vote.

The voting I suggest is not unfair in the way the UK one is, because in my system there would still be proportionality. You would not have 30-40% of the voters winning sole parliamentary representation in any constituency.

Under the above first pass the post system we would not have had Mary Robinson as president.

If one candidate get two quotas and his party running mate gets zero, but all the No. 2s from his mate both will be elected but under FPTP the second candidate would be eliminated.

No, we have STV system for our sins.

In the recent UK election, David Cameron got 36% of the popular vote and was elected. The Labour party got 52% of the popular vote and were considered by many commentators to have badly lost the election - they were annihilated.

The only fair element would come from multiple seat constituencies. Why not go for all of then to be 5 seaters, or even 7 seaters. That would improve proportionality, but it is not STV.

Brussels Sprout

Sam Russell wrote: »

In the recent UK election, David Cameron got 36% of the popular vote and was elected.

An even bigger distortion caused by the "Winner take All" mechanism that's baked into First Past the Post was felt by UKIP. They received 12.7% of the overall votes cast but only won 1 of the 650 seats in parliament (0.2% of the total share).

On the other side of the coin were the SNP. They got 50% of the votes that were cast in Scotland and yet ended up winning 56 of the 59 seats (94.9% of the total)

It's grossly unfair in my opinion and exceptionally boring and frustrating as a voter. Last week I was able to give my #1 and #2 votes to people who I would ideally have liked to have seen elected. I knew they hadn't a hope of winning a seat so I was able to be pragmatic with my #3 which I gave to one of the 2 candidates who I knew would be fighting for the final seat in my constituency.
Sure my #1 and #2 candidates still got eliminated but they were both able to see that they got a good whack of support from the public which will hopefully allow to them to build toward future elections. If we had had First Past the Post I would have instead given my vote to my #3 candidate and those other 2 candidates would likely have got half the votes that they actually ended up with.

Sam Russell

The number one votes are vital for candidates as it keeps them in the race. Their total vote before elimination also affects their funding. They need to get 25% of a quota to qualify for state election funding on a candidate basis, and their party needs to get 2% of the national vote to qualify for ongoing state funding.

Renua qualify for it even though they got no seats.

This state funding is part of the deal to stop corporate funding.

blackwhite

Sam Russell wrote: »

In the recent UK election, David Cameron got 36% of the popular vote and was elected. The Labour party got 52% of the popular vote and were considered by many commentators to have badly lost the election - they were annihilated.

The Tories got 36.8% of the popular vote whilst Labour only got 30.5%.

I don't know where you're pulling 52% out of?

Boulevardier

I would not favour first past the vote in single-seat contests, for precisely the reasons people have explained above.

However, in multi-seat contests, the end result would, more often than not, be little different from the STV results if voters were to have 1 non-transferable vote each and the first 3, 4 or 5 past the post were to be deemed elected. It would save a huge amount of trouble while still delivering proportionality.

Scofflaw

Boulevardier wrote: »

I would not favour first past the vote in single-seat contests, for precisely the reasons people have explained above.

However, in multi-seat contests, the end result would, more often than not, be little different from the STV results if voters were to have 1 non-transferable vote each and the first 3, 4 or 5 past the post were to be deemed elected. It would save a huge amount of trouble while still delivering proportionality.

Actually, it would only deliver proportionality for the first 3, 4, or 5 choices, which isn't really proportionality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Russell

blackwhite wrote: »

The Tories got 36.8% of the popular vote whilst Labour only got 30.5%.

I don't know where you're pulling 52% out of?

[Sorry, my keyboard is faulty - it does not correct my typing when I make a mistake.]

I meant 30.4% - mistyped (and also from faulty memory). The point I was making was the difference was relatively small but the effect was massive. The Labour party increased its vote by 1.5% and lost 26 seats while the Tories increased their vote by 0.8% and increased their seats by 24. Not exactly democracy in action.

blackwhite

Sam Russell wrote: »

[Sorry, my keyboard is faulty - it does not correct my typing when I make a mistake.]

I meant 30.4% - mistyped (and also from faulty memory). The point I was making was the difference was relatively small but the effect was massive. The Labour party increased its vote by 1.5% and lost 26 seats while the Tories increased their vote by 0.8% and increased their seats by 24. Not exactly democracy in action.

I was wondering!

Fully agree that FPTP is deeply flawed - with the above being just one striking example of how the results from it can be massively skewed.

Other examples from last year would be the Lib Dems getting 8 seats from 2.4m votes whilst the SNP took 50 seats from 1.5m; or UKIP getting a single seat off 3.9m votes whilst the SDLP took 3 seats from 100k votes.
STV wouldn't fully negate the impact of regional support like this example, but it certainly would have dampened the impact.

Sam Russell

Of course the thing to remember about STV is that the most popular gets elected, but the least popular does not.

By that I mean a compromise candidate can come through even though they would not be in the running in a FPTP election. Or put another way, the transfer toxic will be eliminated and the transfer friendly will stay the race - never first but never eliminated.

piuswal

blackwhite wrote: »

I was wondering!

Fully agree that FPTP is deeply flawed - with the above being just one striking example of how the results from it can be massively skewed.

Other examples from last year would be the Lib Dems getting 8 seats from 2.4m votes whilst the SNP took 50 seats from 1.5m; or UKIP getting a single seat off 3.9m votes whilst the SDLP took 3 seats from 100k votes.
STV wouldn't fully negate the impact of regional support like this example, but it certainly would have dampened the impact.

Just to show how deeply flawed the FPTP system is, consider the following election;

600 seats and 30,000,000 voters.
50,000 voters for each seat.

Party A wins 301 seats with a vote of 25,001 in each; total 7,525,301
Party B loses 301 seats with a vote of 24,999 in each; total 7,524,699

Party A loses 299 seats with 0 votes; total 0
Party B wins 299 seats with 50,000 in each; total 14,950,000


So, Party A wins 301 seats and the election with 7,525,301 votes

Party B wins 299 seats and loses the election with 22, 474,699 votes i.e. nearly 3 times as many votes as the winning party!

An extreme case admittedly but roughly simulating the UK situation with c 600 seats and c 30 million voters and just 2 contesting each seat.

3 contesting means each seat could be won with 34% of the vote.
4 contesting means each seat could be won with 26% etc etc, potentially giving rise to an even greater number of voters for the losing parties.

piuswal

echo beach wrote: »

When the ballot boxes are opened, one by one, all the votes are checked to make sure the number in each box agrees with the number cast and to remove the spoiled votes. This is when the 'tallies' you hear reported are done.

The votes are then split into those for each candidate and it is at this point that they get mixed together or 'randomised'. These votes are then counted in bundles or 50 or 100 and it is these bundles that are put into 'piles'. The first preferences for a candidate who doesn't reach the quota on the first count stay in his or her 'pile' until such time as that candidate is elected or eliminated.
When a candidate is eliminated their no 2 votes are distributed and get put on top of the 'pile' for their second choice and so on as the eliminations continue. The pile for those remaining is getting bigger until it eventually gets to the quota, usually with some over. It is these extra votes that make up the surplus and if you can imagine all the ballot papers moving around the count centre into the various piles then it is clear that only the ones from the last pile added could be part of the surplus. By the time they form that surplus then they have been mixed or 'randomised' several times.

What happens if the numbers do not agree?

In my polling station there are 2 boxes for the area when 1 would do.
I feel that having to put your vote into a particular box increases the odds that your vote can be identified and so usually drop my vote into the other box.

Sam Russell

piuswal wrote: »

What happens if the numbers do not agree?

In my polling station there are 2 boxes for the area when 1 would do.
I feel that having to put your vote into a particular box increases the odds that your vote can be identified and so usually drop my vote into the other box.

Interesting point.

The box you put your vote into is used by the tallymen to identify the trends per area. This allows for statements about the number of, say, SF votes or Labour votes were in an area that would not be expected to support a particular party. The tallymen do their work for the benefit of the party for the next election.

Putting the vote in the wrong box could completely banjax their strategy for the next election - and may be the reason for the collapse of the gov vote.:)

blackwhite

piuswal wrote: »

What happens if the numbers do not agree?

In my polling station there are 2 boxes for the area when 1 would do.
I feel that having to put your vote into a particular box increases the odds that your vote can be identified and so usually drop my vote into the other box.

One of the controls that's *supposed* to be enforced at the initial counting stage is that the number of votes in the box is supposed to be matched to the number of voters crossed off the list for that particular box. The intention is to be a check against people voting twice, attempts to "Ballot-stuff", etc.

In reality, there's often immaterial differences of 1 or two between boxes.

I'd imagine if a recount situation ended up before the courts then it could potentially cause a problem?

echo beach

piuswal wrote: »

What happens if the numbers do not agree?

In my polling station there are 2 boxes for the area when 1 would do.
I feel that having to put your vote into a particular box increases the odds that your vote can be identified and so usually drop my vote into the other box.

I've never heard of two boxes in the same polling station. Each box has a number which matches the number of the electoral register being used at that station. This number appears on your polling card telling you the location of your polling both.
At our local school there are three polling stations,each in different classrooms and each with their own presiding officer and poll clerk. The number of the booth is on display so you know which one to go to but you can't choose which box to put your vote into. It has to go into the one in your own polling booth right beside the presiding officer who gave you the ballot paper and put a punch in it to make it valid.

The number of votes in each box MUST tally with the number recorded as being cast. That is why the boxes are sealed at the end the poll, kept under guard overnight and opened in public in front of representatives of each candidate. If the number is more than one or two out then the whole electoral process is flawed and the returning officer could not declare a result. I don't know if it has ever happened but if it did I suspect it would end up in court

piuswal

Does anyone else have multiple ballot boxes in the room where they cast their ballot?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

echo beach

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And it is a separate polling station with a different number and its own staff and voting booths. You don't have the option of walking down to the other box to put your vote into it.

piuswal

In my local polling station there are two tables opposite you at the far end of the room.

There are signs at the door and over the tables telling you which area each is for. The ballot boxes are in front of the table.

The polling booths are along the left hand wall at right angles to the tables.

If you collect your ballot paper from the right hand table you have to walk across in front of both boxes to the booths and on coming back, having marked your ballot you have to pass by the left hand ballot box to get to your one.

It is easy to imagine in a busy period with lots of people voting that people cloud drop their ballot paper into the nearest box without anyone at the tables realising it.

Presumably they can simply add the distributed ballots from the two tables to match the total in the two boxes!

CIARAN_BOYLE

echo beach wrote: »

I've never heard of two boxes in the same polling station. Each box has a number which matches the number of the electoral register being used at that station. This number appears on your polling card telling you the location of your polling both.
At our local school there are three polling stations,each in different classrooms and each with their own presiding officer and poll clerk. The number of the booth is on display so you know which one to go to but you can't choose which box to put your vote into. It has to go into the one in your own polling booth right beside the presiding officer who gave you the ballot paper and put a punch in it to make it valid.

The number of votes in each box MUST tally with the number recorded as being cast. That is why the boxes are sealed at the end the poll, kept under guard overnight and opened in public in front of representatives of each candidate. If the number is more than one or two out then the whole electoral process is flawed and the returning officer could not declare a result. I don't know if it has ever happened but if it did I suspect it would end up in court

Each ballot is stamped or punched prior to being given to the voter. The punched pattern is different for each box. Wrongly stamped votes are afaik deemed spoiled.

piuswal

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Each ballot is stamped or punched prior to being given to the voter. The punched pattern is different for each box. Wrongly stamped votes are afaik deemed spoiled.

1. Are you sure the stamps are different?

2. My recollection of one count is that a box is upended, the votes are opened out in a manner that the tallymen see them and note them. I seem to recall one person would have responsibility for No 1s another for No 2s; not sure how far down they went but I have no recollection of people looking at the stamp marks.

I recall that in the recent election it was only after a recheck that some votes were deemed invalid because they were not stamped, or is my memory failing me again?

uck51js9zml2yt

piuswal wrote: »

What happens if the numbers do not agree?

In my polling station there are 2 boxes for the area when 1 would do.
I feel that having to put your vote into a particular box increases the odds that your vote can be identified and so usually drop my vote into the other box.

They generally look at the station figure if the box figure differs from the paperwork.

Unless you write something identifying on it, its anonymous.

uck51js9zml2yt

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Each ballot is stamped or punched prior to being given to the voter. The punched pattern is different for each box. Wrongly stamped votes are afaik deemed spoiled.

Stamps are the same.
Non stamped votes are spoiled and taken very seriously by the powers that be.
The presiding officer doesn't get paid and is sacked if its more than 1 or 2.

echo beach

piuswal wrote: »

If you collect your ballot paper from the right hand table you have to walk across in front of both boxes to the booths and on coming back, having marked your ballot you have to pass by the left hand ballot box to get to your one.

It is easy to imagine in a busy period with lots of people voting that people cloud drop their ballot paper into the nearest box without anyone at the tables realising it.

That sounds like a very poor set-up and I'm surprised nobody has complained about it.

piuswal wrote: »

2. My recollection of one count is that a box is upended, the votes are opened out in a manner that the tallymen see them and note them. I seem to recall one person would have responsibility for No 1s another for No 2s; not sure how far down they went but I have no recollection of people looking at the stamp marks.

The tallymen work for the various political parties, not for the returning officer. Their role to supposed to be to ensure the count is done fairly. Noting the votes for each candidate from each box as it is opened is NOT an official part of the count. All the count staff do at that first stage is open out the votes, count the total number of votes from the box and make sure it agrees with the votes cast.

It is traditional to place the votes face up so the tallymen can do their count but there is a strong case to be made that they should be placed face DOWN, especially if there are less than about a hundred votes in a box.