Electoral systems discussion

Don't they have partial transfers for seanad elections? Similar to above...

But same logic could work if there was computerised counting?

Note - I favour the retention of current system as it is, including the count.

The point in only carrying those eliminated is those who made it through have already got representation.

Did wonder whether you were thinking along the lines of Condorcet voting.

If your first preference nearly gets elected on first count but doesn't, that vote is now gone?

The count in Ireland is a complete farce. computerised counting should 100% be a thing, instead of waiting days and days for a result it could all be done on the day or the next, like the recent UK elections as a singular example, or any number of others.

I'm not particularly here or there on electronic voting over paper, but elec counting over manual, absolutely. Especially in pr-stv, counting and allocating everything fairly instead of the current system where:

"The first count is normally the only time that all of a candidate’s second preference votes are counted"

Electronic counting would easily enable 2nd and subsequent counts to fully distribute the preference correctly, which is not currently the case and it becomes entirely dependent on when your vote was counted as to whether its re-used correctly or just binned/discounted and your vote is wasted through no fault of your own.

but mainly the completely ridiculous amount of time taken to manually count.

I'd imagine that our previous shambles with e-voting machines has left a sour taste.

I reckon the key thing is any change to the current system is fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

Allowing the count to run for a few days isn't a problem, if anything it allows the results to be digested over time.

No. It stays with that candidate, while they hope to pick up transfers from other eliminated candidates. Eventually, if they are the lowest candidate, they may get eliminated and may transfer to your next preference vote that has not previously been elected or eliminated.

They were badly implemented.

They could be very well implemented now, no need for all the manual counting and recounting.

Elections decided in one day.

Time this country's government came into the 21st century.

Because then one party will probably get all the seats in a given constituency.

What problem would 'elections decided in one day' solve?

Because the integrity of the Lotto system doesn't depend on your vote being anonymous and secret.

The integrity of the voting system DOES depend on your vote being secret.

If you can prove your vote, you can sell your vote. If you can prove your vote, you can be put under duress to vote.

There are good reasons why we vote in private booths. If you don't understand the current system, you're not in a good position to design a new system.

Not only does it take needlessly long, its costs a fortune to pay all those people, electronic counting would save a ton of expense.

A vote which "does not rest with an elected candidate" after Count 1 isn't discarded, unless it was a plumper, with no second preference.

https://www.electoralcommission.ie/irelands-voting-system/#votecount

A surplus is the number of votes a candidate has over the quota. Any candidate that reaches or exceeds the quota on the first count is deemed elected. The first count is normally the only time that all of a candidate’s second preference votes are counted. This surplus is then split between the remaining candidates. After all subsequent counts, it is only the remaining (surplus) ballot papers, after a candidate has reached the quota, that are redistributed (transferred) to the remaining candidates.

My highlight above, so if your vote is in the quota part it takes no further part, but if it is in the surplus it will be used for the next count(s). So random chance as to whether your vote is counted earlier or later basically.

Instead we spent a fortune on machines that didn't work properly and another fortune to store them.

If the surplus is distributed pro rata to the percentages in the elected candidates full bundle and that candidate is subsequently elected or is elected without reaching the quota,theres still a relationship there between your vote in the main bundle and the end result,tiny and tenuous but there nonetheless I suppose

If a voters 1st preference was eliminated early in the counts,the voter probably expected that anyway and should have been thinking about where it went next

Our PR system is one of the best in my opinion

the recent UK elections as a singular example, 

That's a first past the post system I think? Comparing those counts to PR counts is complete nonsense, right?

There were no consultants involved in the design and procurement. What documents suggest otherwise?

Starting with a lottery system that has no requirement for anonymity and the secret ballot would have been very silly.

Malta uses the same PR-STV system as Ireland.

For the Maltese Euro-election there were
- 260,258 valid votes (about 2/3 as many as the Dublin constituency)
- 6 seats
- 39 candidates (23 in Dublin)
- 37 counts (19 in Dublin)

They held their Euro-elections on Saturday in conjunction with their local elections.

They counted the votes by first scanning the ballot-papers and then counting by computer.

Above is a picture of the scanning process - the count staff hold up the ballot paper before scanning so that the Maltese tally people can see them. The results were known by Sunday evening.

See https://newsbook.com.mt/en/live-updates-on-european-and-local-election-outcomes/ for more details.

What works in Malta may not necessarily be suitable for Ireland.

There is also a specific problem with anonymity if STV elections are counted by computer. Any such count means that there is a file or database showing the details of each vote. I could easily prove to you that I voted in a particular way by giving you a sealed envelope before the election with my list of preferences. After the election, you can check the file to see that these preferences are present. There are so many possible combinations of preferences that the chances of anyone else voting in the same way are negligible.

But what is the benefit of doing counts like that? What problem are ye trying to solve?