Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Electoral systems discussion

2

Comments

  • #32
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,214 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122410475#Comment_122410475

    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.



  • #33
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,214 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122410406#Comment_122410406

    Can you point to the polling rule for this please?



  • #34
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,518 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122410506#Comment_122410506

    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.



  • #35
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,214 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122410535#Comment_122410535

    You're ignoring the distribution of votes for eliminated candidates,which is often way larger in numbers than the distribution of surpluses.

    The random selection applies to a fairly small proportion of votes.

    I'm still not seeing where you got your "3rd count" rule from.



  • #36
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,186 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122410405#Comment_122410405

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

    © 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd



  • Advertisement
  • #37
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,249 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122410475#Comment_122410475

    in the Euros, plenty of people had damn good reasons to go quite close to the bottom; to actively vote against a few candidates.

    You cannot assume that everyone votes like you do.



  • #38
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122412904#Comment_122412904

    My assumption does not apply to 'everyone' but just most voters - particularly those voting for popular candidates.

    I am not suggesting that they do vote like me, and I understand that voting against as well as for candidates. That is the strength of our system.

    However, most voters vote for popular candidates - the clue is there for you in the name 'popular'. That is the nature of elections.

    If I vote for candidates who represents my favourite party - all of the candidates of that party - why would I go much beyond them by more than a few more candidates I might like before giving up. [I do not support any political parties , by the way.]



  • #39
    Field east
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,661 ✭✭✭Field east


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122406822#Comment_122406822

    Cookie , I assume that you do realise that the UK system - first past the post- is a vastly different animal to the Irish system - PR. Long May the Irish system last including the manual counting element. It is part of our culture and very much ingrained in it. If we are ever looking for the name of a span new festival then what about an ELECTION FESTIVAL. There may come a time when we will be the only country with such a unique approach to holding elections - once Malta ‘changes it’s tune’ !



  • #40
    pureza
    Registered Users Posts: 1,569 ✭✭✭pureza


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122410535#Comment_122410535

    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



  • #41
    PommieBast
    Registered Users Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122407049#Comment_122407049

    Look like the sort of project that was doomed as soon as the consultants got their hands on it.



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    MacDanger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,684 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122406822#Comment_122406822

    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?



  • #43
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,214 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122427477#Comment_122427477

    What consultants are you referring to please?



  • #44
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122427477#Comment_122427477

    The solution was to go for obsolete hardware and to a Dutch software company and to allow them to own that software.

    This was for an election system that exist nowhere else, and would use this hardware about once or twice every four years. Now hardware goes obsolete in that time, and starting with obsolete stuff was not a good idea.

    So wrong decisions on all counts.

    Remember, the Lotto used optical sense cards to enter its draw and pay out millions at the time. Any good consultant would have started with them.

    Also, the lack of any kind of audit trail or verification of the system post hoc suggests this was a transition year project.



  • #45
    PommieBast
    Registered Users Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122427518#Comment_122427518

    The Oireachtas docs I've read just state outside/independent consultants without naming them. From some digging Nathean Technologies came up but their involvement was limited to writing the report on the system's insecurity.



  • #46
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,214 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428838#Comment_122428838

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

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428694#Comment_122428694

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



  • #47
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    @AndrewJRenko I merely said I think any design should look at the Lotto system that uses a system based on optical sense to read cards would be worth a bit of research. There is no reason to think this has any implications for anonymity. That is a separate requirement.#



  • #48
    EnPassant
    Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭EnPassant


    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.

    image.png

    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.



  • #49
    corkie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,558 ✭✭✭corkie


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122429988#Comment_122429988

    @AndrewJRenko If they can scan large ballots in Malta, I'm sure they could also do it here?

    https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/90901/watch_vote_counting_hall_transformed_as_electronic_system_in_place_for_european_elections



  • #50
    dulpit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,188 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


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



  • #51
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122430995#Comment_122430995

    Well, the problems one could look to solve could be:

    1. The speed of count.
    2. The accuracy of count so that every vote counted equally without requiring random choice.
    3. The data could be checked against the paper ballot - each ballot has a unique reference number that carries over to the data set, but is not related to the voter.
    4. The data file (anonymised) could be passed to university depts of politics or other interested parties for research into voting statistics and choices. Tallying would not be needed. Of course, the data could be down to ballot box, but probably not.
    5. Comparison of results vs opinion polls. This would allow polling entities to hone their models. However, Polls should be banned from publishing results for a defined time (say a week or 10 days) prior to the election.

    Of course there could be a significant saving in cost as well as the counting only requires the ballots to be scanned to a data file and then whatever validation that is deemed necessary. Results are released as gives drama and authority to the process..



  • Advertisement
  • #52
    rock22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,640 ✭✭✭rock22


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122431347#Comment_122431347

    Your last three are not problems that, in any sense, need to be solved.

    Your second point relates only to transfer of votes exceeding the quota. How inaccurate is our present system? What proportion of votes are transferred from a surplus? I think recounts show that this 'problem' only rarely comes into play.

    Your first 'problem' could be valid, if there was were some reason why time for a traditional count was not available. The end of the world perhaps. Otherwise, in setting the the dates of the vote, the count and the date for the Dáil to reconvene, the time for the count is more than adequately factored in.

    I still think you are suggesting solutions for a problem that , for the most part, does not exist.



  • #53
    dulpit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,188 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122432264#Comment_122432264

    Beat me to it. Agree with all points here.



  • #54
    Brussels Sprout
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    Another advantage is that the subtle randomness that exists in our current system of counting could be eliminated.

    For example, when we do transfers, the number of ballots transferred to each lower preference is done on a pro-rata basis but the actual ballots transferred are effectively chosen randomly (whatever was on top of the pile).

    When the candidates that those votes transfer to are eliminated those same transferred ballots are examined again and they transfer again to further candidates.

    So you could have 2 ballots.

    The first has preferences

    • A - 1
    • B - 2
    • C - 3
    • D - 4

    The second ballot has

    • A - 1
    • B - 2
    • C - 4
    • D - 3

    Imagine candidate A exceeds the quota on the first count. Both of those ballots will be examined and the fact that they both have B as their second preference will count toward the total number of transfers to B. However only 1 of these may actually be in the parcel of ballots transferred to candidate B.

    Now imagine candidate B gets eliminated. Well candidate C or D getting that ballot is going to depend on which of those ballots were transferred from A → B, which itself is determined randomly under our current system.

    If however the ballots were scanned then a computer could store all of that transfer information and calculate in a precise manner who all those voters who went #1 A, #2 B, collectively wanted as their third choice in an accurate manner.

    It could also do fractional transfers - since most of the pro-rata calculations don't result in whole numbers.



  • #55
    rock22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,640 ✭✭✭rock22


    @Brussels Sprout "Another advantage is that the subtle randomness that exists in our current system of counting could be eliminated."

    No, not another advantage, that was problem 2 of Sam Russel post.

    "It could also do fractional transfers - since most of the pro-rata calculations don't result in whole numbers."

    Then it wouldn't be 'single transferable vote' would it?



  • #56
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122441302#Comment_122441302

    Single Transferable Vote can be implemented by proportional single votes being transferred in proportion to the intentions of the voter, as required by the quota, and not divided by happenstance as to whether a particular vote was selected above a similar one that was not.

    Any computer based counting would have to be based on fractional votes so that all votes are counted equally, and not subject to the vagaries of chance selection.



  • #57
    Brussels Sprout
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122441302#Comment_122441302

    That's not what the single in STV means.

    The Northern Ireland Assembly uses PR-STV with fractional transfers.



  • #58
    rock22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,640 ✭✭✭rock22


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122443049#Comment_122443049

    Perhaps. But my reading of the Irish Electoract act , is that it is a single transferable vote

    Quote from Act

    "…the poll shall be taken according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote.

    (2) In this section “transferable vote” means a vote which is—

    (a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's preference for the candidates in order, and

    (b) capable of being transferred to the next choice when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or when, owing to the deficiency in the number of the votes given for a prior choice, that choice is excluded from the list of candidates."



  • #59
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122443558#Comment_122443558

    But that is not the way the Senate voting takes place - fractional votes are used.



  • #60
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,186 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Different legislation applies (Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act, 1947) and for counting purposes each vote is multiplied by 1000.

    © 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd



  • Advertisement
  • #61
    corkie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,558 ✭✭✭corkie


    https://www.electoralcommission.ie/media-release/national-election-and-democracy-study-neds-from-june-elections-provides-valuable-insights-into-irelands-voters-and-democracy/

    • 32% of online respondents agreed that the length of the ballot paper impacted how they voted ……
    • Of newly registered voters in the online survey, 29% of those were prompted to register by either social media, TV or radio ads …

    Thanks to Gavan Reilly tweet about the report.

    Wasn't there complaints about MNW ballot?



Advertisement