# How does proportional representation work?



## homeowner (23 May 2007)

Here is how I understand it but it doesnt make sense so I assume i have it wrong.

We get to vote #1, #2, #3 in order of preference.

The #1 votes are counted and the people who reach the quota (say for example its 10000 votes) get elected.  

Then any more #1 votes they get over and above 10000 are given to the #2 on each ballot.  So assuming you vote Bertie #1, Joe Bloggs #2 then once Bertie gets 10000 and they come along to counting your vote, your vote is given to Joe Bloggs because Bertie is already elected.

Here is what I dont understand.  If the person beside me, say its Voter2 voted Bertie #1 and Jane Bloggs #2 and his vote was one of the ones that counted towards Bertie's 10000, then when they get to my vote, Joe Bloggs gets my vote.  But if they counted mine before Voter2, then Jane Bloggs would have gotten the overflow.  That seems a bit random and unfair.

Can someone explain it to me simply.


----------



## Dearg Doom (23 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

There is more than one method of Proportional Representation. The Citizens Information website has an explanation of the Single Transferable Vote system.


----------



## tallpaul (23 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

From Wikipedia:

Single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency
_Main article: Single Transferable Vote_
This method of proportional representation uses a system of preferential voting to determine the results of the election
A constituency elects two or more representatives per electorate. Consequently the constituency is proportionally larger than a single member constituency. Parties tend to offer as many candidates as they most optimistically could expect to win: the major parties may nominate almost as many candidates as there are seats, while the minor parties and independents rather fewer. Voters mark their ballot, allocating preferences to their preferred ranking for some or all candidates. A successful candidate must achieve a quota being the total number of votes received divided by the number of candidates to be elected plus one ie in a nine member constituency the nquota would be the number of votes divided by 10 (9 + 1), Only in a few cases is this achieved at the first count. For the second count, if a candidate wins election his surplus vote, in excess of the quota, is transferred to his voters' second choices; otherwise, the least popular candidate is eliminated and his votes redistributed according to the second preference shown on them. This process continues for as many counts as are needed until all seats are filled. Although the counting process is complicated, voting is clear and most voters get at least one of their preferences elected. All deputies are answerable directly to their local constituents. Some political scientists argue that STV is more properly classified as 'semi-proportional' as there is no assurance of a proportional result at a nationwide level. Indeed, many advocates of STV would argue that preventing nationwide proportionality is one of the primary goals of the system, to avoid the perceived risks of a very highly fragmented legislature.

This system is used in Australia (Senate), the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland (assembly and local government elections) and Malta.
 



Does that help?

In practice my understanding is that, to take your example, if the quota is 10,000 and Bertie gets 11,000 then 1,000 of his ballot papers are selected randomly and second preferences are distributed. 

When a candidate is eliminated, all of their ballots are distributed.

Am I right??


----------



## wolfspeed (23 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

*Therre is a good article on PR in the Irish Times today. Worth having a read if you are interested.*


----------



## shanegl (23 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*



> If the person beside me, say its Voter2 voted Bertie #1 and Jane Bloggs #2 and his vote was one of the ones that counted towards Bertie's 10000, then when they get to my vote, Joe Bloggs gets my vote. But if they counted mine before Voter2, then Jane Bloggs would have gotten the overflow. That seems a bit random and unfair.



All of the 2nd preferences for #1 would be counted, and then the surplus votes would be divided out proportionally based on this.


----------



## homeowner (23 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

Thanks Tall Paul but i still am confused about this bit:



tallpaul said:


> In practice my understanding is that, to take your example, if the quota is 10,000 and Bertie gets 11,000 then 1,000 of his ballot papers are selected randomly and second preferences are distributed.


 
Its how they allocate or chose the surplus to be redistributed that I dont understand.  If it s random like you suggest then it falls to chance who gets elected on the second round which doesnt seem to be in the spirit of a democracy.


----------



## cobalt (23 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

Transfers from the first count are done in proportion, but in later counts the votes to be transferred are taken randomly from the bundle. From the _Irish Times_ article:


> If any candidate gets a quota or more on the first count, they will be elected. The next thing that will happen is that the surplus votes of any candidate with more than a quota will be distributed.
> 
> Taking our earlier case where the quota is 8,001, suppose that one candidate comes in over the quota with 10,001 votes and thus has a surplus of 2,000. *That candidate's entire 10,001 votes will then be counted and the second preferences totted up. *
> 
> ...


----------



## homeowner (23 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

Thanks everyone for your replies.  I think that clears the matter up. i  must buy the Irish times today to get that article.


----------



## mmclo (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

They take the votes of the top of the pile (i.e the last ones counted or added to the pile)...many see this as unfair as they may not be represntative of the vote as whole (i.e. if they all came from one geographic area). I think there might be some mixing at the start though.

It's been challenged and upheld in court

It's worse on subsequent counts, say the surplus puts another candidate over the quota, then it is taken off the top again and distributed proportionately but these are not the No.1 votes of the most recent candidate elected.

Obviuosly it is done for efficiency, however even the dreaded electronic vote which could have sorted this problem by generating the proper figures (one of the arguments in it's favour) was programmed not to!! I think this was in order to have an equal system throughout the country when there was a mix of electronic and non electronic


----------



## ang1170 (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

Is it true to say the following?

Because the transfers from subsequent counts are random, then if there's a complete recount the votes for each candidate will (almost certainly) never be exactly the same.

If it is, then there's an abvious incentive for someone who's lost out by a handful of votes to keep asking for a recount.

This is in contrast to "1st pass the post" systems where a recount is just a check on what was previously done.


----------



## mmclo (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

I think they recoujnt everything but do  not remix them so they are simply retracing their steps


----------



## Dearg Doom (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*



> Because the transfers from subsequent counts are random, then if there's a complete recount the votes for each candidate will (almost certainly) never be exactly the same



Of course with a properly implemented electronic voting system there would be no randomness. Maybe someday...


----------



## KalEl (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

The whole transfer procedure isn't particularly transparent...I wonder what UN inspectors would make of it as there is a hint of banana republic about it all.


----------



## Grumpy (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

How do I correct a preferance while voting?


----------



## mmclo (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*



Grumpy said:


> How do I correct a preferance while voting?


 
If you change your mind? Unless you can clearly cross out go back and fet a replacement ballot paper


----------



## ang1170 (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*



KalEl said:


> The whole transfer procedure isn't particularly transparent...I wonder what UN inspectors would make of it as there is a hint of banana republic about it all.


 
Can't agree with that. I'd say we have one of the most transparent systems in the world: go ask the tallyman!

Yet another reason for not going to electronic voting....


----------



## KalEl (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*



ang1170 said:


> Can't agree with that. I'd say we have one of the most transparent systems in the world: go ask the tallyman!
> 
> Yet another reason for not going to electronic voting....


 
That element is fine...but the transfer system is bizarre.

Say I vote Tom Kitt No.1 and Maria Corrigan No.2. You vote Tom Kitt No.1 and leave it at that.
The quota is 10,000 and Kitt wins 13,000 on the first count.
My vote could be put in the 10,000, could go into the surplus to be redistributed...who knows. So could yours.
What they should be doing is counting all the votes like yours with just a No.1 preference, seeing how many there are, then seeing how many can be transferred. This picking the top pile or randomly taking a pile stuff is where the problem arises.
Correct me if I'm wrong...


----------



## gonk (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*



Dearg Doom said:


> Of course with a properly implemented electronic voting system there would be no randomness. Maybe someday...


 
This does not require e-voting. Recent manually counted elections in Northern Ireland using the Gregory system of PR implemented fractional transfer of votes. There is no reason why fractional vote transfers couldn't be done here too with paper ballots, removing the random element. 

Electronic voting is a classic example of a solution searching for a problem. It creates vastly more problems than it solves and since it only gets used once every four or five years, the costs are way out of proportion to any benefits, which are in any case more perceived than real.


----------



## Dearg Doom (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*



gonk said:


> elections in Northern Ireland using the Gregory system of PR implemented fractional transfer of votes



Seems from here the Gregory system is used here for Seanad elections - I wasn't aware of this. It's a bit odd to have two systems. Without understanding the details, it seems Gregory is not without it problems though (does not treat all votes equally).


----------



## gonk (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*



Dearg Doom said:


> Without understanding the details, it seems Gregory is not without it problems though (does not treat all votes equally).


 
All voting systems have their pluses and minuses. Computerising the systems does not remove them.


----------



## Trafford (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

The most enjoyable part of the whole election for me is always the 1 or 2 day long count. I would hate to see the drama of that done away with because of e-voting.


----------



## Pique318 (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

What about points-based system ?
1st choice 10 points, 2nd 8 points, 3rd 6 points, 4th 5, 5th 4, 6th 3, 7th 2 and 8th 1 point.

Most points wins !!

Actually, looking at it, I just listed the F1 championship points system.

We could change the Election day to Grand Prix day


----------



## ang1170 (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

If you mean that if giving Bertie my #1 he'd get 10 points, then whoever at #2, 8 points or whatever, this could give some truely bizarre results: for example, it would be possible to be elected having got no #1 votes at all!


----------



## Pique318 (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*

Possible, yes. Probable, no.

Besides, if a lot of people 'kinda' like Candidate A versus a lesser amount 'really' liking Candidate B....majority rules.

Seems more straightforward than trying to understand if your 2nd pref is actually counted or not....


----------



## gonk (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*



ang1170 said:


> this could give some truely bizarre results: for example, it would be possible to be elected having got no #1 votes at all!


 
This is theoretically possible under the present system, although highly unlikely. At it's simplest, suppose you have two candidates, A & B. A gets more than two quotas on the first count and is elected. B gets no first preference votes at all. Then when A's surplus is transferred it all goes to B, who is thereby elected on the second count.

Of course, B's quota could equally well be built up from a number of surpluses and/or eliminations, instead of in one fell swoop.

In practice, it's hard to imagine any candidate getting no first preferences at all - surely they'd at least vote for themselves!


----------



## Pique318 (24 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*



gonk said:


> In practice, it's hard to imagine any candidate getting no first preferences at all - surely they'd at least vote for themselves!


 
Bertie can't. He's not registered to vote in the constituency where he's standing for election.


----------



## gonk (26 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*



gonk said:


> This is theoretically possible under the present system, although highly unlikely. At it's simplest, suppose you have two candidates, A & B. A gets more than two quotas on the first count and is elected. B gets no first preference votes at all. Then when A's surplus is transferred it all goes to B, who is thereby elected on the second count.
> 
> Of course, B's quota could equally well be built up from a number of surpluses and/or eliminations, instead of in one fell swoop.
> 
> In practice, it's hard to imagine any candidate getting no first preferences at all - surely they'd at least vote for themselves!


 
In the current election we've actually seen the closest we're likely to get to the above scenario in real life.

Cyprian Brady (brother of the infamous ex-Lord Mayor of Dublin and failed European Parliament candidate, Royston) got 939 first preference votes, and was elected on transfers from Bertie Ahern.

Pundits on RTÉ Radio last night said they could not remember a candidate ever having been elected to the Dáil with fewer than a thousand first preferences and Mr Brady appears to have set a record in this regard.


----------



## MugsGame (26 May 2007)

> Say I vote Tom Kitt No.1 and Maria Corrigan No.2. You vote Tom Kitt No.1 and leave it at that.
> The quota is 10,000 and Kitt wins 13,000 on the first count.
> My vote could be put in the 10,000, could go into the surplus to be redistributed...who knows. So could yours.
> What they should be doing is counting all the votes like yours with just a No.1 preference, seeing how many there are, then seeing how many can be transferred.



You aren't wrong about there being randomness in the way transfers are handled, but I believe it's more complicated than how you describe it. After the first round, some candidates are elected (because they reached the quota) or eliminated (because they will never reach the quota/catchup even on maximum transfers). In the next round, all their votes are examined for the next valid preference. All these next preferences are counted and then multiplied by the proportion of their votes being transferred. The vote transferred to other candidates is calculated fully accurately and proportionally and there is no randomness. However, the physical ballot papers transferred are taken from the top of the pile for each candidate, which randomly affects the preferences available for subsequent rounds.



> go ask the tallyman!
> 
> Yet another reason for not going to electronic voting....





> Electronic voting is a classic example of a solution searching for a problem. It creates vastly more problems than it solves and since it only gets used once every four or five years, the costs are way out of proportion to any benefits, which are in any case more perceived than real.



Couldn't agree more. Imagine more recent polls hadn't shown a reversal in the perceived decline in support for FF, but we had E-voting, and the result still turned out as it has. Would voters trust the result?

For legal reasons, the pilot e-voting system retained the randomness from the current counting system, so it didn't even have that (perceived) advantage.


----------



## room305 (26 May 2007)

MugsGame said:


> For legal reasons, the pilot e-voting system retained the randomness from the current counting system, so it didn't even have that (perceived) advantage.



Although at least it would be truly random, rather than running the aforementioned risks of geographic or time distinct groupings of votes taken from the top of the pile ...

The most annoying thing surely about the whole e-voting campaign was the characterisation of those against the e-voting system proposed as "luddites". I work in computer science and held grave reservations about the system that was proposed, even if I am not against e-voting in general.

Even the ACM, an 80,000 strong professional grouping of computer scientists, issued a directive outlining their opposition to e-voting with no paper trail.


----------



## gonk (26 May 2007)

room305 said:


> Even the ACM, an 80,000 strong professional grouping of computer scientists, issued a directive outlining their opposition to e-voting with no paper trail.


 
The Irish Computer Society also took this position in its submission to the Commission on Electronic Voting. In response, Minister Cullen attacked the ICS on the Dáil record as being associated with the anti-globalisation movement. Following a formal complaint by the ICS under Dáil standing orders, he was forced to withdraw and apologise for the comment.


----------



## MugsGame (26 May 2007)

I know -- Cullen was confusing the ICS with those tree-huggers, the


----------



## gonk (31 May 2007)

*Re: How does proportional represenation work?*



gonk said:


> In the current election we've actually seen the closest we're likely to get to the above scenario in real life.
> 
> Cyprian Brady (brother of the infamous ex-Lord Mayor of Dublin and failed European Parliament candidate, Royston) got 939 first preference votes, and was elected on transfers from Bertie Ahern.
> 
> Pundits on RTÉ Radio last night said they could not remember a candidate ever having been elected to the Dáil with fewer than a thousand first preferences and Mr Brady appears to have set a record in this regard.


 
It appears from this letter to today's _Irish Times that _I was being unfair to Mr Brady - but not by much . . . 

"Madam, - Some gems from the world of proportional representation.
Election 2007, Dublin Central: Bertie Ahern 12,734 first preferences, Cyprian Brady 939.
Election 1923 (Carlow-Kilkenny): William T Cosgrave 17,709 first preferences, Sean Gibbons 615.
Election 1923 (Clare): Eamon de Valera 17,762 first preferences, Brian O'Higgins 114
In each case the running mate won a seat, largely on the back of his leader's surplus. _Mirabile dictu_."


----------

