How does proportional representation work?

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.
 
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 :)
 
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!
 
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....
 
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!
Click to expand...

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!
 
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!
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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....
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top