Surpluses are treated differently from eliminated candidates in the election

Brendan Burgess said:
Hi Marsupial

In two ways

1) Someone in a political party is more likely to have a surplus than an independent.

2) Typically people who vote 1 FG, vote 2 FG and 3 FG as well.
If someone votes for an independent, their later preferences are more widely distributed.

So it applies to them.


But the fact that it favours the political party is a bit off the point. It does not reflect the intention of the voter, so it is not right.
Click to expand...

That's more or less what you wrote in your earlier response!

But I'm not at all convinced by either argument! (Nor by your final sentence!)
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I was very surprised at this. And it gives political parties an advantage over independents.

It is quite complicated.

Let's say that A is eliminated and he has 100 votes.
His preferences are as follows:
B :40
C:40
D: 0
non-transferrable: 20

Then B gets 40, and C gets 40.

But let's say that A gets elected with a surplus of 100 votes
But he had 200 votes in total
The preferences are in the same proportion as above:
B :80
C:80
D: 0
non-transferrable: 40

But according to Statutory Instrument, the full surplus of 100 votes is allocated to the remaining candidates in proportion.

So B gets 50
And C gets 50
There are no non-transferrable votes.
Click to expand...

The issue raised here is really interesting. I think ultimately though, this distribution of the surpluses is not a bad thing, because it encourages voters to fill out their full ballot. If you don't decide where you want your second preference to go, then someone else will decide for you.

In the above example, you could have had a surplus of 100 being decided by the distribution of 101 transferable votes. And 99 votes that don't have any second preference will have no say in where those votes go.

An important point here: this method of distributing surpluses is done when the surplus is less than the total number of transferable votes. But when transferables are less than surplus, then only the transferables are distributed and non-transferrables are left not effective. From looking back at counts from earlier election years, this seems to have the effect that in later counts, the surpluses and exclusion votes are treated the same way, i.e. with non-transferable votes left not effective.

Ultimately, it encourages voters to fill out their ballot, which is good for proportional representation of the electorate. The above example posted earlier, I think, nicely shows the importance of this.
 
BM

That is very interesting. That is the fair way to do it. Don't transfer the non-transferables. But it's not the way it was done in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown although I assume they use the same software.

Would you have a link to Count 10. I wonder if it has something to do with the "surplus being less than the number of transferable votes" although I can't get my head around why this would happen.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
BM

That is very interesting. That is the fair way to do it. Don't transfer the non-transferables. But it's not the way it was done in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown although I assume they use the same software.

Would you have a link to Count 10. I wonder if it has something to do with the "surplus being less than the number of transferable votes" although I can't get my head around why this would happen.
Click to expand...

Same thing happens in each count....

Count 10


Count 9

 
Hi BM

In Count 2 Galway City Central, they are doing it the same way as Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown.

They "reallocate" the non-transferables to the other candidates.

1718190980108.png
Comer had a surplus of 399 to be distributed.
111 were invalid
But they distributed 399 anyway. The "Votes this count" add up to 399 not 288 as I would have expected.
 
Last edited:
Folks

This is a very complex issue.

I have deleted the off topic posts. Feel free to discuss whether we need more or fewer independents or the competence of our elected people in Letting Off Steam.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi BM

In Count 2 Galway City Central, they are doing it the same way as Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown.

They "reallocate" the non-transferables to the other candidates.

View attachment 8914
Comer had a surplus of 399 to be distributed.
111 were invalid
But they distributed 399 anyway. The "Votes this count" add up to 399 not 288 as I would have expected.
Click to expand...
If the transferables are less than the surplus, then they shouldn't be redistributing like this, from what I'm reading in the electoral act 1992. This is worth checking more I think, I'd love to know the explanation. Is there a chance that many count centres around the country are doing this wrong?? That would be a massive story. It would be great to see what comes of it if anyone goes further with this investigation.

Because this is count 2, and someone cleared quota in count 1, all ballots should be checked for second preference, but that doesn't mean that all ballots are redistributed. They need to check for the 3 different ways of distributing surplus, and it looks like the wrong way is chosen here. Maybe that's where it's going wrong, if it is indeed going wrong. Maybe "invalid" here doesn't mean "non transferable", but then how could they have counted in Cubbard's total for count 1. Fascinating stuff.
 
It would seem extraordinary if they were doing it wrong - I presume that the Returning Officers are all trained and up to speed on how the system works and apply the rules exactly they are meant to be
 
This is how I think it works.

The surplus of Cubbard = 399 after the first count in Galway City Central LEA does not refer to 399 actual specific ballot papers.

The size of the surplus is determined first. It is 399.

Who should get the 399 transfers is then decided.


(1) They look at all of Cubbard's 1,486 FPV, as the surplus happened at the first count.
(2) They look at the 2nd prefs of each of the 1,486 FPV
(3) Some of the FPV don't have a 2nd pref, so ignore them
(4) split up all the 2nd prefs, and compare each amount to the total 2nd prefs
(4) They apply those ratios to the 399 surplus.


Let us take as an example Josie Forde, who received 73 of the 399 surplus.

She must have got a proportion of the Cubbard's 2nd prefs as follows: 73 / 399 = 18.3% of the valid 2nd prefs
 
jpd said:
It would seem extraordinary if they were doing it wrong - I presume that the Returning Officers are all trained and up to speed on how the system works and apply the rules exactly they are meant to be
Click to expand...
Just coming back on this, the galway one is right, the transferables are greater than the surplus, so they're right to share out the full 399.
 
They are right according to the legislation.

But the legislation is wrong. People who have voted no. 1 only without expressing any further preference, are having a preference imposed upon them.

Brendan
 
JohnCondon said:
Just coming back on this, the galway one is right, the transferables are greater than the surplus, so they're right to share out the full 399.
Click to expand...

When you say "transferables" here, are you referring to the original FPV on the 1st count?
 
Protocol said:
When you say "transferables" here, are you referring to the original FPV on the 1st count?
Click to expand...
It's the 1485 - 111, fpv minus non transferable. That's 1375 (the transferables), which exceeds 399, so we share out the full 399.

There are at least 399 voters who have expressed a next preference, so 399 votes are shared out.
 
I got the Surplus Distribution Sheet for Count 2 in Blackrock Local Electoral Area - the distribution of Marie Baker's surplus which is attached.

Here are the results of Count 1 for Marie Baker

1718267427860.png
Of her total of 3,045 votes, 46 marked the papers " Marie Baker: No 1 " and went no further.
They expressed no further preference.
Yet a preference was imposed on them as follows:

1718267519184.png

As distributed = 2nd prefs / total transferable * surplus
For example: Dockrell: 856/2999*1306 = 372.76
If non transfers respected: 2nd prefes/total votes* surplus
For example Dockrell : 856/3045*1306

To be absolutely clear, the count is being done in accordance with the Statutory Instrument.

But my argument is that the SI is wrong as it does not respect the non-preferences expressed by those 46 people.

Put it another way, had this been the Euro election and Marie Baker got 3,045 votes, she would have been eliminated.
2,999 votes would have been distributed, not 3,045. The non-transferable votes would not have been redistributed among the other candidates.
 

Attachments

  • Distribution of Marie Baker's surplus.pdf
    164.6 KB · Views: 4
There are a few interacting factors here, the quota, the fact that physical ballots are transferred and the design of the system to capture the representative view of the electorate. (On a side note, the thread title is misleading. An elected candidate may have a surplus. An eliminated candidate does not have a surplus, thus they are not "treated differently").

I don't agree/see it as anybody having a view "imposed" on them. From the voters perspective, they have expressed a preference, which is that once their only preferred candidate is elected, they are indifferent to the other candidates or subsequent vote distribution. Should their candidate be eliminated, their vote becomes ineffective and does not effect the outcome of the rest of the election. This voter should be 100% satisfied.

As regards the surplus distribution, if the system is to transfer the surplus, it seems to make sense to transfer the 1306 usable ballots rather than 1286 ballots. It provides a larger sample of the view of the electorate who are not indifferent to the remaining candidates.
 
Itchy said:
I don't agree/see it as anybody having a view "imposed" on them.
Click to expand...
That's how I see it too, we use a STV system and everyone has the opportunity to indicate their order of preference. Those choosing not to indicate that order past a first or second preference are themselves yielding that choice to those who do continue their order of preference,
 
Itchy said:
As regards the surplus distribution, if the system is to transfer the surplus, it seems to make sense to transfer the 1306 usable ballots rather than 1286 ballots. It provides a larger sample of the view of the electorate who are not indifferent to the remaining candidates.
Click to expand...

OK, so would you do that with the eliminated candidates also?

If A's 2nd preferences are

B : 400
C: 300
D: 200
Non transferrable 100
Total : 1000

Using your reasoning, 1,000 votes should be transferred, so
B should get 400/900 or 444 votes.

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