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.
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.
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.
Suppose that candidate X gets 50 per cent of the number twos, he or she will then get 50 per cent of the surplus (i.e. proportional) which in this case would come to 1,000 votes. A bundle of 1,000 votes is then physically transferred to X's pile.
When the first count surpluses are distributed, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and his number 2s are transferred.
If the number 2 goes to a candidate who has already been elected or eliminated, it is passed to the next available candidate still in the contest. Again the votes are physically transferred. The process of elimination continues until all the seats are filled.
There is one added factor in the count. A candidate who is pushed over the quota with transfers in the middle of the count has a surplus to be distributed. Unlike a first count surplus, when all the number 2s are examined, a surplus on a subsequent count is a random selection of votes from the last bundle won by a candidate.
For instance, if candidate Y gets 7,000 votes on the first count and eventually ends up being pushed over the quota on a later count with, say a transfer of 2,001 from an eliminated candidate, it means that in our hypothetical constituency he will have a surplus of 1,000. The last 1,000 votes added to his pile will then be transferred to the next available preference on the ballot paper (i.e. random).
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
How do I correct a preferance while voting?
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....
Of course with a properly implemented electronic voting system there would be no randomness. Maybe someday...
elections in Northern Ireland using the Gregory system of PR implemented fractional transfer of votes
Without understanding the details, it seems Gregory is not without it problems though (does not treat all votes equally).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?