Surpluses are treated differently from eliminated candidates in the election

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,774
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.
 
Last edited:
Here is the wording of the Statutory Instrument

(6) Where the surplus is less than the total number of transferable papers the following provisions shall
apply:

(a) the returning officer shall transfer from each sub-parcel of transferable papers to the continuing candidate indicated thereon as the voters' next available preference that number of papers which bears the same proportion to the number of papers in the sub-parcel as the surplus bears to the total number of transferable papers,

(b) the number of papers to be transferred from each sub-parcel shall be ascertained by multiplying the number of papers in the sub-parcel by the surplus and dividing the result by the total number of transferable papers,
 
Last edited:
Hi Marsupial

Party candidates are much more likely to have big surpluses and they are much more likely to transfer to other candidates in the party.
 
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.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
It does not reflect the intention of the voter, so it is not right.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree.

You only need the quota to be elected (i.e. the quota is selected to ensure you cannot be passed by future distributions). In your example, 20% of voters are indifferent to other candidates, once their selection has been elected and therefore don't elect to transfer further. The surplus is distributed on the basis of the intentions of the voters who do have a preference for other candidates. Ballots are non-transferable by choice/intention of the voter.

The fact that a candidate is party affiliated or not is largely irrelevant to the system. Popular (rather than party) candidates typically have large surplus and small surplus are more typical than large (as a result of the quota).
 
Itchy said:
The surplus is distributed on the basis of the intentions of the voters who do have a preference for other candidates. Ballots are non-transferable by choice/intention of the voter.
Click to expand...

OK, but why not apply that to eliminated candidates?

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.

Why not distribute his 100 votes according to the preferences of those who had a choice and give A & B 50 each?
 

The difference is the votes distributed in proportion are surplus votes i.e. in excess of the quota.

Non-transferable votes from an eliminated candidate are not-effective, there is no preference expressed, so can no longer support a further candidate. Non-transferable votes from an elected candidate are retained by the candidate to meet the quota, they are effective. The surplus votes (100) are distributed.

Also, the distribution of a surplus occurs within an individual count. So all the votes are totted, and we get a surplus. The surplus is then distributed. Once no more transfers are possible, and no one exceeds the quota, then it is determined that the lowest candidate is eliminated. Then a new count starts once their votes are distributed.
 
Last edited:
OK, let's take an extreme example to show the problem.

Let's say that the quota is 1,000
Joe gets 2,000 votes.
1900 of these are just Joe no. 1 with no transfers.
100 of them transfer to Billy.
No other candidate gets any transfers

Joe gets elected with 1,000 votes
His surplus is 1,000 votes
Billy got only 5% of second preferences
But he gets 100% of the quota.

This is so obviously wrong, that the legislation anticipates this and where the transferable votes are < surplus, only the transferable votes are transferred.

So in this case only 100 would be transferred.

Brendan
 
Last edited:
The quotas are set on the total number of valid votes, that calculation assumes surplus will get fully distributed, the importance continuing your selection in order of preference is highlighted for this reason.
 

That's incorrect. Billy got 100% of the second preferences.
 
Its even more complicated than that.

All 200 votes are not looked at to determine the second preferences, only the 100 surplus votes.

Of A's 200 votes 100 are his quota and 100 are his surplus. But which papers are in the quota and which are in the surplus. It makes no difference to A, but it makes a big difference to the transfers.

The answer seems to be which ever votes are physically on top.
 
Itchy said:
Billy got 100% of the second preferences.
Click to expand...

And based on that argument there should be no non-transferable votes for an eliminated candidate. If they get 1,000 votes with 900 non-transferable and one person getting 100 2nd preferences, he should get 1,000 votes.
 
cremeegg said:
The answer seems to be which ever votes are physically on top.
Click to expand...

If it's the surplus from someone elected on the first count, it's as follows
A's transfers to B are put into a separate bundle
50 of these actual papers are put into a bundle and the rest are wrapped up in a rubber band and kept together.
The 50 papers are taken at random from the pile (I think.)


If it's the tenth count
On the 9th count B got 100 transfers from A which brought him over the quota by 50.
These 100 transfers are separated into bundles for the remaining candidates
Of the 100, let's say C got 60, D got 20 and non-transferrable were 20.
C would now get 60/80 x 50 or 37.5
D would get 12.5

37 papers would be taken out of C pile of 60.

Brendan
 

Yes, except after the first count.

If a candidate exceeds the quota at the first count, then all of their ballots are examined to determine the distribution of the surplus.

This is happening today in South.
 
It seems entirely arbitrary which 37 of 60 get taken, and it matters if there is a subsequent count where C has a surplus or is eliminated.
 
Last edited:
Scrap surpluses, just transfer the eliminations. The distribution of surpluses is esoteric.

Your vote got someone elected, so you can have no complaints if the surplus doesn't transfer.
Up to the parties to manage the vote instead of relying on the system for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register