Why are some surplus votes used twice

[T McGibney]

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.

I've never understood this "representative view" business. My understanding of the logic of PR is that if Sean Kelly gets 155,000 votes and the quota is 150,000 and I vote for him, either my first preference vote is counted in the first 150,000 needed to elect him or if he is already at the quota, my second preference (say Billy Kelleher) is counted in Billy's pile.

But the "representative sample" practice means that my vote is taken into account twice, once for Sean and again (in part) for Billy.

And if Billy is elected but never reaches the quota, a vote for him is only taken into account once.

 

[Itchy]

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

Why would one do that? That is imposing a preference where none exists.

I've never understood this "representative view" business. My understanding the logic of PR is that if Sean Kelly gets 155,000 votes and the quota is 150,000 and I vote for him, either my first preference vote is counted in the first 150,000 needed to elect him or if he is already at the quota, my second preference (say Billy Kelleher) is counted in Billy's pile.

But the "representative sample" practice means that my vote is taken into account twice, once for Sean and again (in part) for Billy.

And if Billy never reaches the quota, a vote for him is only taken into account once.

Well, yes and no. Each candidate only requires the quota to get elected. If your candidate is already elected, then what's your next preference? If the candidate achieves the quota, your vote is not wasted, it contributes to the representative sample that will be transferred in the surplus (noting that your actual ballot paper may not make it in to the surplus bundle).

If Billy is not elected, your vote sits with him until he is elected or eliminated. If eliminated your vote is distributed on again.

 

[T McGibney]

If your candidate is already elected, then what's your next preference? If the candidate achieves the quota, your vote is not wasted, it contributes to the representative sample that will be transferred in the surplus (noting that your actual ballot paper may not make it in to the surplus bundle).

I still don't understand why it deserves to be devalued from the status of a single available-but-as-yet-unused vote to a contributor to a "representative sample".

 

[JoeRoberts]

On the issue of which ballots end up in the surplus bundle, the order of opening the boxes must therefore affect this ?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

A gets 5,000 votes
The quota is 4,000
The surplus is 1,000

Forget about the issue of non-transferables for simplicity.

All of A's 5,000 votes are now separated into bundles as follows:

B: 3,000
C 1,500
D: 500

The Transfer Value is calculated at surplus/votes = 1,000/5,000 = 20%

So on the count sheet,
B gets 600 transfers
C gets 300 transfers
D gets 100 transfers.

So if Tommy vote A: 1; B;2

His vote has now been used as follows:

A .8
B .2

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Another issues arises which causes some debate.

On the first count , B got say 3,999 votes, just one short of the quota.
A's transfers to B are physically bundled separately and put on top of B's first preferences - this is known as the "last parcel for B"
B now has a surplus of 599 votes.

In determining where that surplus goes, only the last parcel is used.

I believe that in Scotland, the votes are scanned and it's counted more exactly.