Distribution of Surplus

[Rebel Browser]

Hi all,

I'm not very (party) political so forgive what might seem an obvious question but...

...How exactly is the surplus distributed?

By way of example, if Candidate A gets 11,000 first preferences and the quota is 10,000,

1. Do only the last 1,000 votes get distributed to the second preferences indicated on those last 1,000 votes

or

2. Do all the 11,000 votes get scrutinised to work out what percentage of second preferences are going to Candidates B, C etc with the consequence that the 1,000 surplus is distributed exactly pro rata to the second preferences indicated on the entire 11,000 votes?

My fear is that if I vote for candidate A and they get 1,000 over the suplus then my vote will only progress on to my second preference if it happens to be one of the (9% of) votes which are deemed to be the suplus votes.

Anyone?

[Free Speach]

I'm afraid your fears are realised. Only surplus used.

One of the reasons that they wanted electronic voting so as it could work out the percentages for them.

[Rebelman]

All 1000 votes are distributed on a pro rata basis of all number 2s in this example.

Random samples would be used if your candidate had not been elected on the first count

Explanatory link

[nuj]

Ist count surplus - all votes scrutinised, no.2s distributed pro rata.

Subsequent count surpluses - last physical bundles of votes to push candidate over the line. Not pro-rata, in other words - but it is random mix of surplus distribution and eliminated candidates 2nd, 3rd 4th etc preferences.

Nett result - a no. 2 vote won't travel if your no. 1 is elected after the first count.

[rockofcashel]

I finally had this fully explained to me yesterday, and was very annoyed about it, as it could actually make a large difference to me in a local vote.

I was under the impression that a random sample was taken from the bundle, equal to the amount of the surplus, and counted again before being distributed. However, its not. It's the last votes in the pile, taken off the top.

Now, this mightn't sound much of a difference, but in a local election it can have a large effect.

Just to highlight the point.

In the last local elections, my largest vote came from the Cashel Town area, with me doing less well in the rural parts of the constituency.

However, when the votes were counted, the Cashel Town votes are counted first, in case some need to be sent back to the Town Council count centre.

This means, all the FPV's cast in Cashel, will be at the bottom of everyones vote pile after the first count, with random rural areas at the top.

However, a rural candidate was elected on the first count, with a surplus of 78 votes. Because the 78 votes to be redistributed came from the top of the pile, rather than the bottom, I was disadvantaged, as I would have been more likely to get No. 2's in Cashel, than in rural areas.

And this would have gone on for every other transfer of surplus from any candidate i.e. less chance of Cashel Town votes being part of the surplus.

Was a bit mad when i heard it.

[TheBear]

Hi all,

I'm not very (party) political so forgive what might seem an obvious question but...

...How exactly is the surplus distributed?

By way of example, if Candidate A gets 11,000 first preferences and the quota is 10,000,

1. Do only the last 1,000 votes get distributed to the second preferences indicated on those last 1,000 votes

or

2. Do all the 11,000 votes get scrutinised to work out what percentage of second preferences are going to Candidates B, C etc with the consequence that the 1,000 surplus is distributed exactly pro rata to the second preferences indicated on the entire 11,000 votes?

My fear is that if I vote for candidate A and they get 1,000 over the suplus then my vote will only progress on to my second preference if it happens to be one of the (9% of) votes which are deemed to be the suplus votes.

Anyone?

As far as I know one of the (only) advantages with electronic voting was that there would be an exact distribution of surplus votes, like in your 2nd option, but I think with the current system I think its just a random selection.

From a discussion that we had here a week or so ago, I believe the converse is the case, actually.

[Peann luaidhe]

Not quite..

An elected candidate's surplus is distributed based on the next available preferences for continuing candidates based on the LAST PARCEL of votes that brought the candidate over the quota...

How the surplus is distributed is dependent on;

- if the number of transferable papers is greater than the surplus

- transferable papers less than the surplus.

In the first scenario, a ratio of preferences in calculated whilst in second one, all papers are used..

POINT OF NOTE

In a recount situation, the last parcel remains the same for surplus calculations....so same papers are counted and often why recounts do not produce a variance in result...

PL

[Rebelman]

I finally had this fully explained to me yesterday, and was very annoyed about it, as it could actually make a large difference to me in a local vote.

I was under the impression that a random sample was taken from the bundle, equal to the amount of the surplus, and counted again before being distributed. However, its not. It's the last votes in the pile, taken off the top.

Now, this mightn't sound much of a difference, but in a local election it can have a large effect.

Just to highlight the point.

In the last local elections, my largest vote came from the Cashel Town area, with me doing less well in the rural parts of the constituency.

However, when the votes were counted, the Cashel Town votes are counted first, in case some need to be sent back to the Town Council count centre.

This means, all the FPV's cast in Cashel, will be at the bottom of everyones vote pile after the first count, with random rural areas at the top.

However, a rural candidate was elected on the first count, with a surplus of 78 votes. Because the 78 votes to be redistributed came from the top of the pile, rather than the bottom, I was disadvantaged, as I would have been more likely to get No. 2's in Cashel, than in rural areas.

You were misinformed, see my post above if a candidate is elected on the first count his surplus is distributed on a pro rata basis of all his number 2s random sampling only applies to those eleceted in later counts.

PS Good luck tomorrow

[nuj]

However, a rural candidate was elected on the first count, with a surplus of 78 votes. Because the 78 votes to be redistributed came from the top of the pile, rather than the bottom, I was disadvantaged, as I would have been more likely to get No. 2's in Cashel, than in rural areas.

.

Wrong, RoC.

Check my post - 1st count surpluses are distributed pro-rata according to the entire number of 1s achieved by the successful candidate. Only happens on first count.

[Sidewinder]

As far as I know one of the (only) advantages with electronic voting was that there would be an exact distribution of surplus votes, like in your 2nd option, but I think with the current system I think its just a random selection.

Nope, the government specifically insisted that Nedap break their original (full count) system to put random sampling back in.

Secondly, in Northern election, using exactly the same PR system, there is none of this random sampling or last parcel nonsense. All the votes are counted and distributed properly. By hand. And results take no longer than they do here.

Given that so many seats in every election come down to just a few votes, and that this sampling business is clearly inaccurate, biased against particular candidates depending on where the last bundle of votes came from, and quite possibly contains a systemic bias as well, and given that a few miles up the road they've been happily counting the votes properly for 35 years, I consider this nothing less than a national scandal. And has, perhaps, led to some general elections being won by the wrong parties in the past.

Yet not one of the parties, as far as I am aware, has any plans to fix this.