The Election Reform Act Take Two

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Yes, I was just about to do that.

So after the first round, Danihél was eliminated and, since that voter's second preference was Mick, Mick then got one more vote as the resutl. Since Mick and Hool were tied in votes for elimination, the next preference votes were counted and, since Mick had less, he was eliminated. All of Mick's next preference votes went to Hooligan and Hooligan and Owen were tied. So again, the next preference votes were counted and, since Hooligan had less, he was eliminated, leaving Owen with the victory.

[Brad Holmes]

Yeah, I still don't get it.

Please show all the math and the ballots.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

I can't post the ballots because some people asked that their ballots not be posted.

As for the math, it's like counting... 1+1=2

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

How about using Alias then?

Mr White, Mr Black Mr Yellow , etc.

Since you used some type of method to reduce the votes to declare Owen the winner (who by the way, had a clear majority on the 1st ballot) - you need to show the procedure and the methodology in how you reduced the voting to it's final out come.

It may be painfully clear to you, but it might be fuzzy math to the other 100+ citizens that might have to use this procedure to select their senator in the future.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Yikes! I made a mistake!

I counted my own vote wrong!!!

I accidentally put mine down for Hooligan instead of Owen. So actually... Owen did win in the first round... wow... stupid me.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

might I suggest you do this?

Post the voting , using aliases. Add a 13th voter, to make the math easier.

After each round, break out the voting, and why the person was eliminated, and the resulting formula.

This method is really going to need to be transparent, for it to work.

[Eðo Grischun]

So let me get this straight, some people dont understand how thier vote was counted, some people disagree with the method altogether and ... it the votes ended up being counted wrong after we said that it could. I must refer to someone saying not so long ago that this was easy. yeah.

I feel it appropriate here to cite my original argument regarding this style of election in Scotland....Utter confusion amongst the electorate.
I have to imagine that, in actual practice, this is going to end up frustrating a lot of voters, as well as candidates who end up losing after winning the first initial vote.
Dangerous ground is being tread upon here.

[Owen Edwards]

Equally, Eddie, it worked very admirably in London, and ALMOST (but not quite) got Ken back in. Spoiling problems weren't widely reported, either.

And Brad, don't let my popularity with the masses make this bill unworkable for you. You know it's a facetious point when Dreu was using this to demonstrate the maths, not any specific "utility". (and Dreu, do demonstrate using aliases, using the original vote count, to show how it was worked out...count your first pref as for Hooly as above)

[Brad Holmes]

Feb 6, 2009 12:23:02 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

And Brad, don't let my popularity with the masses make this bill unworkable for you.

Oh, don't worry, I won't. Besides, we all know it was fixed.

(and Dreu, do demonstrate using aliases, using the original vote count, to show how it was worked out...count your first pref as for Hooly as above)

Good plan, "massage the data", that's how proper results happen.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Ballots:

Person A
1 Hooligan
2 Owen
3 Danihel
4 Mick

Person B
1 Hool
2 Hool
3 Hool
4 Hool

Person C
1 Mick
2 Hool
3 Owen
4 Danihél

Person D
1 Owen
2 Hool
3 Mick
4 Danihél

Person E
1 Mick
2 Hool
3 Owen
4 Danihél

Person F
1 Owen
2 Hool
3 Danihél
4 Mick

Person G
1 Owen
2 Hool
3 Mick
4 Danihél

Person H
1 Owen
2 Hool
3 Danihél
4 Mick

Person I
1 Danihél
2 Mick
3 Hool
4 Owen

Person J
1 Hool
2 Mick
3 Owen
4 Danihél

Person K
1 Owen
2 Danihél
3 Hool
4 Mick

Person L
1 Owen
2 Danihél
3 Hool
4 Mick

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Now here's how it was done:

First we count up all the first preference votes.

6 for Owen
2 for Mick
1 for Danihél
3 for Hool

Now we check if anyone has a majority. If no one does then we eliminate the candidate with the lowest number of votes. Now we look back at Person I's vote (who was the only one who voted for Danihél) and see what his second choice was. It was Mick. So now we add one vote to Mick's "score"

6 for Owen
3 for Mick
3 for Hool

Now we look if anyone has a majority again. If no one has a majority than we have to eliminate the person with the lowest score. But, since Mick and Hool are tied for elimination we go back through all the ballots and see who has the most 2nd preference votes. In this case Hool has (not counting Person B) 6 and Mick has 2. This means that Mick is eliminated. His score is comprised of Persons C and E's first preference and Person I's second preference. So now we look at C and E's second preference (Lord Hooligan) and Person I's third preference (Lord Hooligan) and add those votes on so the total is now:

Owen: 6
Hooligan: 6

Now we must eliminate one of these candidates. So, we look at the third preference votes (because we've already used the second preference votes for the first tie. However, and this is something to discuss: there are quite a few ways of breaking a tie). Owen has 3 while Hool has 3 as well. So, now we look at the 4th preference votes. Owen has 1 while Hool has 0. Therefore, Hool is eliminated and Owen wins.

[Owen Edwards]

Brad, your assholeishness continues to impress me. I suggested using the original mistaken figures to demonstrate the maths. You continued to think this proved your point about it being a bad system. Either you're an idiot or you're being an asshole over this, and as you're fairly smart, I'm thinking the latter. This is tiresome and unbecoming. Stop it.

(Or rather, find real arguments for why the system isn't needed as opposed to trying to criticise a stats demo.)

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

OK, Owen...

Time out. We don't use that kind of language in the Cosa.

Take a breath. Step back, and relax a bit.

[Deleted]

Owen,

While I'm not a fan of excessive attitude here, let's look at this whole system for what it really is...

we're playing a math game with votes. Your argument is that our present system is broken and this one works well in London.

My response is that the present system is used in the U.S. and works well, the proposed system is broken.

Which system has more potential for abuse or mistakes? IRV

What is the primary argument against our system? Well, a person can technically win an election with less than a majority of the votes.

But that still happens here, we just cover up the fact by saying "Oh...well, the guy who won was actually my third choice, so it's OK."

I don't mind revealing my votes in the bogus election. I placed you third on the ballot (nothing personal mind you). To me, your winning the election already runs contrary to what I wanted, whether I would have preferred you over the person I put in the 4th spot is irrelevant. The person I wanted to win didn't win.

So, I'm sorry to say that this brings "overkill" to a new level.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

I don't mind revealing my votes in the bogus election. I placed you third on the ballot (nothing personal mind you). To me, your winning the election already runs contrary to what I wanted, whether I would have preferred you over the person I put in the 4th spot is irrelevant. The person I wanted to win didn't win.

Umm... so if it were just Mick vs. Owen in a majority vote and you voted for Mick would you have felt the election "bogus" just because the person you picked didn't win? Wow...