|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Jun 2, 2015 6:19:34 GMT -6
Im not quite certain on the assignment of seats yet. One count gets us at 196, another at 201 and both seem to count one party as two parties which might influence the results. There are always 3 columns of seats: - The 200 seats not-rounded. - If all of the seats are rounded down (in this case, it gives 196 seats and as such, we need to add a total of 4 seats) - If all of the numbers are rounded to the nearest interger (in this case, it gives 201 seats, so we need to remove 1 seat from a party to give 200).
The 2 methods are to help me. Sometimes, the Rounded down column is closer to 200 than the Rounded method, but usually not.
Right now, the results would be:
BENARD: 2 FREEDEM: 47 MRPT: 46 NICOLAS HAYES: 6 PROG: 14 - 1 = 13 RUMP: 68 TSP: 16 VOTE - IN - BEN... ARD... : 2
But once both Ben Ard will be tallied together by registering the BEN ARD party, they will have 3.14 seats (pi!) and their decimal (14) will be lower than the PROG decimals, so that the PROG would have 14 seats and the BENARD party 3 seats.
What would happen if Ben Ard didn't register-would the votes cast for him be treated as "present" and the seats reallocated, or would they be left vacant? How long does he have to actually do it?
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Jun 1, 2015 7:31:44 GMT -6
The latest figures, with 129 votes cast (the Database is a little behind I'm afraid), actually show Florencia ahead with 69,6%, which is quite impressive. My data also shows Benito at 60% and M-M at 50%. Remember not to count Cresti Newton in your figures, he's no longer a citizen! ah I'm just pulling it straight from the Database-only meant to be a snapshot. Thanks for adding the extra detail! And bravo Florenciâ-a "Prince Patrick Effect", I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Jun 1, 2015 7:18:23 GMT -6
Participation, according to the Database, around 3pm CET today, with 127 votes recorded. Turnout by province Florenciâ's spectacular leap in turnout (+5 votes in three days!) puts them neck and neck with Cezembre for highest percentage turnout. (Provincial governors-release the bloodhounds!) Relative turnout (by vote) Share of turnout vs share of population-Vuode and Maricopa remain the laggards
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Jun 1, 2015 3:40:48 GMT -6
According to the Database, 10 citizens came into the 48th election with 1 strike, and 22 with 2 strikes. That would imply that those with 2 strikes have been non-voting since January 2014 (so approximately 17 months), and those with 1 strike since September 2014 (approximately 9 months). That would imply none are in danger of losing their citizenship for the moment. (In the OL it says that the time inactive shall be calculated from the Election Deadline, so I guess that was the 1st of the next month following the month of Balloting Day?) A citizen with 2 strikes failed to vote in the 46th or 47th Cosa elections, so their last recorded vote would have been in the 45th which ended on 14 April 2013, more than two years ago. Aside from those marked as having 2 strikes in the Database, most of those coloured white (no recorded vote in the Database) last voted in some election earlier than the 45th, or have been a citizen for more than two years but have never voted, and therefore are also due to lose their citizenship. By my count, there are 62 citizens who will "strike out" if they don't vote today. So you would count the beginning of their inactivity from the last time they were formally active, and not from the first time they were recorded as being inactive? (That was the sense of the dates I chose) Has anyone actually lost their citizenship as a result of this provision yet, out of curiosity? It might be interesting if the Database could show clearly who is getting timed out or not-I'm not sure how feasible it is though. Losing over 1/4 of the citizens would be quite a decrease-are any provinces disproportionately effected, according to your estimate?
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Jun 1, 2015 3:15:03 GMT -6
According to the Database, 10 citizens came into the 48th election with 1 strike, and 22 with 2 strikes. That would imply that those with 2 strikes have been non-voting since January 2014 (so approximately 17 months), and those with 1 strike since September 2014 (approximately 9 months). That would imply none are in danger of losing their citizenship for the moment. (In the OL it says that the time inactive shall be calculated from the Election Deadline, so I guess that was the 1st of the next month following the month of Balloting Day?)
If voting continues to be the only de facto requirement, when is the next opportunity for citizens to vote-it would be December 2015, assuming a six-month term for the Cosâ-is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Jun 1, 2015 0:39:28 GMT -6
But lacking class has never really been a good enough reason to ban something, IMO. There are much better reasons to stop offering a public vote option. One reason is that its a bit mind-bending to have to add all that up. There were 30 public votes cast when I did that tally. Multiply that by 12 for the referendums, plus the provincial votes....its a lot of work. An that's less than 30% of the total votes cast. Respect to the SoS! When there were a limited number of voters it was feasible, perhaps even convivial for those involved, but it doesn't really scale up. If everybody voted in the same way it would facilitate an efficient count. Those who wish to share their vote publicly as part of an antique civic rite should be honoured as well. So one could maintain the voting thread, even if its not the legal vote? (This has probably been discussed and discarded as an option, but it seems to me the most balanced approach, not that anybody is asking!) Interestingly, if you look at the number of votes cast publicly, there seems to be a sharp decline this election. In the 46th Cosâ election, 49 public votes were cast, according to the Database. In the 47th Cosâ election, 50 were cast. This time, there are 32, at least as of this morning. I don't know if the 46th and 47th were exceptional years and it is reverting to the average, though.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on May 31, 2015 12:51:48 GMT -6
Here's a quick breakdown of the votes cast publicly, as of 8.39 pm CET:
Cosâ TSP: 2 FDA: 4 RUMP: 16 MRPT: 2 PROG: 2 IND: 1 (N. Hayes) PRES: 3 (Present)
Senäts - Atatürk Holmes 2 Pinátsch 4
Senäts - Cezembre Róibeardescu 1
Senäts - Florenciâ d'Aurìberg 3 Prince Patrick 4 "Manus Rump" 1
No time to total for the referendums unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on May 29, 2015 8:07:00 GMT -6
Turnout 29th May 2015, about 3.30pm CET, from the Database Relative turnout (by vote). The graph yesterday was a little wrong, in that the numbers not voting hadn't changed from the previous day. Don't think anybody noticed though. (D'oh!) A new graph, possibly clearer for the purposes of provincial preening... Turnout by province (percent). Fiova, Cezembre and Benito are now all over 50%, with Fiova in the lead. Vuode and Maricopa bring up the rear, with Vuode catching up in percentage terms. Share of overall turnout vs share of total population (percent). For the moment Maricopa has the worst ratio of voters to total population. Maricopans, Assemble! I could be wildly wrong, but always me an unfounded speculation. With that many potential voters in one province (undecided? uninformed? uninterested?), they could well decide the election, and in dramatic fashion...
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on May 29, 2015 1:50:06 GMT -6
Herm, shouldn't there be a law against party bigwigs calling upon inactive citizens during elections just to rack up cosa votes? This applies to all parties, although those voting on the public voting thread who have done that are mainly RUMP, I have seen some MRPT members do it as well. Surely the reason there is a representative democracy in Talossa is precisely because not everybody has the time, or the fervour, to be involved? I don't think its illegitimate to call on Talossans who have met the minimum requirements for citizenship, and try to get them to vote your way. That's politics, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on May 28, 2015 7:24:58 GMT -6
Participation 28/05/15 An extra four voters since yesterday afternoon, with one new vote from each of the "leader's provinces". Florenciâ was unable to sustain the jolt it experienced yesterday with an extra 3 voters in one day (33% of its total turnout). I am getting worried about Vuode. Reassure me
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on May 27, 2015 7:40:38 GMT -6
Can anyone explain Vuode's apparent disinterest? I seem to have read (but may be mis-remembering) that the total population in the Database includes dandelions, so perhaps the future belongs to them! Yes it does include Dandelions as far as I know, but the citizens listed on the notvoted.php page are only those entitled to vote. So if you've used that for your graphs, your data shouldn't be including them. The sum of those that voted (92) and those listed as not-voted (142) is 234. I checked in the "List of all citizens" and the number of rows in green is indeed 234. So a large majority of Vuodeans just haven't voted for the moment, and frenetic procreation cannot be held responsible. Or it can...but this is a family election discussion thread and I will speculate no more!
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on May 27, 2015 7:27:11 GMT -6
Am I reading this correctly by saying that Fiova has the best turnout so far at 50% of its population? Yes that's right: 13 out of 26 voters
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on May 27, 2015 6:55:14 GMT -6
Graphs for 27/05/15 (voting totals from Database at approximately 2.30pm CET) Relative participation (in votes)... votes in each province as % of overall turnout a new graph: comparison of the % of turnout from each province with their proportion of the national population. The provinces of the party leaders are at least keeping pace (M-M) or largely exceeding their share of the population (Benito, Cezembre and Fiova). Can anyone explain Vuode's apparent disinterest? I seem to have read (but may be mis-remembering) that the total population in the Database includes dandelions, so perhaps the future belongs to them!
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on May 26, 2015 7:25:30 GMT -6
Turnout of 78 at a national level so far; tracking well to beat last time's 105. Last time was actually 115. To match the turnout percentage, we'd need 131. That means we need 5.3 votes per day for the rest of the election to match last election's raw votes, and 7.6 to match last election's turnout percentage. I think we've been averaging about 4 votes per day for the last three days. Hopefully we get a big burst at the end. Two graphs. I don't know what they mean, but I wonder if any Talossan psephologists can draw any trends from them. First, based on the lists from the Database at around 3pm CET today, is the relative participation by province (EDIT: used total population instead of "not voted" number, fixed now. My apologies to the inadvertant insult to the civic-mindedness of the various provinces!): [/a]The second, the share of total participation by each province:
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on May 19, 2015 14:26:28 GMT -6
Though if we go to weighted voting in the Senats, what is the point of having a bicameral legislature? Do we really need it, as generally the point of bicameralism is to provide a voice for A.) The People and B.) The corporate units of the nation. Forgive me for sticking my oar in, but i agree with this. One could indeed argue instead that electing the Cosâ by province, and dispensing with the Senäts altogether, one might kill two birds with one stone. I think the Cosâ used to be elected that way at one time in the distant past, but was quite heavily gerrymandered by a certain choleric monarch, or do I have that wrong? It would also eliminate the cachement area issue-allocate the seats by population before each election by a formula. Then each province could become a more "natural" socio-cultural unit without hving to worry about keeping in line mathematically, and would actually have an incentive to go out and recruit, since its weight in national matters would be directly proportional to its size. This can only be good for the nation. The problem of pocket votes can be controlled by the immigration process. There are other good reasons to have a Senâts of course, not least the possibilities for political lulz when there are different majorities in each Chamber, and who would want to re-write the whole Organic Law to get rid of it anyway? Azul Eiric ;-)
|
|