On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:08:38 -0700 (PDT), "Sam R."
wrote:
>> Is Australia a preference ballot or a transferable ballot (which is
>> what I thought it was) - the counting requirements of each are quite
>> different
>
>Lower house is a transferable vote, requiring all boxes be numbered,
>for single member seats.
>
>Electorate of 50000
>20000 Fred (ALP)
>10000 Jane (Liberal)
>15000 Sue (Greens)
>5000 informal votes
>
>Assuming: A
>All Greens voters preference GRN, LAB, LIB
>All Liberals voters preference, LIB, GRN, LAB
>All Labor voters preference, ALP, GRN, LIB
>
>No candidate has 25001, no candidate has more than 45000/2 +1
>Jane eliminated
>20000 Fred
>25000 Sue
>Sue has highest final count, Sue elected.
>
>Upper House is proportionate vote as a single transferrable vote in
>six or twelve member seats. Quota is formal/seats +1. Elect
>candidates with full quota. Each remaining vote transferred at value
>= remaining votes /quota
>Then after all full quotas elected, lowest candidate eliminated and
>votes transferred.
Thank you for a reasonably clear description of things in Oz. Sounds
like your Lower House is what I called 'Single Transferable Ballot"
which we used for 3 or 4 provincial elections in the late 40s and
early 50s then returned to First Past the Post thereafter.
Your Upper House sounds like what we had our referendum on in the next
to last provincial election though our seats ranged from 1 to 4
members. It didn't pass in enough ridings by a large enough majority
for the referendum to pass. During the campaign it was said that what
was proposed was very similar to that in the Republic of Ireland if
that helps.
Federally of course (and provincially in nearly all provinces) it's
your standard Westminster style First Past the Post which needs no
introduction. We do not have an elected upper house - various
proposals have been made though none so far that is acceptable to both
Western Canada and Quebec. Quebec will not accept all provinces equal
and wants a 25% share permanently reserved even though they are 23%
and demographically likely to go lower.
>My senate ballot had 83 or so candidates, and I numbered every box.
>Some votes simply number "Above the line" and accept a party's
>preference flows. Everyone who numbers [1] for Nice Party goes in the
>"Nice Party" pile, and those are easy to count as the flows are known,
>the whole pile gets transferred with a known number / fractional
>transfer value. Ballots like mine have to be transferred
>individually. (unless some other bastard selected all 83 in the same
>way that I did)
>
>So both. With both needing to be counted at the same time. And each
>Senate electorate being a whole state.
So are your polls counted at the same time or first one then the
other? Operationally I suppose it does not matter if the results are
announced at the same time.
>> >Still, small booths return initial full counts with half an hour on
>> >the night to their electorates based on the expected preference flow.
>> >These booths are static from one election to another. They tend to be
>> >rural reporting first. So on the night, we can model the
>> >statistically representative nature of each small booth, model
>> >election to election swings, and then transform these onto each booth
>> >in Australia and project results. Antony Green does this live (based
>> >on extensive set-up work), and his projections are very accurate.
>>
>> Roughly how many voters would there be in a typical 'small booth' as
>> opposed to the other kind?
>
>50 voters in a really small booth, 600 in an average small booth,
>3000-5000 in a large central booth.
I mentioned our poll which is 5 boxes of 300 each which in urban
ridigs would be considered average. I'm not familiar enough with rural
ridings to speak authoritatively. This is true both federally and
provincially (which are run at different times. Municipally is
basically FPTP for however Council seats are up for grabs and are
normally counted electronically with a paper ballot to facilitate
recounts. In other parts of Canada a ward system (i.e. single member
FPTP) is standard locally.
>> >I agree this is possible, however, when counting preference
>> >redistribution, or quota and fractional redistribution, the count
>> >becomes slightly more complex and may take time. Particularly if the
>> >"expectation" of the final two parties is found by process to be
>> >incorrect, and the count may have to be restarted.
>>
>> Please explain 'expectation' in this context - I'm afraid I don't
>> understand the term.
>
>Fred
>Sue
>Jane
>
>Each booth counts separately, tallies centrally. If booths are
>working on an expectation that Sue will be eliminated first, but Jane
>is eliminated first, then all counts prior to that elimination will
>have to be recounted in the booth. As the count was based on booth
>preferences flowing from Sue to Jane, but in reality they flow from
>Jane to Sue.
>
>Expectations are fairly normal, as major parties have a polling of
>about 40000, large minors 10-20000, minors 5000, micros 200-500. The
>AEC also has an expectation of how to eliminate candidates based on
>past elections. When a ballot has 12 candidates, foiled expectations
>can result in recounts.
>
>As each booth counts separately, some smaller booths can model all
>major preference flow situations on the night.
OK I get it. Does this mean there are 11 rounds of counting if there
are 12 candidates? (In my riding last time there were 6 candidates of
which 3 parties were considered 'major' and only 2 candidates over 20%
of the ballots)
>As Australia has transferable votes which must be correct, but rules
>about voter intentions, scruiting can come down to "That's a tick"
>"That's a bloody 1". Number every box legibly!
Our rules are fairly liberal as to what a mark is to the effect that
pretty much any mark that is held not to be an attempt to uniquely
distinguish your ballot so it could be retrieved by somebody knowing
your code is deemed OK. I appreciate your numbers would have to be
clear. From your description it sounds like undervoting (ie. selecting
fewer candidates than are up for election) is quite OK.
>I thought that was part of the international beer sampling exchange
>program. And there I thought we were gaining valuable experience in
>overseas beers.
What - Aussies think other nations might brew drinkable beer? Truly a
revolution in public thinking has taken place!
>Over here I don't know if such last minutes would be legal, as voting
>is compulsory! In WA a bunch of fogies, hacks, and people who just
>want the chore out of the way vote before polls close in the East.
>Even then, I doubt many people think, "Quick, turn on the ABC, see how
>the Eastern state's smallest electoral booths voted!"
I'd be interested in a scenario where either (a) voting is not
compulsory in Australia or (b) voting becomes compulsory in other
states of the "White Commonwealth"
>We seem to have had a member of parliamentert that she can command
>the confidence of the Lower House (and she's got agreements for supply
>too), so she's notified the Governor General she's capable of forming
>a government with the confidence of the house. 17 days later.
>Welcome to the wonderful world of Australian minority government!
Having had 3 minority governments in a row in Canada congratulations
to you. I'm glad it's over for your sake as a deadlock is bad for
commercial confidence.
In the Canadian 1988 Federal election (which was essentially a
referendum on the Canada US Free Trade Agreement) during the end of
the week leading to the election polls were showing first a Liberal
majority then a hung parliament - the Canuck dollar had fallen 1.5
cents vs the US $ in that week. Then polls came out showing a likely
Conservative majority (they were the party pushing the FTA) and the
dollar climbed 2.5 cents on Sunday and on Monday which was election
day - so I know minorities are bad for the market.
Right now Canada has a weird situation of a regular 2 or 3 party
system in most of the country but in Quebec they have a party that is
dedicated to secession and we polite Canadians don't put such people
in jail - we send them to Parliament. Given the secessionist Bloc has
been getting 50-65 of Quebec's 74 seats it greatly increases the
chance of a minority - and a minority where the other parties fear to
form a coalition with the Bloc for fear of being tarred with the
separatist label. ("You would have us sell our souls to the devil!"
was said of one leader who advocated such a coalition)
Anyhow thank you for your description and may I express my hope that
next election it not take 17 days to form a government! |
