Auckland Council: Did your vote count?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Auckland Council: Did your vote count?

1 | 2 | 3

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#392173 15-Oct-2010 11:43

I'm struggling with your concept of voting for no-one.

If I voted for someone that didn't get elected I didn't vote for no-one.
If I selected (ranked) only 4 of the DHB candidates then I chose not to vote for any of them.

In both instances I still exercised a democratic right.

But if I sent in a Blank paper is it counted as a non vote? A Protest Vote? Or is it even counted at all???? (Probably is as any returned paper increases the poll turnout whether it's valid or not).

OK if I didn't bother to do anything with the voting paper (except bin it).... then I'll accept I voted for no-one.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#392236 15-Oct-2010 13:52

oxnsox: I'm struggling with your concept of voting for no-one.

If I voted for someone that didn't get elected I didn't vote for no-one.
If I selected (ranked) only 4 of the DHB candidates then I chose not to vote for any of them.

In both instances I still exercised a democratic right.

But if I sent in a Blank paper is it counted as a non vote? A Protest Vote? Or is it even counted at all???? (Probably is as any returned paper increases the poll turnout whether it's valid or not).

OK if I didn't bother to do anything with the voting paper (except bin it).... then I'll accept I voted for no-one.

I'm certain I said "elected no one". If I said "vote for no one", I hope it would have been followed by "....who was elected"....as in "Voted for no one who was elected."

If I said they "voted for no one", then that is an error and should have been "elected no one" or "Voted for no one who was elected".

The underlying premise of representative democracy is the voters delegate power to elected representatives to act on their behalf. The greater the mandate, as expressed by explicit voter support, for the people elected, the more likely their decisions are to be seen as supported and legitimate on behalf of those who elected them.

The problem First Past the Post creates is that far too many voters cast votes that do not elect anyone at all. The process of delegating authority has been interrupted and degraded. It is highly inaccurate and inefficient. The people elected with 8% of the vote, as Michael Goudie has been in Albany Ward, do not enjoy the delegation of authority from voters that a candidate elected by a 50% quota via STV would enjoy.

I'm not sure I really needed to explain that....as you appear to have been hung up on (your mis-reading of?) the wording rather than the concept of respresentative democracy.

Suffice to say....when 80.85% cast votes and elect no one at all.....the whole idea of legitimate representation based on voters delegating authority and legitimacy to the person elected goes down the gurgler.

If it doesn't, please send me 92 cents of every dollar you have....because clearly they don't matter and the 8% should be more than good enough for you.....as it is supposed to be for the voters of Albany Ward....

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

mentalinc

3385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1025

Trusted

#392248 15-Oct-2010 14:12

It appears 8 cents in every dollar is good enough so please send me 8 cents for every dollar you have....

CPU: AMD 5900x | RAM: GSKILL Trident Z Neo RGB F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC-32-GB | MB: Asus X570-E | GFX: EVGA FTW3 Ultra RTX 3080Ti| Monitor: LG 27GL850-B 2560x1440

Quic: https://account.quic.nz/refer/473833 R473833EQKIBX

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#392249 15-Oct-2010 14:12

Linuxluver:
oxnsox: I'm struggling with your concept of voting for no-one.

If I voted for someone that didn't get elected I didn't vote for no-one.
If I selected (ranked) only 4 of the DHB candidates then I chose not to vote for any of them.

In both instances I still exercised a democratic right.

But if I sent in a Blank paper is it counted as a non vote? A Protest Vote? Or is it even counted at all???? (Probably is as any returned paper increases the poll turnout whether it's valid or not).

OK if I didn't bother to do anything with the voting paper (except bin it).... then I'll accept I voted for no-one.

I'm certain I said "elected no one". If I said "vote for no one", I hope it would have been followed by "....who was elected"....as in "Voted for no one who was elected."

If I said they "voted for no one", then that is an error and should have been "elected no one" or "Voted for no one who was elected".

The underlying premise of representative democracy is the voters delegate power to elected representatives to act on their behalf. The greater the mandate, as expressed by explicit voter support, for the people elected, the more likely their decisions are to be seen as supported and legitimate on behalf of those who elected them.

The problem First Past the Post creates is that far too many voters cast votes that do not elect anyone at all. The process of delegating authority has been interrupted and degraded. It is highly inaccurate and inefficient. The people elected with 8% of the vote, as Michael Goudie has been in Albany Ward, do not enjoy the delegation of authority from voters that a candidate elected by a 50% quota via STV would enjoy.

I'm not sure I really needed to explain that....as you appear to have been hung up on (your mis-reading of?) the wording rather than the concept of respresentative democracy.

Suffice to say....when 80.85% cast votes and elect no one at all.....the whole idea of legitimate representation based on voters delegating authority and legitimacy to the person elected goes down the gurgler.

If it doesn't, please send me 92 cents of every dollar you have....because clearly they don't matter and the 8% should be more than good enough for you.....as it is supposed to be for the voters of Albany Ward....

Didn't Michael get only just under 10% according to your spreadsheet? He got more votes than anyone else. With STV aren't you really just giving those people whose votes elected no one another chance? Maybe they shouldn't have voted for "losers" in the first place! What makes you think the result under STV would be any different? Considering you'd need over 30,000 votes to win a spot there'd be a fair amount of transferring votes going on.

Seems like the Green Party has picked up on your idea... http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1010/S00260/60-of-auckland-councillor-votes-wasted-under-fpp.htm

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#392279 15-Oct-2010 15:14

I made up another example not overly contrived, voting for two reps:

A, B, C, D: 33.4%
C, D, B, A: 22.4%
B, C, D, A: 22.0%
D, B, C, A: 11.4%
D, C, B, A: 10.8%

Under FPP, A and C would win since they got the most votes (even though nearly 50% of first votes went to other candidates). Clearly, the more candidates, the more "spread out" the votes would be leading to the "undemocratic" results you've mentioned.

Under STV, A wins as they have the quota exactly (no surplus transferred). No one else has the quota so the lowest drops out. That's B because C has 22.4% and D has 22.2% total. Therefore B's second preference gets transferred to C resulting in 44.4% support and the second spot. Great! Same result as FPP!

Let's tweak it. C doesn't know how good their support is, so they do some pretty hard out campaigning. The result? The D, C, B, As switch their allegiance and vote C, D, B, A instead! Awesome, more votes for C, they win! Do they?

A, B, C, D: 33.4%
C, D, B, A: 22.4%
C, D, B, A: 10.8% = 33.2%
B, C, D, A: 22.0%
D, B, C, A: 11.4%

A still win, C is still a close second but not enough to win the quota. This time D has the fewest votes, so their second preference gets transferred to B resulting in 33.4% support, enough to fulfil the quota and win the second seat.

So how did your favoured voting system result in a candidate getting more votes but costing them the election? How is this system open, transparent and democratic? How are voters to know the votes they are casting could be costing their first pick the election?

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#392280 15-Oct-2010 15:14

mentalinc: It appears 8 cents in every dollar is good enough so please send me 8 cents for every dollar you have....

If you're responding to me, then I was saying it isn't good enough. In other words: the opposite. :-)

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#392281 15-Oct-2010 15:19

bazzer: I made up another example not overly contrived, voting for two reps:

A, B, C, D: 33.4%
C, D, B, A: 22.4%
B, C, D, A: 22.0%
D, B, C, A: 11.4%
D, C, B, A: 10.8%

Under FPP, A and C would win since they got the most votes (even though nearly 50% of first votes went to other candidates). Clearly, the more candidates, the more "spread out" the votes would be leading to the "undemocratic" results you've mentioned.

Under STV, A wins as they have the quota exactly (no surplus transferred). No one else has the quota so the lowest drops out. That's B because C has 22.4% and D has 22.2% total. Therefore B's second preference gets transferred to C resulting in 44.4% support and the second spot. Great! Same result as FPP!

Let's tweak it. C doesn't know how good their support is, so they do some pretty hard out campaigning. The result? The D, C, B, As switch their allegiance and vote C, D, B, A instead! Awesome, more votes for C, they win! Do they?

A, B, C, D: 33.4%
C, D, B, A: 22.4%
C, D, B, A: 10.8% = 33.2%
B, C, D, A: 22.0%
D, B, C, A: 11.4%

A still win, C is still a close second but not enough to win the quota. This time D has the fewest votes, so their second preference gets transferred to B resulting in 33.4% support, enough to fulfil the quota and win the second seat.

So how did your favoured voting system result in a candidate getting more votes but costing them the election? How is this system open, transparent and democratic? How are voters to know the votes they are casting could be costing their first pick the election?

You're doing my head in... :-)

If their first pick didn't reach quota, then they weren't elected. That seems simple enough to me. I'm not seeing the problem. If you want to vote strategically or game the system, then STV does make that a bit harder....though it is vulnerable to gerrymandering in terms of both boundaries and the numbers to be elected. That's why I prefer MMP, which can't be gerrymandered. But in a context where parties aren't the norm or less common, then STV is better.

I'm not sure a voter's ability to game a system should be the overriding principle for adopting or rejecting it. Simply put, STV let's you state your preferences from first to last. That much is fair, open and straight-forward. The outcome is a set of elected people with the greatest aggregate support from the largest number of voters. For delegating power and establishing legitimacy in the eyes of voters, this can only be good.

Much better than two guys getting elected with 8% and 9% of the votes...and rest going in the rubbish....as has happened in Albany ward.

Two things:

1. I don't care who wins as long as they enjoy more voter support than the rest.
2. Does your model above recognise that additional votes for a candidate who has already reached quota under STV are then re-distributed to other candidates using preferences stated on the ballot?

In STV, you don't pile up a wasted majority...You reach quota and subsequent votes are allocated on subsequent preferences. This can affect the outcomes.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#392290 15-Oct-2010 15:28

Linuxluver:
You're doing my head in... :-)

Two things:

1. I don't care who wins as long as they enjoy more voter support than the rest.
2. Does your model above recognise that additional votes for a candidate who has already reached quota under STV are then re-distributed to other candidates using preferences stated on the ballot?

In STV, you don't pile up a wasted majority...You reach quota and subsequent votes are allocated on subsequent preferences. This can affect the outcomes.

The basic point is that it is possible under STV for a candidate who would otherwise be voted in to garner more votes and subsequently lose the election. That's crazy!

There are no wasted majorities in the local elections as you've pointed out because the candidates that won have such "low" support. Because the voting is spread out over many candidates, the effect of the transference of lowest votes would probably not result in the winning candidate exceeding the quota by a large enough margin to affect the outcome too much since those candidates had even lower support!

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#392292 15-Oct-2010 15:34

Linuxluver: You're doing my head in... :-)

Also, I think that's the point. STV is overly complicated. No one would understand it and although it sounds good in theory, it doesn't always work. In the Australian Senate elections, 95% or more of people are so confused by the idea that they make "above the line" votes where they make a single choice (to follow a predetermined, usually party, preference). So, what's the difference? How's this more fair?

almaznz

89 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#392309 15-Oct-2010 16:19

Linuxluver:
almaznz: i have to say that 1 of my 2 votes for the candidates got elected for the albany ward (Michael Goudie)

and also 3 of the 4 people i voted for for the Hibiscus coast loard board. i was just incessed by Wayne (w*****r) Walker getting into the super city council because he has been nothing but the thorn in the side of Rodney Districts Councils since he's been in council.

Albany was the worst in the whole region for wasted votes: 80.85% of votes returned elected no one.

Michael Goudie got less than 10% of the vote. Wayne Walker got just over 10%.

First Past the Post is horrible....and the outcome in Albany should be all the proof anyone needs.

The problem that albany ward faced and no doubt a lot of the wards faced, is the number of total candidates standing for the amount of seats avaliable. for the 2 seats there were 19 candidates. so ofcourse the number of votes needed to win a seat will be diluted. i think your premise of your vote counted for nothing is a bit too far. a majority is a majority no matter how big or small that might be. would this conversation be relevant if the number of candidates for each ward better reflected the amount of seats avaliable ala national elections?

Just my 2 cents

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#392322 15-Oct-2010 16:47

The real issue is huge amount of people who didn't even bother voting due to it being mail based, rather than STV vs FPP imo.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#392443 16-Oct-2010 00:30

bazzer:
Didn't Michael get only just under 10% according to your spreadsheet? He got more votes than anyone else. With STV aren't you really just giving those people whose votes elected no one another chance? Maybe they shouldn't have voted for "losers" in the first place! What makes you think the result under STV would be any different? Considering you'd need over 30,000 votes to win a spot there'd be a fair amount of transferring votes going on.

Seems like the Green Party has picked up on your idea... http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1010/S00260/60-of-auckland-councillor-votes-wasted-under-fpp.htm

Horse races are about winners and losers. So is rugby and most other games. This perception is completely inappropriate when applied to elections - which are the mechanism for choosing people to represent you and to whom you delegate your power and authority as a citizen in a democracy.

Perhaps there are too many abstract concepts there for the average sports fan.....leading to the confusion of sports outcomes with election outcomes.

It's important to note that STV doesn't give voters multiple votes for any SINGLE candidate. They get only one. Again. confusion may arise because STV usually involved electing several members in a multi-member constituency.....just as we did with FPP electing two people for Albany Ward, but STV does a much better job of working out who ALL voters really support.

I won't try to explain the mechanics as people usually don't read it anyway....been there, experienced that far too often. Google it.

The bottom line is that the people elected in an STV election will - typically - have received the *explicit* support of many more voters than FPP allows....especially when many people are standing for office.

In a democracy, where power is being delegated this is a GOOD thing. This isn't a game.

"Winners" and "losers" are terms used by people who may not understand what is really going on. Choosing a representative to exercise your power on your behalf isn't anything like being the fastest horse or the best rugby team on the paddock.

The people who aren't elected aren't "losers". They are people who weren't elected.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#392445 16-Oct-2010 00:36

Ragnor: The real issue is huge amount of people who didn't even bother voting due to it being mail based, rather than STV vs FPP imo.

We moved to postal ballots because voter turnout at polling booths for local body elections was even lower than it has been for postal voting.

Some knowledge of history is useful.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#392447 16-Oct-2010 00:46

bazzer:
Linuxluver: You're doing my head in... :-)

Also, I think that's the point. STV is overly complicated. No one would understand it and although it sounds good in theory, it doesn't always work. In the Australian Senate elections, 95% or more of people are so confused by the idea that they make "above the line" votes where they make a single choice (to follow a predetermined, usually party, preference). So, what's the difference? How's this more fair?

The counting is complicated, but the voting is easy. If you can count to 10 you can vote.

Voters don't count the votes.

STV is better because you don't get people with 8% of the vote being elected...while the other 80.85% who voted elect no one at all. Such a terrible result completely misses the point of what elections are about.

I do understand how many people work. They think Windows is "intuitive" because they know it already and don't want to make the effort to learn anything else....however good it may be.

Whereas....I've made it a point to use any user interface I can get my hands on....and found that "intuitive" pretty much describes anything you use every day for a month.

Voting systems are like that. From a background of one system, all the others look "complicated"...until you use them and get used to them and then they become the known and familar and you'd you'd never think of using anything else.

I'd be embarrassed to say I was too stupid to learn anything new....but many people effectively do exactly that - whether we're talking about voting or using computers or programming a VCR to record TV shows....or just setting the alarm on your new clock.

Voting in an STV election is ridiculously easy....and the results will reflect how all voters voted. Yes...that will be unfamiliar as present system does not reflect how most people voted. It trashed more than 50% of all votes....and is capable of trashing over 80%....as we saw in Albany. That is neither simple...nor good. In terms of people choosing repesentatives...FPP is actually disastrously bad.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#392450 16-Oct-2010 00:57

bazzer:
The basic point is that it is possible under STV for a candidate who would otherwise be voted in to garner more votes and subsequently lose the election. That's crazy!

Not at all. If they could be elected with 8% of the vote under FPP - like Michael Goudie - but must get a much higher share of the vote to win under STV I do not see how that is a bad thing for all voters or democracy generally. To me, it is much BETTER...because all those votes that go into the rubbish under FPP are, under STV, still 'live', powerful votes capable of electing people.

OK...that may mean your guy's TRUE level of support among all voters isn't good enough to get him elected. I cannot see that as a bad thing at all.

There are no wasted majorities in the local elections as you've pointed out because the candidates that won have such "low" support. Because the voting is spread out over many candidates, the effect of the transference of lowest votes would probably not result in the winning candidate exceeding the quota by a large enough margin to affect the outcome too much since those candidates had even lower support!

Good point. I agree it matters much more when fewer people are standing....or one candidate receives a mountain of first preferences, vastly exceeding their required quota. I see it as a good thing that votes would not be applied to someone who had reached quota...and the subsequent preferences would come into play so that each vote applied to one person....eventually.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

1 | 2 | 3