10 821

70

Footnote to PitAK: STV noburn.info/id/video/0my7gL57m6eynXo.html

Runtime: 04:44

Magdalena Ilgert-Kowalczyk - 7 dager siden

Where munky

Magdalena Ilgert-Kowalczyk - 7 dager siden

I'm sorry

Josh Whalen - 10 dager siden

Hey there,

I had a question regarding surpluses in STV. So in a practical application of the method, it would be super unlikely that every voter who put the surplus candidate as their first choice would also all have the same second choice, so how would we know which ballots to consider the second choice on?

For example: In the video, Owl receives 33 percent of the vote, and let’s make the math easy by saying theres 100 votes. So if owl is over that 20% quota by 13%, how do we know which 13 votes out of the 33 to look at the second choice for?

Thank you for your help. Your videos are very helpful in explaining the theory behind different voting systems.

I had a question regarding surpluses in STV. So in a practical application of the method, it would be super unlikely that every voter who put the surplus candidate as their first choice would also all have the same second choice, so how would we know which ballots to consider the second choice on?

For example: In the video, Owl receives 33 percent of the vote, and let’s make the math easy by saying theres 100 votes. So if owl is over that 20% quota by 13%, how do we know which 13 votes out of the 33 to look at the second choice for?

Thank you for your help. Your videos are very helpful in explaining the theory behind different voting systems.

DwRockett - 23 dager siden

I feel like the issue that would concern me most is actually calculating all this. It all makes sense but seems somewhat complicated to fully follow

Ryan Davidson - 29 dager siden

I have a question: if one candidate gets a surplus of votes and the extra votes are transferred to their next choice, how do you decide which of those votes count as the surplus? Would the order in which the votes are counted affect which ones are used for their next choice? Not sure if that makes any sense.

Michael L - 20 dager siden

@Ryan Davidson I'm not a political expert, but I think they look at the votes as a whole. Using the ratio of votes for one candidate to the other candidate (s) on the secondary votes to determine which votes to redistribute. Under the assumption this election has 100 votes total, in your scenario they would try their best to have the 15 excess votes be chosen to have a 5 to 3 ratio. This would be complicated as in your example blue should get 9.375 votes and yellow would get 5.625 votes. First of all if there are 100,000 votes total in an election this wouldn't be an issue. Blue would receive 9,375 votes and yellow would receive 5,625 votes. However, under the assumption there are 100 votes total in the election, there are two ways to resolve this. One is to allow fractional vote. Blue would receive exactly 9.375 votes and yellow would receive exactly 5.625. Another way is to simply to round the numbers. In this scenario, blue would receive 9 votes and yellow would receive 6 votes.

Ryan Davidson - 29 dager siden

For example say the threshold is 25% to get elected and Blue Party gets 40% (a surplus of 15%) of first preference votes. The first 25% of Blue votes counted all list Pink Party as their 2nd choice. The remaining 15% (surplus) votes all list Yellow Party as their 2nd choice. Do all of the 2nd choice votes go to Yellow even though most Blue voters listed Pink as their 2nd choice?

MegaAgent J - Måned siden

Turtle, I feel, is a perfect example of a candidate that just doesn’t say much at all and leans SLIGHTLY more to one of the biggest parties than others to get the big party second choice votes and everyone else thinks they’re okay enough to not vote AGAINST

Sean Clark - Måned siden

What about if the second choice already has a seat? Say, a voter voted for snake but the voter second choice was gorilla, does it then get thrown out or go directly to the third choice if the voter had put one?

Skyval Ream - Måned siden

It goes to the next valid remaining choice, so it's go to their third choice here

Dark Storm - Måned siden

I know I'm six years late on this but I feel like eliminating the votes for Jackelope were a bad move. Like, this time it didn't matter much, Jackelope wasn't going to win.

But what if that was the Owl voters? The votes that in this example went to turtle from Owl's majority would just not do that and then. . . Actually Snake and Turtle would be tied for that first elimination, which eliminates them both because after one of their votes gets redistributed whichever one it is it still wouldn't save the other or put anyone up to victory so instead of turtle coming in clutch with a victory they'd be eliminated. And then even though Snake voters put Turtle as their second Turtle's already gone so Snake's votes go to their third, whoever that is. And then the buffalo voters who backed Turtle *also* don't get their second since Turtle would already be out, and they would get their third choices.

Then there would be the Tarsier instead of the Turtle since only the Tarsier and Silverback were still in the running at that time.

But what if that was the Owl voters? The votes that in this example went to turtle from Owl's majority would just not do that and then. . . Actually Snake and Turtle would be tied for that first elimination, which eliminates them both because after one of their votes gets redistributed whichever one it is it still wouldn't save the other or put anyone up to victory so instead of turtle coming in clutch with a victory they'd be eliminated. And then even though Snake voters put Turtle as their second Turtle's already gone so Snake's votes go to their third, whoever that is. And then the buffalo voters who backed Turtle *also* don't get their second since Turtle would already be out, and they would get their third choices.

Then there would be the Tarsier instead of the Turtle since only the Tarsier and Silverback were still in the running at that time.

CogitoErgoCogitoSum - Måned siden

The extra votes that brought Gorilla over the line... when you transfer them... which votes do you look at? You scraped all these votes off the right side of the dashed finish line but when votes are cast in an election, those are just going to all be in a single pile with the votes to the left of the dashed line too. You can literally pick and choose individual votes one by one from the massive pile for Gorilla to find the ones that all go to Silverback or that all go to Tarser. You can pick votes out to transfer them over that can have any combination of second, third, fourth choices.

IceBug1337 - Måned siden

Changing a couple of votes in the middle could turn the rest of the outcome upside down. This is a desaster when using forecasts and everything changes but the results of the first two groups, if you know what I mean? This system might be fair but it is so complicated you need several videos to explain it to interested people. How about those who dont care? Suprising outcomes wont grant you acceptance in the population.

Kicka - Måned siden

So if the rule is that by the end if there is 1 seat left with 1 candidate they get the seat, what would happen if you got so many don't care votes that 2 seats are left by the end?

Yolocast Kirk - Måned siden

Is it just me or does this seem wayyy less representative than first past the post. Turtle got maybe 5% of the vote but got just as much representation as the gorilla who got like 30%

Mr. Hat - Måned siden

Turtle wins by being liked by everyone. He may only have 5% die hard supporters but if everyone is happy or fine with turtle then why should he not get the seat?

Novuu Kami Vron - 2 måneder siden

Snake must definitely be either libertarian or anarcho-capitalist

Broken Butler - 2 måneder siden

But Turtle should've technically reached the threshold, right?

Cause each time you eliminate votes because they don't care about who wins, the number of votes that equal 100% has changed, therefore the representatives who already won would have more than needed, exceeding votes would go on to the other candidates and end up being turtles votes.

This is just a technicality, but I still felt like I should mention it.

Cause each time you eliminate votes because they don't care about who wins, the number of votes that equal 100% has changed, therefore the representatives who already won would have more than needed, exceeding votes would go on to the other candidates and end up being turtles votes.

This is just a technicality, but I still felt like I should mention it.

Diego C. - 2 måneder siden

This all sounds theoretically great, but imagine all these numbers getting tossed around during an election night. Suddenly, a candidate gets a lot of votes. The guy who had 1% now has 30%, because he was the third choice of some voters and the second choice of other voters, divided proportionally, blah blah. Meanwhile, some other candidate is saying there's been fraud. It'd be chaos and there'd be a lot of suspicion. The system is too complex for something like national elections.

Diego C. - 2 måneder siden

@Skyval Ream Well, I don't know about Australia, but I don't see it working here in Argentina, or anywhere in Latin America. And look at the mess going on in the US, even with a relatively simple system. Perhaps in places like Scandinavia and such.

Skyval Ream - 2 måneder siden

It's been used nationally in Australia for ~100 years

Χρήστος Μπακαδήμας - 2 måneder siden

The fact that the total number of votes is divided by the representative seats available means that in the case of the jackalope voters, that happened not to like anybody else, it's really not like they didn't vote at all. If upon jackalope's elimination from the race, regardless of his voters not picking a second favourite, all jackalope votes went to the current most voted party (among the ones that have not yet won the race), not 1% of votes would be lost, and thus turtle wouldn't have to be elected without reaching the threshold. I might be wrong, but especially in a world where fptp is the norm, and people are already unwilling to vote for even one candidate, I can imagine the ranking system being pretty alienating at first. Therefore, I believe a lot more voters wouldn't have a second choice, let alone a tenth, should that be needed.

WindowStudios45 - 2 måneder siden

Now I want to do these constantly

Robert Li - 2 måneder siden

Who else is rewatching all these videos? I remember I was 14 when I was watching and I didn't really care. Honestly, I probably still don't but it's interesting

Bupi - 2 måneder siden

I like how buffalo was an image of a bison

Keith Dyer - 2 måneder siden

With the single-transferable vote (STV), if there are five seats being contested, you don’t need one fifth (20%) of the vote to win a seat. You need just over one sixth (16.7%) of the vote.

ShadowWolfTJC - 2 måneder siden

If this series gets revived, would you be willing to talk about score-based voting systems, especially with regards to how they would impact the 2-party system dynamic that comes naturally with both plurality (a.k.a. 1st-past-the-post) and ranked (a.k.a. instant runoff) systems?

Leobastian _ - 2 måneder siden

Tip: If instead of removing the "dont care votes" you give them to all not-dead voters that havent gotten a Seat yet equally, at the end Turtle has exactly enough votes for a Seat.

Also, what Happens If you can get multiple seats depending on your amount of votes?

Also, what Happens If you can get multiple seats depending on your amount of votes?

TK The Beyonder - 2 måneder siden

There is a major problem to this STV method, when a candidate has reached the threshold and have extra votes, how do you redistribute those 2nd choice votes? If you redistribute them proportionally, you'll end up with fractions and not actual real votes.

For example : the threshold is 20, and Gorilla has 15 extra votes , but among the all 35 votes, 18 are SilverBack 2nd choice, 10 are Tarsier 2nd choice, and 7 are Turtle 2nd choice.

Now in a proportional system : SliverBack will get 18x(15/35)=7.71, Tarsier will get 10x(15/35)=4.28, and Turtle will get 7x(15/35)=3

As you can see, in the second redistribution, condidtates get fractions of votes and not real votes. Up to now this can be accepted as a numerical data, but here is where the trouble begins : If Tarsier is next to be eliminated how will you redistribute his 4.28 fraction which doesn't represent real votes with choices? If you come back to Gorilla and do a fraction of a fraction of 3rd choices, you will have very complicated problems.

For example : the threshold is 20, and Gorilla has 15 extra votes , but among the all 35 votes, 18 are SilverBack 2nd choice, 10 are Tarsier 2nd choice, and 7 are Turtle 2nd choice.

Now in a proportional system : SliverBack will get 18x(15/35)=7.71, Tarsier will get 10x(15/35)=4.28, and Turtle will get 7x(15/35)=3

As you can see, in the second redistribution, condidtates get fractions of votes and not real votes. Up to now this can be accepted as a numerical data, but here is where the trouble begins : If Tarsier is next to be eliminated how will you redistribute his 4.28 fraction which doesn't represent real votes with choices? If you come back to Gorilla and do a fraction of a fraction of 3rd choices, you will have very complicated problems.

Leobastian _ - 2 måneder siden

First, in real elections the Numbers will be big enough to round usually. But even If they arent, you can still give fractions of votes to canditates and give fractions of those fractions to Others, while it seems hard for a human to calculate, its simple for Computers, who are the ones actually calculating the votes.

Jereboy - 2 måneder siden

I am confused in these. This system sounds better than what we have here in the US, but Idk how it would work here. We would have to redefine voting districts it seems since we only elect one repreresentative per district.

Also in these STV videos he never explains how they choose to redistribute the votes over the threshold, unless I missed it. Like in this example how does it decide which gorilla votes over 20% get redistributed to their 2nd choice and which 20% of the votes to keep?

Also in these STV videos he never explains how they choose to redistribute the votes over the threshold, unless I missed it. Like in this example how does it decide which gorilla votes over 20% get redistributed to their 2nd choice and which 20% of the votes to keep?

Mr. Hat - Måned siden

Yes, we would have to first, increase the number of representatives, I would want 930 because that roughly gets 30k constituents per representative as it was when the country was founded. Then we would have to have to then maker completely new ranges, with anywhere from 3-7 seats per range. Grey does have a video on this, Also this would only work for the House of Representatives if I wasn't clear.

Vinícius de A Batista - 2 måneder siden

A voting system that Works better than the US one isn't really that amazing

Yo5463 - 2 måneder siden

He said proportionately. You look at all the votes for Gorilla and determine 2/3 chose silverback next and 1/3 chose tarsier next. So 1/3 of the surplus 12% go to tarsier

Tony Wilson - 2 måneder siden

Candidates should able to win multiple seats if they have multiple times the voter threshold. Because if 100% of people vote for a candidate it should have 100% power :p

Icham Sakkar - 2 måneder siden

Turtle is like *"Only 1%? No problem."*

Owen Toad - 2 måneder siden

Question: what would happen if 2 candidates were tied for biggest loser?

Gummiel - 2 måneder siden

Yeah I would say probably just eliminate them both. This should not cause any issues as I don't see this possibly happen near the end when you are close to having all seats added, mainly should happen in the earlier rounds before votes start to be redistributed much, so chances are they would never reach even close to getting an actual seat anyway

Vinícius de A Batista - 2 måneder siden

@Songs of War If you have any more than two candidates this isn't hard at. Probably the easiest process there is.: We have more than 2. 2 are trash. Throw them away. Done

Songs of War - 2 måneder siden

1. both eliminated 2. hard in practice

minioop2 - 2 måneder siden

Okay wait, so what would happen if in an election a popular candidate received a huge amount of votes that put them well over the threshold, but then no voters for him put down a second choice? Would all those excess votes be thrown out? Is the system assuming this doesn't really happen?

Yo5463 - 2 måneder siden

Yes and no. In an election without their first choice, they wouldn't have voted. Once it's clear he got in, this is the issue at hand and the votes were nulled as requested

Ekyllier - 2 måneder siden

Yes and yes.

Cameron Brewer - 2 måneder siden

so strange, jackalope has more 1st place votes than turtle, yet because of the order of operations, was not able to stay in the race long enough to get the second-place votes

N1TH Music - 3 måneder siden

Wait but if owl gets over 50% of the vote shouldn't he get 2/5 seats instead of 1 because he more than doubled the requirement to win a seat

JONAS LEE - 2 måneder siden

there is only one owl

Skyval Ream - 3 måneder siden

Owl is an individual person, and an individual can't hold multiple seats in most systems. But their voters can get their votes transferred to someone else they also like, so it's sort of similar. Maybe Turtle is from the same party or something

Vladimir Pustynskiy - 3 måneder siden

But what about approval voting, everyone?

Will Bowden - 3 måneder siden

I'm glad Grey is explaining all the alternative options. I prefer a true RCV over STV. In Grey explaining this, I don't like it, although it's probably still better than fptp

Skyval Ream - 3 måneder siden

@Will Bowden IIRC "RCV" generally meant a combination of "the Alternative Vote" for single-winner positions plus STV for multi-winner positions

Will Bowden - 3 måneder siden

@Skyval Ream Gray's video on the Alternative vote explains it. It uses ranked choice voting for a single seat. It works well for the US Senate, but most states don't use it

Skyval Ream - 3 måneder siden

What's the difference between "true RCV" and STV?

Jakub - 3 måneder siden

oh

Jovan Rafael - 3 måneder siden

4:12 for those wondering why turtle didnt get 20% even though it should have is because that deer and buffalos votes were removed(if you give deers and bufallos removed votes to turtle he would have gotten exactly 20%)

Rugved Kulkarni - 3 måneder siden

I'm a bit confused on how extra votes are redistributed. Lets take owl for example. Does it look at the second choice of all owl voters or only those that voted after he passed 20%?

Amy Tomoe - 3 måneder siden

It's only the 'extra' votes. They can't use all the votes, because those votes are 'used' by owl to get into office. Each ballot can only be used once, so it can't award a vote to one candidate then use that same ballots preferences to award a vote to another. The problem I see with this is that, depending on which votes are redistributed and the preferences on those ballots, the outcome could change simply based on the order the votes were counted. Some jurisdictions use all the winners ballots to count preferences, but they are awarded to other candidates as a fraction. eg, Owl's votes could be redistributed by their 2nd choice, but they only count as half a vote in that redistribution.

Harold Brick - 3 måneder siden

Owl 2020!

Forgiven Sinner - 3 måneder siden

Ugh. I hate this. FPTP for me.

Forgiven Sinner - 3 måneder siden

@Mr. Hat Also I dislike the categorization of the electorate into so many special interest groups who can only be represented by someone like them. I prefer basing parties on broad philosophies that many people can agree upon. (Big government vs little government, nationalism vs internationalism for example)

Forgiven Sinner - 3 måneder siden

@Mr. Hat Sure. FPTP represents what the people want. STV is an artificial selection the second place finishers and giving them representation.

Mr. Hat - 3 måneder siden

Care to explain why?

Smiley P - 3 måneder siden

Are there any downsides to voting líke this? How could we bring this into existence in the US? Could this come after the possible silent removal of the electoral college

Vinícius de A Batista - 2 måneder siden

The problem is trying to find a problem with the best system there is whyle you are using the worst. About putting this into practices. It probably won't happen ever, cause you need to pass It as an elective law. And the US don't even have an institution to regularize federal elections, to make a law would be enven a bigger statement

Mr. Hat - 3 måneder siden

Biggest down side is the logistics required. The only way to introduce this system in the US would be a constitutional amendment

fourZerglings - 3 måneder siden

How is it decided which votes count towards victory and which are overflow and split?

fourZerglings - 3 måneder siden

I think when votes are eliminated, the win threshold should be lowered to match the new remaining votes

Yo5463 - 2 måneder siden

That is fair enough but computationally, you would have to redistribute the votes of everyone who made it every time some votes are eliminated. If you go into the maths, this turns out to be equivalent but easier to calculate and explain

Mr. Hat - 2 måneder siden

Good idea, but then you have constantly redistribute majority votes.

Tobey Transport - 3 måneder siden

Similar to AV then?

Mr. Hat - 3 måneder siden

Yes, except there are multiple winners

Bollo Rice - 3 måneder siden

Say all of the owl voters have second choices. Which of the owl voter's second choice do you prioritise

Joey Nelson - 3 måneder siden

Turtle gets in by inspiring no strong feelings one way or the other in anybody. A true neutral

Jacob - - 3 måneder siden

When a candidate exceeds the needed vote, how do you determine which votes are redistributed. Seems like an opportunity for a “gerrymandered” section to be redistributed. If that makes sense.

Yo5463 - 2 måneder siden

Not dumb, really. Loads of people are asking the same thing. I can't blame them since the only clue in the video was the word "proportionately"

Mr. Hat - 2 måneder siden

@Jacob - glad you answered your own question.

Jacob - - 3 måneder siden

I think my question was dumb.... you could just take the aggregate percentage of the 2nd choices from the total vote for that candidate

LilacDoe - 4 måneder siden

Slow and steady wins the race

Josh Daws - 4 måneder siden

What I don't understand is when a candidate gets over the threshold, it's only the number of votes over the threshold which get redistributed, so how do you decide which voters get their second preferences considered and which don't?

John McGurk - 4 måneder siden

Hi CGP.

Great video, but I think the quota is actually set wrongly in these videos. Surely for 5 seats the quota isn't 100/5 but is 100/6 + 1 vote as if 5 candidates reaches that number the absolute maximum a 6th candidate can reach is 100/6 - 5 votes. So in a five seater the quota is ~ 16.666% and not 20%.

Great video, but I think the quota is actually set wrongly in these videos. Surely for 5 seats the quota isn't 100/5 but is 100/6 + 1 vote as if 5 candidates reaches that number the absolute maximum a 6th candidate can reach is 100/6 - 5 votes. So in a five seater the quota is ~ 16.666% and not 20%.

minecraft or - 4 måneder siden

fun fact: tarsiers are not simians, they are classified as prosimians, another set of primates

Yo5463 - 2 måneder siden

How very curious

Blake Ives - 4 måneder siden

Curious what everyone's thoughts are to make a system better than STV/RCV since it still seems to benefit the big parties the most. Eliminating votes for candidates doesn't seem optimal.

Take a case where there are 4 parties running for 1 seat and all voters rank every candidate. Parties A, B, C, and D earn 45%, 40%, 10%, and 5% of first choice votes respectively and 0%, 0%, 5%, and 95% of 2nd choice votes respectively. Party D was the 1st or 2nd choice by everyone and was clearly the most generally liked candidate across the board, but via STV, Party D would've been eliminated and their votes transferred to Party C, which would've then been eliminated, and one of the two large parties win's.

Could you improve this system by tallying votes in rounds until 1 candidate has a winning percentage of 1st, 1st+2nd, 1st+2nd+3rd, etc. choice votes? I feel like this would be a simple and easy change to traditional STV so votes aren't eliminated.

There's an argument to be made for 1st choice votes to count more than 2nd choice votes and down the line. Could you assign values to each choice? 1st choice = 5 points, 2nd choice = 4, no rank = 0 points, etc. and sum all candidate's points? The candidate with the most points wins? I haven't found many flaws with this Rank-Choice-Value system, but maybe the internet can help me create a better system.

Take a case where there are 4 parties running for 1 seat and all voters rank every candidate. Parties A, B, C, and D earn 45%, 40%, 10%, and 5% of first choice votes respectively and 0%, 0%, 5%, and 95% of 2nd choice votes respectively. Party D was the 1st or 2nd choice by everyone and was clearly the most generally liked candidate across the board, but via STV, Party D would've been eliminated and their votes transferred to Party C, which would've then been eliminated, and one of the two large parties win's.

Could you improve this system by tallying votes in rounds until 1 candidate has a winning percentage of 1st, 1st+2nd, 1st+2nd+3rd, etc. choice votes? I feel like this would be a simple and easy change to traditional STV so votes aren't eliminated.

There's an argument to be made for 1st choice votes to count more than 2nd choice votes and down the line. Could you assign values to each choice? 1st choice = 5 points, 2nd choice = 4, no rank = 0 points, etc. and sum all candidate's points? The candidate with the most points wins? I haven't found many flaws with this Rank-Choice-Value system, but maybe the internet can help me create a better system.

Skyval Ream - 4 måneder siden

I've seen PR methods of some Condorcet methods (which are probably the favored rank-based methods). I think the most popular PR Condorcet method is Schulze-STV. But I've also seen it argued that you can use an abstraction of STV to turn almost any single-winner voting method into a PR method. It goes like this: 1. Find a winner using a single-winner method and elect them 2. Find the quota worth of ballots which are most satisfied by that winner and remove them 3. Repeat with remaining ballots and candidates until you have the desired number of candidates (and all ballots are used) Your "Rank-Choice-Value" system is known as The Borda Count, I swear it must be the most frequently re-invented rank-based method ever. It might be pretty good if everyone is honest, but it's vulnerable to both strategic nomination and strategic voting. And strategic voting is extremely easy and rewarding, at least until enough people are strategic, then it flips and becomes an anti-method (elects candidates _everyone_ agrees is _terrible)._ Though I'm not sure how making it PR would effect it. There are also rating-based voting methods, which may be even better than Condorcet methods. My favorites are Score voting and its relatives (e.g. Approval and STAR voting). Give a score to each candidate from some range, maybe 0--5, the candidate with the highest total wins. They each have multiple STV-like PR versions as well, including but not limited to just applying the STV abstraction I mentioned. Check out Proportional Sequential Approval Voting, which can also be adapted to Score.

The Spanish Inquisition - 4 måneder siden

If only we had this in the U.K... :(

Mr. Hat - 3 måneder siden

@average communist australia

average communist - 4 måneder siden

Or anywhere for that matter

Leon Tan - 4 måneder siden

Yay! Turtle wins!

MOS Productions - 5 måneder siden

Turtle is the beast underdog or in this case underturtle ever

Arcticnerd - 5 måneder siden

What I can never find the answer to is how are the surplus votes selected and distributed. Do you just randomly pick votes to be surplus or do you do some kind of proportional distribution?

Mr. Hat - 2 måneder siden

Porportionaly. If a candidate has 500 surplus vote, and their total voters had second choices of 50% candidate X and 50% candidate B, then 250 votes are to be given to Candidate X, and 250 votes are to be given to Candidate B.

A Box of Tomatoes - 5 måneder siden

Owls FTW!

Luscious Locks - 5 måneder siden

What would happen if second choice votes gave a candidate a surplus? Say, for example, if Tarsier had 18% of the vote, and then the second vote choices from Gorilla put him over the threshold at 23%. I understand the extra 3% would be distributed proportionally based on “the bloc” as a whole, but who makes up “the bloc” here? Would that extra 3% be distributed based on Gorilla voters’ second choice because that put Tarsier over the threshold? Or would the 3% be distributed based on voters who chose Tarsier first, because Gorilla voters’ second choice was already distributed? Or would we just combine the two and have the 3% be distributed proportionally based on the combination of Tarsier voters’ second choice and Gorilla voters’ third choice?

Daniel Többens - 5 måneder siden

While I love the videos of CGP Grey, I do not like STV. It is complicated, which will be a source of endless dispute, and whether its results are better than simple taking from the top is questionable. This example is an perfect example for why: Of the five candidates with the most votes, the first three are Owl, Gorilla, and Tiger, same as with STV. Next is Tarsia, replacing Silverback. Would it really be better if the simian block is represented by two Gorillas just because most Gorillas prefer a second Gorilla over a Tarsia, even if the Gorilla in question is really unpopular? Last to win is Lynx. This makes the feline block overrepresented, the Owls underrepresentated. But this is an artifact, resulting from the biggest group, the owls, starting with a single candidate. A second Owl would have won easily, unless it is utterly unpopular. And what about Turtle? He owns his win to owls. Only owls. Even without any other votes he would have been in. He will make politics for owls and owls only. Which is probably the reason he is so popular with owls. He is, in effect, the second owl in disguise.

Anarchist Banana - 5 måneder siden

Nooo! Not the jackalope!

It must have been a rabbitist conspiracy...

It must have been a rabbitist conspiracy...

theoriginal Fuco - 5 måneder siden

this doesnt aplly if there is stv with parties list, or how would it work?

Robert Jarman - 5 måneder siden

You could in theory create a model like that, Australia uses above and below the line STV for senate elections. One way of doing it is that if the party list has say five candidates on it, and a voter doesn't want to rank them individually but just for the party, they don't care who, then you could give each of those candidates say 0.2 votes and in any redistribution after a candidate wins or is elected, they will give the remaining candidates as many votes as is one divided by the number of remaining candidates in the party who are still running.

Skyval Ream - 5 måneder siden

Then I don't think it's really STV, it's just some sort of party list system

hayden3112 - 5 måneder siden

How would you decide which votes are taken off the totals over 20%

Robert Jarman - 5 måneder siden

Say that a candidate has 25% of the votes but only needed 20%. The number of votes that need to be redistributed is 5%. So you scale down votes until the surplus amount is reached. IE in this case, you scale down 25% to 5%, so you assign each vote a weight of 0.2. If ten percent of those who voted in that election supported a different candidate, you'd give them 10%, times 0.2, or 2%, of the votes in the election, added to their pile.

Jodgers - 5 måneder siden

Millionth view!

Amelia Fantasia - 5 måneder siden

People calling Turtle an unbelievable victory: THIS IS WHY FIRST PAST THE POST IS SO BAD! Turtle didn't win on luck, Turtle won by being the second and third choice for a lot of people. Lots of people kinda-like Turtle! So it makes perfect sense for Turtle to be one of the five.

naphackDT - 8 dager siden

People just preferred her slow-and-steady approach to the aggressive partisan politics of their political rivals. Better to vote in a neutral centrist than to allow those carnivores grabbing a second seat.

Joseph Tafar - 6 måneder siden

Is it not kinda unfair to have one voter get their votes counted twice? In this situation Owl and Gorilla voters seem to have way more electing power than supporters of other animals because not only do they ensure their candidate gets in, but also another.

Robert Jarman - 5 måneder siden

If they have enough voters to do this, then it makes sense to give them more wins in the election because they are a bigger section of the population than the others.

Skyval Ream - 5 måneder siden

Suppose 80% of the population are Primates of some sort. Also suppose all of them put gorilla first. If their extra votes weren't transferred, they'd only get 1 candidate, even if there are supposed to be many animals on the council Or another way of thinking of it, Gorilla only needs X votes to win. If they get X+Y votes, they only "use up" X of them, and then the Y get transferred. Those Y votes haven't been used yet, they weren't needed to elect Gorilla. They aren't counted twice at all Of course in practise, these systems actually tend to work by deweighting everyone so their new total power is equal to the surplus, then transferring all ballots, each to whatever they listed next

Ratchet4647 - 6 måneder siden

Whatt about a ranked choice voting system that prioritizes first choice votes but also considers the overall voting preference of the voter.

Let's say there are 10 candidates.

Then hypothetically they could rank them from 1 to 10 in preference.

Give a first choice vote a value of 10, second choice vote a value of 9, third of 8, all the way down.

Then add up every candidate's first choice votes, then their second choice votes, then third and so on.

Then multiply each vote quantity by their value and add them up for each candidate.

Then the top numbered candidates get seats.

This wouldn't eliminate any votes, it would prioritize the votes that the voter prioritizes. It allows voters to give their support to their second or third choice even if that candidate doesnt have a majority of first choice votes, and the overall preferred candidate wins.

Your most likely to win if you're a favored first choice candidate, but it isn't just a plurality vote.

Let's say there are 10 candidates.

Then hypothetically they could rank them from 1 to 10 in preference.

Give a first choice vote a value of 10, second choice vote a value of 9, third of 8, all the way down.

Then add up every candidate's first choice votes, then their second choice votes, then third and so on.

Then multiply each vote quantity by their value and add them up for each candidate.

Then the top numbered candidates get seats.

This wouldn't eliminate any votes, it would prioritize the votes that the voter prioritizes. It allows voters to give their support to their second or third choice even if that candidate doesnt have a majority of first choice votes, and the overall preferred candidate wins.

Your most likely to win if you're a favored first choice candidate, but it isn't just a plurality vote.

Ratchet4647 - 6 måneder siden

Which votes among a candidates voters are transferred upon winning.

Which are considered surplus? Because depending on which you can get 2 very different results.

Which are considered surplus? Because depending on which you can get 2 very different results.

Mr. Hat - 3 måneder siden

It's distributed proportionality

GYO P - 6 måneder siden

i think transferrable vote is better

and easier to understand

and easier to understand

A Turn In The Game Of... - 6 måneder siden

Small corrections grey, a tarsier is not considered a simian but a tarsiiformes, which although belonging to the same Haplorrhine suborder as simians, are not the same as simians.

John Pfeifer - 6 måneder siden

Holy crap this sounds like a nightmare in real life. How in the world can you assure that the votes are counted correctly?

Gabrielle - 6 måneder siden

Daaamn, Jackalope voters 😂

Infidel Heretic - 6 måneder siden

I can’t imagine this ever happening in America.

Not because it’s a bad system, just because it’s too complicated for them to understand.

Not because it’s a bad system, just because it’s too complicated for them to understand.

Justin Eberlein - 3 måneder siden

@Vladimir Pustynskiy Also, SAV can lead to minority rule. Take my county board elections again. I live in a red county in an otherwise blue state, which is why the Democrats only fielded one candidate for board. (They actually don't even have someone running for a lot of other county positions) Switching over to animal kingdom parties: Assume a district is electing 3 seats. 41% of the population is Tiger party, while 59% is Gorilla. Because they're the minority, the Tiger party only fields 2 candidates, while the Gorilla party fields 3. If everyone just does a party ticket, the Tigers will get 67% of the seats, despite being a minority of the population.

Vladimir Pustynskiy - 3 måneder siden

@Justin Eberlein Thank you very much. Where do you live? I didn't know anyone in the US uses approval voting. The limit of N-1 votes per person in an election with N candidates seems reasonable, as a vote for all candidates at once would probably be just as inconsequential as no vote at all.

Justin Eberlein - 3 måneder siden

@Vladimir Pustynskiy It's proportional, while still not being NP-hard like PAV. I'll actually use one of my local elections as an example. We actually do vote for 2 representatives on the county board, although unlike true approval voting, we're only get up to 2 votes. This year, we actually only have 1 Democrat and 2 Republicans running, but for sake of argument, I'll do 2 of each. Also, assume that most people just do party tickets. Republicans vote for both Republicans, and Democrats vote for both Democrats. Under the current system, where they just elect 1st and 2nd place, and under SAV, whichever party has a simple majority of the population gets both of their people on the county board. But under SPAV (and PAV), you need a 2/3 supermajority to get both.

Vladimir Pustynskiy - 3 måneder siden

@Justin Eberlein Thanks, that was really helpful. If I may ask one more question, what is this system's advantage compared to SAV? So far I only looked at the simplicity of the calculations and SAV seems to be the easiest variant of approval voting in that respect.

Justin Eberlein - 3 måneder siden

@Vladimir Pustynskiy The first seat... works like normal. For the second seat, you recount the ballots, except anyone who voted for the first winner counts for 1/2 of a vote instead of a full vote. For the third seat, you do another recount, but if you've voted for one of the two winners, you count for 1/2, and if you voted for both of them, you count for 1/3. For a fourth seat, there's yet another recount, where you count for 1/2 if you've voted for 1 winner, 1/3 if you've voted for 2, or 1/4 if you've voted for all three. Keep doing recounts for as long as there are still seats to fill, where in the general case, if you've voted for N of the people who have won so far, you only count for 1/(1+N) votes

x3mofile - 6 måneder siden

First of all, where is jaguar?

Mr. Hat - 5 måneder siden

They tried to run in the tiger party for a bigger chance of winning but they lost the tiger party primary.

Sie, Evan Setiawan - 6 måneder siden

What if some of Owl's voters put Gorilla as second choice? Will their vote goes to Gorilla to be redistributed again, or they just get bypassed to third choice?

klarigi4219 - 7 måneder siden

Based Turtle

George Barton - 7 måneder siden

But how do you decide which excess votes get used for other candidates and which remain with a winning candidate?

Magnús Örn - 7 måneder siden

he sated here that for simplicity sake is proportional, so you find out what percentage of people 2nd choice was what

Jon Linin - 7 måneder siden

For a real life example, with multi member constituencies with several candidates for the main parties look at the Northern Irish local elections 2019. Belfast City Council gives links to the actual breakdown of votes by rounds of counting.

The results overall reflected the proportion of votes very well. The actual total of votes needed to be elected for 5 seats is not 20% as in the video but one sixth + 1. But the number of wasted votes is ultimately much lower than normally seen in a first past the post system, and it gives people the chance to express a preference for candidates within a party knowing that their vote won't be wasted, or let an opponent win by default.

The results overall reflected the proportion of votes very well. The actual total of votes needed to be elected for 5 seats is not 20% as in the video but one sixth + 1. But the number of wasted votes is ultimately much lower than normally seen in a first past the post system, and it gives people the chance to express a preference for candidates within a party knowing that their vote won't be wasted, or let an opponent win by default.

Richard Samuelson - 7 måneder siden

Hey, that's Hare, not Droop!

Logan Perry - 7 måneder siden

How is the threshold decided?

Magnús Örn - 7 måneder siden

100 divided by number or representatives 100/5 is 20, so 20% 100/3 is 33 so 33%

Nymphie Medler - 7 måneder siden

How do you determine who’s votes are “extra” though?

Stratelier - 7 måneder siden

It's mentioned briefly at @1:20 and again around @1:40, there are several methods to determine where to distribute the extra votes. Using this video as an example: - Say that Owl received 330 votes though the threshold is 200, i.e. 130 extra votes to transfer but where? One method: majority. Reviewing the stack of Owl's ballots reveals, say, 200 (of 330) votes for Turtle as a second pick. 200 > 130 and Turtle is the most popular second-pick, therefore Turtle is chosen to receive +130 votes. - Gorilla received 320 votes (120 over threshold), and among Gorilla ballots the most popular second-pick is Silverback with 300 (of 320) votes. 300 > 120, so using the majority allocation, Silverback gets an extra 120 votes. - (In the actual video, second-picks were distributed proportionally, noting Gorilla ballots were assumed to second-pick Silverback over Tarsier by a 2:1 ratio, and Gorilla's extra 12% was likewise distributed by a 2:1 ratio -- +8 for Silverback and +4 for Tarsier) - On the other hand, if Owl has 130 extra votes but there are

Marco Vissuet - 7 måneder siden

I support team turtle. 🐢

Kyle McArthur - 7 måneder siden

Something i've always found fascinating about STV is how you decide which votes are surplus

If 20% is necessary to win and 32% of the vote, how do you decide which 12 percentage points are reallocated?

A lot of people say to pick out votes at random, which in general causes fair samples and is ok, but as an individual voter i could have a problem with that

Let's say Gorilla is my favorite candidate and preferred first choice and Silverback is the same for second choice. I HATE Tarsier and desperately do not want him to have any power.

If i choose to vote for Gorilla as first choice and my vote is selected as surplus, great!

I get to vote for my first choice, and voting for what i really believe in has gotten me the reward of working towards two candidates' success!

But if i choose to vote for Gorilla, there is a 20/32 or 62.5% chance that i'm not chosen as surplus

So by voting Gorilla, i have that same chance of "pushing" someone else into surplus, and one third of the time i'm giving that push to a tarsier voter

So my political voice is being spent on something i don't believe in 20% of the time

And that incentivizes me (by a factor of 20% of a vote, 80% less than FPTP in most cases) to strategically vote again

because my smaller candidate that i like less won't always receive the vote i want him to in the case that my big preferred candidate wins

Proportionality has a bit of the same problem

The only difference being, instead of having a probability of your surplus vote being given away, your vote is "split into pieces"

so exactly 62.5% of my vote would go towards Gorilla and 37.5% of it would go to Silverback

and that 62.5% helps tarsier voters allocate more of their vote to tarsier

but if i vote Silverback as my primary, near 100% of my vote is likely to go to him and gorilla will win anyways

i get both of my candidates while spending almost no political power on a candidate i dislike

again, incentivizing strategic voting to a degree

just wanted to talk about this, thanks for reading

If 20% is necessary to win and 32% of the vote, how do you decide which 12 percentage points are reallocated?

A lot of people say to pick out votes at random, which in general causes fair samples and is ok, but as an individual voter i could have a problem with that

Let's say Gorilla is my favorite candidate and preferred first choice and Silverback is the same for second choice. I HATE Tarsier and desperately do not want him to have any power.

If i choose to vote for Gorilla as first choice and my vote is selected as surplus, great!

I get to vote for my first choice, and voting for what i really believe in has gotten me the reward of working towards two candidates' success!

But if i choose to vote for Gorilla, there is a 20/32 or 62.5% chance that i'm not chosen as surplus

So by voting Gorilla, i have that same chance of "pushing" someone else into surplus, and one third of the time i'm giving that push to a tarsier voter

So my political voice is being spent on something i don't believe in 20% of the time

And that incentivizes me (by a factor of 20% of a vote, 80% less than FPTP in most cases) to strategically vote again

because my smaller candidate that i like less won't always receive the vote i want him to in the case that my big preferred candidate wins

Proportionality has a bit of the same problem

The only difference being, instead of having a probability of your surplus vote being given away, your vote is "split into pieces"

so exactly 62.5% of my vote would go towards Gorilla and 37.5% of it would go to Silverback

and that 62.5% helps tarsier voters allocate more of their vote to tarsier

but if i vote Silverback as my primary, near 100% of my vote is likely to go to him and gorilla will win anyways

i get both of my candidates while spending almost no political power on a candidate i dislike

again, incentivizing strategic voting to a degree

just wanted to talk about this, thanks for reading

Stratelier - 7 måneder siden

I thought about this, too! Say that Gorilla has 120 extra votes, but when you go back and review the _individual ballots_ for their second pick you discover 120 second-votes for Silverback and 60 second-votes for Tarsier. One method acknowledges that Silverback has enough second-votes by himself to account for all the 120 extra votes, so we assume that only ballots listing Silverback as their second pick will get transferred (every other vote remains with their first pick, Gorilla). Alternately, the proportional distribution: we acknowledge the 2:1 ratio between second-picks for Silverback and Tarsier. Dividing 120 by 2:1 yields +80 votes for Silverback (in principle, taken from ballots actually marking Silverback as their second pick) and +40 for Tarsier. Every other ballot (regardless of whether it listed Silverback, Tarsier, or whomever as a second pick) remains with Gorilla. In either case, a key principle is to let go of that instinctive possessiveness of your ballot being, well, "your" ballot. This is a secret/anonymous ballot so you cannot afford to worry about where your ballot _specifically_ ended up. STV also has a peculiar paradox of the "participation criterion". Consider an example (of IRV) with 3 candidates for 1 seat, and the first-picks show a ranking of A > B > C. A has plurality but no one has a majority, so the election gets decided by the C voters, who (for example) chose B as a second vote; B wins. However, if enough extra C voters cast ballots such that C becomes runner-up instead biggest loser, the election is now decided by _B's_ second picks, who (for example) chose A as a second vote, and _A wins._

David Eikeland - 7 måneder siden

Is there an alternative where, if a party has over the threshold, they 'exchange' the (in this case) 20% of votes for a seat - so that they can win multiple seats if they are really favoured?

David Eikeland - 7 måneder siden

@Skyval Ream Ohhh, i thought they were parties. I understand now.

Skyval Ream - 7 måneder siden

That's basically what this does. STV is party agnostic, all the candidates here are individual people, not parties. The idea is that if one person gets a surplus, the surplus is transferred to people's next choices, which are generally expected to be from the same party (or a similar one).

Krish Parashar - 7 måneder siden

i dont understand the difference between IRV and STV

both have preferences

both are transferable

both have preferences

both are transferable

Stratelier - 7 måneder siden

@Krish Parashar Yeah, the biggest practical difference is that in IRV (one seat) the winning threshold is automatically 50%, so having "excess" votes simply indicates a majority winner. Only when you have multiple seats available do you need to be concerned with transferring excess votes from a winner to a second-pick.

Krish Parashar - 7 måneder siden

Skyval Ream ahh now i get it, Single- IRV Multiple winners- STV Aight thanks

Skyval Ream - 7 måneder siden

@Krish Parashar STV is multi-winner and votes are transferred every time someone wins. If you tried to do STV but with only one winner, it'd be the same as IRV.

Krish Parashar - 7 måneder siden

Skyval Ream but even when we use IRV, transfer of votes are done when someone is eliminated right? If we have 4 single candidates, when one is eliminated, his vote share is distributed among others as per preference, so what is the difference

Skyval Ream - 7 måneder siden

IRV is single-winner, STV is multi-winner. STV being multi-winner means there are transfers both when someone is eliminated _and_ when someone is elected.

Joseph Meltzer - 7 måneder siden

What happens if you win 40%? Do you get two seats?

Mr. Hat - 7 måneder siden

No, because these are not parties your voting for. But individuals

bigcat56308 - 7 måneder siden

If democracy is this complicated, I think the Monarchists were right all along...

Magnús Örn - 7 måneder siden

@bigcat56308 monarchies werent complicated?? haha

bigcat56308 - 7 måneder siden

@Mr. Hat You can't escape Arrow's impossibility theorem with STV or any other for of mathematical wishful thinking

Mr. Hat - 7 måneder siden

Complicated is a subjective term.

jordan haas - 8 måneder siden

The biggest reason why this doesn’t work in a huge place like the US is mostly logistics and infrastructure, printing one sheet of paper and sending to it to one person is not hard, but printing 328 million and sending them out and then collecting them all back and counting them is a nightmare

Mr. Hat - 7 måneder siden

If the US were to switch to STV, it wouldn't be used in presidencial elections. But more regional like congressional elections, and elections for state politians.

Skyval Ream - 7 måneder siden

In STV you generally still have ranges with a reasonable amount of people in each range, each with their own isolated election, which should streamline it somewhat.

Philipp Eichert - 8 måneder siden

This is so simple and effective yet for some reason not used at all.

Jay The Snivy - 8 måneder siden

Go Turtle!

Auke Meijer - 8 måneder siden

Why don’t people just want a normal proportional system.

Mr. Hat - 7 måneder siden

Because in a a proportional system. People vote for parties and not individual candidates. I don't want the simian party chosing my representative, I want silver back

Strix_Trix - 8 måneder siden

I periodically come back an watch this video to refresh my memory on stv.

GYO P - 8 måneder siden

whose votes do you decide to split and whose to keep as the first prefernce?

for example i vote gorrila - 1 and owl -2

and my friend votes gorrila-1 and turtle-2

so whose vote goes to gorrila and whose vote goes to owl or turtle

for example i vote gorrila - 1 and owl -2

and my friend votes gorrila-1 and turtle-2

so whose vote goes to gorrila and whose vote goes to owl or turtle

GYO P - 7 måneder siden

@Stratelier ok I think I have understood . Thank you

Stratelier - 7 måneder siden

@GYO P There's no easy answer to that. For example, you could pick the most common second-pick (from all 80 votes) and award the extra 30 votes there, however there is a risk that if the second-picks are widely scattered (say across 80 votes, the second picks are divided 25-20-20-15) the most popular second-pick might not even have 30 actual second-picks to give them. Alternatively (and as mentioned in this video), you could tally up all second picks and split up the extra 30 votes proportionally. Say, across the 80 ballots the second-picks show a 50-25 ratio between two candidates (and 5 ballots with no second picks at all), that's a 2:1 ratio so of the 30 extra votes, 20 of them go to one candidate and 10 to another.

GYO P - 7 måneder siden

@Stratelier ok this is fine if owl has less than 50 people choosing second . My doubt is when 80 of them have chosen a second candidate and they are different. So if 50 is extra then which 30 would you omit?

Stratelier - 7 måneder siden

This is a secret election; nobody knows which ballots are whose so as counter-intuitive as it feels you have to let go of the idea that your ballot is still "yours" after it's been counted. If everybody places one drop of dye into the same bucket of water, can you still enforce whose drop is whose? Here's another curious example to think about: - Say that Owl gets 150 votes when the threshold is only 100. +50 extra votes to transfer, right? But what if, upon reviewing the Owl ballots, most of the Owl votes were "Owl or nothing" and there are actually only _30_ ballots listing a second pick? Welp, maybe this means those +30 votes get transferred to their second picks and the other 20 are dropped...

MrHatoi - 8 måneder siden

I've always wondered about sexually transmitted vote elections, thanks

Fatamerican101 - 8 måneder siden

Question on the math for vote redistribution: I just want some smart people to make sure I'm doing this properly.

So for the example, Gorilla got 32% of the total vote, which is 12% over the necessary 20% threshold. 33% of all Gorilla voters chose Tarsier as choice 2 and 66% chose Silverback as choice 2, so dividing the 12% excess into 4% and 8% respectively for those candidates. 100% of the 33% that chose Tarsier as choice 2 chose Silverback as choice 3, so that entire 4%, plus the original 5% from Tarsier voters (I'm still assuming they first chose Gorilla as choice 2, since they're closer on the political spectrum, but it doesn't matter) gets transferred to Silverback.

Just thinking in terms of application, this system gets messy on the back end, where someone would be responsible for taking all the information down of who voted for whom, and I want to make sure I'm doing it right. It's really nice that the user interface is still easy ('Just list your favorites in order').

So for the example, Gorilla got 32% of the total vote, which is 12% over the necessary 20% threshold. 33% of all Gorilla voters chose Tarsier as choice 2 and 66% chose Silverback as choice 2, so dividing the 12% excess into 4% and 8% respectively for those candidates. 100% of the 33% that chose Tarsier as choice 2 chose Silverback as choice 3, so that entire 4%, plus the original 5% from Tarsier voters (I'm still assuming they first chose Gorilla as choice 2, since they're closer on the political spectrum, but it doesn't matter) gets transferred to Silverback.

Just thinking in terms of application, this system gets messy on the back end, where someone would be responsible for taking all the information down of who voted for whom, and I want to make sure I'm doing it right. It's really nice that the user interface is still easy ('Just list your favorites in order').

Roman Gagliardi - 8 måneder siden

Go silverback!

Wilson Huang - 8 måneder siden

Jack-lops are a bunch of assholes

Magnús Örn - 7 måneder siden

they are just doomers

SpottedAlien - 8 måneder siden

Turtle finally gets justice.

Santamawlz - 9 måneder siden

Was getting quite worried about turtle

Bulbaking Doot - 9 måneder siden

I want to simulate an election with 24 candidates, how many seats should I have

Mr. Hat - 8 måneder siden

How many you want. But I would go with 8

No One - 9 måneder siden

I was walking through a possible Illinois scenario for the U.S. Senate seats, and I came upon a conundrum. To simplify, the scenario is as follows: 4 candidates for two seats; Left-Party candidate 1 (LP1), Left-Party candidate 2 (LP2), Middle-Party candidate (MP), & Right-Party candidate (RP). After the vote, 2/3's of the ballots are ranked LP1, LP2, MP (1st, 2nd, 3rd) while the remaining 1/3 are ranked RP, MP (1st, 2nd).

Obviously, LP1 gets the first seat; but what about the second seat? MP is going to be eliminated, but they also would've been the best representation for the remaining seat?

Thinking about it, we could actually tweak the results so that either RP or LP2 has a majority over the other, but not enough to win outright. Wouldn't MP still be the best representation?

Obviously, LP1 gets the first seat; but what about the second seat? MP is going to be eliminated, but they also would've been the best representation for the remaining seat?

Thinking about it, we could actually tweak the results so that either RP or LP2 has a majority over the other, but not enough to win outright. Wouldn't MP still be the best representation?

miniuniverse - 9 måneder siden

How long would it take for all of the votes to be counted and redistributed? People might go crazy and hate the system because it did not produce a result the same night as election night.( I am not those people)

Magnús Örn - 7 måneder siden

you can have a computer do all the computing but keep the physical paper in case a random audit conducted to make sure there is no fraud

Sigh-ed Shahon - 9 måneder siden

I feel like the biggest looser should eliminated before the excess votes are redistributed. Jackelope was eliminated for not having enough first choice votes even though Turtle had less. But what do I know, please tell me why my reasoning is wrong.

SpicyCake - 10 måneder siden

Welp no revolutions no change brb

Neste

There were 4 seats available, and the previous transfer had just created the 3rd seat. The person who received this seat had a surplus, and there was also the next least voted for, both of which needed to be distributed. However if the 3rd seat’s surplus votes were distributed, one candidate would be over the quota, and if the next least voted for’s votes were distributed first, another candidate would be over the quota. This very rarely happens but in the end they just had to choose which one :(