Discussing: The big problem of STV systems

[NeonSturm]

Droop-Quota : From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_quota

Quota = roundDown( (Number of valid votes) / (Number of seats +1) +1)

Imagine 3 seats, 5 candidates (ABCDE), 100 valid votes.

Quota = roundDown(100 / (3+1) +1) = 26

Person : First vote -> Second vote
A : 26+20 -> B // representing the "absolute winner"
B : 7 -> C // representing the "second choice of A's voters"
C : 20 // representing the "unknown variable"
D : 21 -> C // representing the "second choice of E's voters"
E : 6 -> D // representing the "absolute loser"

A is elected, 20 votes over quota are transferred to B.
B has now 27 votes and is elected, 1 vote transferred to C.
E has lowest points and is removed, votes transferred to D.
D has now 27 votes and is elected.

A, B and D are elected.

All 3 seats are elected and the algorithm ends.
​

The problem:

• The peoples voting A are already represented by 26/100 votes.
• The 20 over-votes should only transfer at a rate of (100- 26)/100 (=74% of 20 = 14.8 votes).
• A new quota should be calculated (equals an distribution of the 5 lost votes dependent on number of votes of the candidates)

New election:
A is elected, 16 of 20 over-votes are transferred to B, new Quota = roundDown(95.2 / (3+1) +1) = 24.
B has now only 21.8 votes and is NOT elected.
E has least votes and is removed, votes transferred to D.
D has now 27 votes, is elected, (27-24) * (95- 24)/95 =213/95= 2.242... votes,

2 votes are transferred to C which now has 22.242 votes, new Quota = roundDown(94.54 / (3+1) +1) = 24​

B has 0.44 votes less ans is eliminated,

A and D are elected, C remains and gets the last seat due to too few opponents.

All 3 seats are elected and the algorithm ends.

​

What do you think.

I know, some of you might think this is a very rare occurrence, which may be true for 5 candidates and 3 seats, but may matter a lot more with lower quotas (compared to number of votes).

 

[Megacrafter127]

This punishes people, who are in the "shadow" of popular candidates.
Weither or not that is good or bad can be debated.

 

[NeonSturm]

This punishes people, who are in the "shadow" of popular candidates.

Perhaps it would draw a shadow over people which are not unique in their representational points.

It is essential to give every opinion a choice among the single 1 strong option to preserve the representation of minority and thus the representation of an option the majority could be too lazy to be aware of because they are only watching the official propaganda or just the most famous one.

Weither or not that is good or bad can be debated.

Ty

 

[DraconisDomini]

I can't help but feel that your suggestion is unfairly punishing people who back the most popular candidate(s) and would lead to an over-representation of minority opinions/candidates. Of course the big advantage of any proportional-type system, of which STV is one, is that it allows minority opinions/candidates to get more of a say, but one can take that too far. Intentionally diminishing the majority just to try and be inclusive is not, in my opinion at least, a good thing. The sort of system that you suggest would lead some 'A' voters to wonder whether they should vote tactically and put 'B' first and 'A' second in order to try and avoid the situation where 'B' doesn't get in because 'A' is too popular. Another of the advantages of more proportional systems like STV is reducing the need for tactical voting, which is lost in your suggestion.

I am aware that it seems like your intention is to try and punish people who have 'drunk the cool-aid', as I believe the expression is, and not given any great thought to the alternatives, but it would also end up back-firing and punishing supporters of candidates who are genuinely popular because they are exceptional representatives.

Any democratic system is going to be somewhat vulnerable to the influence of demagogues (Hitler being the archetypal example), but it is extremely difficult, indeed I think probably impossible to address that through the electoral system alone, and certainly not without other consequences. Combating demagoguery requires a range of robust systems outside the electoral system and campaigns to unmask the disingenuousness of the individuals concerned. A free (and preferably unbiased) press is one of the key tools in that regard. And in the end, if you fail and a large majority of the population go along with the demagogue there is little that you can do about it. That is after all the nature of democracy - if the people will it, then however moronic, hateful and/or self-destructive you think it may be, it is, nonetheless, the will of the people.

 

[EtherEel]

I still maintain that the best voting protocol is as I described in "Voting Has Commenced."

For 7 seats to be filled, instructions as follows:
• "Vote for up to, but not more than, 7 candidates."
• All votes count equally (... do not transfer).
• The 7 top vote-getters win.
• The End

Simple is Better.

 

[Megacrafter127]

On another note NeonSturm are you talking about STV in general, or the council elections in particular?
Because in the former case, one can usually:

• rank less candidates, than the limit, as long as one ranks at least 1, and the list is consistent(no gaps in preference). [to my knowledge very common, when STV is used, and voting isn't mandatory]
  
• there is no upper limit on how one can rank candidates. (or at least the limit is above [number of candidates]+1-[number of seats]) [while I don't know how common that is, I prefer it that way, because that way no votes are ignored, because all candidates one voted for were eliminated, provided one completely used up the limit] {as for the current council elections, everyone's vote, which does not state any of the 7 winning candidates as 1 of the choices, will definetly fall under the table, as if one didn't vote in the first place(which also is the biggest downside of standard majority elections, if you didn't vote for an elected candidate, your vote practically did not exist)}

 

[NeonSturm]

The sort of system that you suggest would lead some 'A' voters to wonder whether they should vote tactically and put 'B' first and 'A' second in order to try and avoid the situation where 'B' doesn't get in because 'A' is too popular. Another of the advantages of more proportional systems like STV is reducing the need for tactical voting, which is lost in your suggestion.

This is the most useful feedback.

Perhaps this thread could open the eyes to some other STV newbe too

 

[DraconisDomini]

This is the most useful feedback.

Perhaps this thread could open the eyes to some other STV newbe too

Thanks NeonSturm, glad I could be of help.

I still maintain that the best voting protocol is as I described in "Voting Has Commenced."

For 7 seats to be filled, instructions as follows:
• "Vote for up to, but not more than, 7 candidates."
• All votes count equally (... do not transfer).
• The 7 top vote-getters win.
• The End

What you are describing is a multi-candidate version of first-past-the-post (FPTP), it is not a very good electoral system. I recommend watching some of the other videos in the 'Voting in the Animal Kingdom' series and/or reading the relevant Wikipedia articles for more in depth discussion as to why it is not a very representative electoral system. It leads to extensive tactical voting and eventually devolves into a two-party system.

If you want to understand why tactical voting is a bad thing consider the situation where you have a small party that would be unlikely to get enough votes to actually win a seat under either STV or FPTP. In the STV system the voter base for said small party can pick someone else as second choice, so they don't feel that using their first choice for the party they like most results in a 'wasted vote'. In the FPTP system since the small party is not going to get a seat voting for them becomes pointless - their voters would be better off voting for whichever of the larger parties would be their second choice, as otherwise a party they actively dislike might get in. The result of this is that the small party actually shrinks, many of their supporters voted tactically, so the small party got even less votes than it would have done otherwise. This allows the larger parties to dismiss it as a tiny party and ignore it entirely. Eventually the small party might well die off completely. Under a system like STV even though the small party might not get a seat, its supporters can still vote for it and demonstrate their support, confident in the knowledge that their second choice will get in even if the small party doesn't. Thus the small party doesn't die, it can make a better case for it's relevance, and it might even be able to gain enough votes to get a seat at some point.

Also in terms of FPTP being 'simple' consider this. Tactical voting (which FPTP inevitably leads to) requires you to guess/try and work out how you think everyone else is going to vote. Trying to work out the mindset of the rest of the electorate does not strike me as an inherently 'simple' thing to do.

Simple is simple, not necessarily better, and apparently simple is not necessarily simple in actual implementation.

As a side point, I agree with Megacrafter127, it would be better to allow people to vote for as many (or as few) options as they want, which is generally the way STV systems are implemented in other settings.

~Dragon Lord

 

[DukeofRealms]

On another note NeonSturm are you talking about STV in general, or the council elections in particular?
Because in the former case, one can usually:

• rank less candidates, than the limit, as long as one ranks at least 1, and the list is consistent(no gaps in preference). [to my knowledge very common, when STV is used, and voting isn't mandatory]
  
• there is no upper limit on how one can rank candidates. (or at least the limit is above [number of candidates]+1-[number of seats]) [while I don't know how common that is, I prefer it that way, because that way no votes are ignored, because all candidates one voted for were eliminated, provided one completely used up the limit] {as for the current council elections, everyone's vote, which does not state any of the 7 winning candidates as 1 of the choices, will definetly fall under the table, as if one didn't vote in the first place(which also is the biggest downside of standard majority elections, if you didn't vote for an elected candidate, your vote practically did not exist)}

I do agree with setting no max limit of votes, but I think for the first council a minimum should be set. People who understand STV are equipped to vote correctly. However those who do not know how STV works, a minimum number of preferences would be beneficial. Many votes could be wasted if people did not understand that votes actually transferred to their next preference, and we're not sure how many people are going to be voting in this council (as it is our first).

I'm actually not sure why the max is 5, perhaps that was a mistake...

Also, listen to DraconisDomini

 

[DraconisDomini]

I do agree with setting no max limit of votes, but I think for the first council a minimum should be set. People who understand STV are equipped to vote correctly. However those who do not know how STV works, a minimum number of preferences would be beneficial. Many votes could be wasted if people did not understand that votes actually transferred to their next preference, and we're not sure how many people are going to be voting in this council (as it is our first).

You have a good point there, STV kind of loses its purpose if most people only vote for one candidate, so having a fixed minimum, at least while people get used to the system, might well be a good idea.

 

[jorgekorke]

I'm actually not sure why the max is 5, perhaps that was a mistake...

It's not a maximum, it seems the system makes you obligatory go for 5 candidates. I tried voting only on 3 and it didn't allow me, so I had to choose other 2.

 

[DukeofRealms]

It's not a maximum, it seems the system makes you obligatory go for 5 candidates. I tried voting only on 3 and it didn't allow me, so I had to choose other 2.

The minimum is 5, as I believe I mentioned in one of my other posts. However, the max is also apparently 5, which means you have to choose 5.

 

[Megacrafter127]

The minimum is 5, as I believe I mentioned in one of my other posts. However, the max is also apparently 5, which means you have to choose 5.

You are aware, that you can declare the current elections invalid, because of that error, unless it turns out, that it was fully intended. :P

 

[DukeofRealms]

You are aware, that you can declare the current elections invalid, because of that error, unless it turns out, that it was fully intended. :p

I could, but then you might not get in eh? :P

 

[Megacrafter127]

I could, but then you might not get in eh? :p

1: I think those, who voted for me, will do that again.
2: I don't really mind that…yet

 

[DukeofRealms]

1: I think those, who voted for me, will do that again.
2: I don't really mind that…yet

We'll change it in the next one, it's not a major issue.

 

[NeonSturm]

I would like to know the result differences between min=3 and current system.

Perhaps it is possible to get the voting script to show how the results would look like if only the first 3 would count.