Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Thanks Jarred, great analysis. Very interesting about the effect of the mass PM - I was definitely under the impression that it would swing votes towards RL parties, but the reality is (as usual) more complicated.

    Well done Greens! Second largest vote swing. :king2:
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by miser)
    Thanks Jarred, great analysis. Very interesting about the effect of the mass PM - I was definitely under the impression that it would swing votes towards RL parties, but the reality is (as usual) more complicated.

    Well done Greens! Second largest vote swing. :king2:
    will you be able yo fill your seats?
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    will you be able yo fill your seats?
    Yes, we will be holding our elections shortly.
    Offline

    13
    Cool beans.

    Not that it mattered in my particular case, but could I just note that I never received the supposed mass PM, so it's possible that other people didn't either. I'm also hearing that some people received it a couple of times over, so I'm guessing there were some technical issues. :dontknow:
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    Great, thanks Jarred! :party:
    Offline

    18
    Shocking to see so many votes for the socialists and greens.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    Shocking to see so many votes for the socialists and greens.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Not really; it's a student forum and students are traditionally seen as a more 'left wing' group than the electorate proper.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Not really; it's a student forum and students are traditionally seen as a more 'left wing' group than the electorate proper.
    I just thought that people who had a brain and a beating heart would know better and vote for a proper party.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    Shocking to see so many votes for the socialists and greens.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Not so surprising when you consider young people have a much larger stake in the future.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by miser)
    Not so surprising when you consider young people have a much larger stake in the future.
    Yes they do, so why wouldn't they vote for a proper party?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    Yes they do, so why wouldn't they vote for a proper party?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And might I ask what criteria you would propose for identifying a 'proper' party, if not responsible and ethical policy?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by miser)
    And might I ask what criteria you would propose for identifying a 'proper' party, if not responsible and ethical policy?
    Well not one that focuses on 'saving the environment' and not one that is left of the centre line.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    Well not one that focuses on 'saving the environment' and not one that is left of the centre line.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ah, so we've reached the root of the problem: 'proper' parties are the ones that appeal to your own (scrupulously-researched, I'm sure) political views. I'm quite happy to say that on this occasion the Greens are willing to accept this setback.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by miser)
    Ah, so we've reached the root of the problem: 'proper' parties are the ones that appeal to your own (scrupulously-researched, I'm sure) political views. I'm quite happy to say that on this occasion the Greens are willing to accept this setback.
    Haha. I thank you for accepting it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    This is for enthusiasts only. The votes were allocated via the D'Hont method. The problem we have is that TehFrance can only get one seat and Spilt Ballot can't get any seats, so when either of them get's more than this, it skews the results slightly.

    In this situation, both of these things happened. I would quite like to see something done about this, because all it does it give an extra seat or so to the biggest parties. That's hardly democratic. I think this is something the House should discuss. I think maybe putting surplus seats up for by-election might be the easiest solution.
    This is not actually true. Statistically speaking, it's most likely that any extra seats would go to the biggest parties, but it's not an absolute. Consider the following result:

    Alpha Party: 79 votes
    Bravo Party: 79 votes
    Charlie Party: 65 votes
    Delta Party: 53 votes
    Echo (Indy): 30 votes
    Foxtrot Party: 12 votes
    Golf Party: 6 votes

    This produces (before eliminations) 13 Alpha seats, 13 Bravo seats, 10 Charlie seats, 8 Delta seats, 4 Echo seats, 1 Foxtrot seat and no Golf seats.

    Once you remove Echo's 3 seats and redistribute them, the results are 13/13/10/9/1/2/1 - here, you can see all of the smallest parties actually gained, rather than the large parties. D'Hondt statistically is not certain to give extra seats to the large parties, just likely.

    Say we compare this with holding a by-election for excess seats using FPTP or even multivote. Look at all the three by-elections, one of which (the first) under multivote and the next two FPTP. Four of the five candidates elected from these by-elections were sponsored by either the largest or second largest bloc. By-elections are even more biased in favour of large parties than D'Hondt is.

    If you want to adjust the system so that small parties don't get hit quite so hard by skewed results, the answer is not to use by-elections but to change the selection algorithm from D'Hondt to Sainte-Lague. We wouldn't have to change any of the election process at all other than how seats are distributed at the end.

    It just goes from quot = V/(s+1) to quot = V/(2s+1). Because the divisor has changed so it "fragments" faster, it is statistically more likely that any extra seats will be picked up by smaller parties. If we thought it necessary, we could even go further and try V/(3s+1) or (4s+1).

    What happens with proportional systems is that you have decide what happens to the "spare votes". If absolutely everyone in the election got a vote percentage that was exactly equivalent to a multiple of 2% of the vote, D'Hondt, Sainte-Lague, and all the other variations would give out seats on a one seat per 2% basis - they'd work exactly the same.

    Unfortunately, people don't get nice multiples of 2%, they get weird and wacky stuff like 2.37%. That means the system you are working with has to decide how to hand out seats to the extra portion without losing too much proportionality. If you have 8 people entering, and they all got the exact worse amount possible (which would be (2n+1)% of the vote), there are 4 seats that can't be allocated with exact proportionality. The closer each party is to 2%, the smaller the number of seats that can't be allocated properly. However, we then make that worse by adding in independents, because all of the spare votes from the independent all also go into this pot.

    This where all of the methods start to differ. D'Hondt doesn't cut your votes up into chunks very frequently, which means if you are a big party and you get close-ish to your next seat, it'll favour you over a small party who is also close-ish. This isn't an absolute, but it is just statistically more likely to do so.. Sainte-Lague cut up votes more frequently, and can "spot" better when small parties have done well. Again, it's not absolute, just favourable. Similarly, the higher "k" gets, the more the system tends towards spotting the results of smaller parties.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for the interesting analysis Jarred - well written and thought it. Great news to hear about the Greens' success - I'll admit and I'm slightly partial to supporting The Green Party's policies so woo hoo for them.

    Nice result people - will be interesting to see how the coalition forming period turns out...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So were UKIP leading before the election wax extended and a mass pm went out? Seems like a conspiracy to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Great analysis, Jarred, thanks for that!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    So were UKIP leading before the election wax extended and a mass pm went out? Seems like a conspiracy to me.
    There's been a PM sent out every time, it's in the constitution and standard procedure. It would have been more of a conspiracy had it been arranged for no PM to be sent out once the Speaker saw the surprising result at that stage.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There do seem to have been quite a few people who didn't get a PM, though.

    I'm also still very shaky about PM votes going through the Speaker; surely the mods should handle them?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.