The South will rise again. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 06, 2024, 07:10:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  The South will rise again. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The South will rise again.  (Read 29893 times)
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,582
United Kingdom


« on: May 15, 2017, 12:01:29 PM »

the surplus is 7 though (44/6=7.33333 rounded to 7) - don't know if it changes anything though.
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,582
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2017, 12:05:37 PM »
« Edited: May 15, 2017, 12:07:49 PM by IceAgeComing »

the Droop quota (the correct one to use for STV) is number of votes/(number of seats+1) - in this case that's 44/(5+1)=44/6=7.33333 rounds to 7

I'm working it out based on a surplus of 7 although it involves reminding myself about how transfer values work and its annoying

e: scratch that; forgot about adding the 1, which normally wouldn't matter but with the small number of voters here its kind of crucial.
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,582
United Kingdom


« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2017, 12:23:52 PM »

Ignore this; I can't do maths
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,582
United Kingdom


« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2017, 12:30:01 PM »

Another thing to note is that as far as Atlasian precedent goes, I'm pretty sure multiple candidates who hit quota in a given round are elected then and there, rather than doing it one candidate per separate round. Maybe I'm misremembering, though.

That's pretty standard for STV elections: although normally each candidates surplus is transferred separately (and any elected candidates with untransferred surpluses can't gain any votes); since the theory is that if the gap between the bottom two candidates is bigger than the total of untransferred surpluses you then should eliminate the bottom candidate and transfer their votes to their next preferences.  Doesn't affect this election since that doesn't happen, but that's one of the problems I have with my calculator since it ends up taking votes that rank the most popular candidates with their first few preferences and effectively devalues their vote; when really those votes should just go to their next preference.

When I did the maths I had a different result; although that's probably because I calculated Ben's transfer value wrongly, I'll need to fix that quickly.
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,582
United Kingdom


« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2017, 12:47:18 PM »

Calculating the transfer values separately at each stage isn't technically incorrect but a different method that was used in the past before computers made counting STV elections a doddle.  Technically you've used the standard Gregory method while that calculator uses Inclusive Gregory (which doesn't allow a ballot paper to increase in value as the count goes on; which the former does) - the latter is better, but almost impossible to do by hand.

Yes, that sounds very familiar to me now that you mention it. Thanks for the clarification! It's been too long since I did this stuff on the regular and I was never very good at it. When I looked at the newest output I got from PL (which appears to be identical to the newly-published ones), I was huffing and puffing because TimTurner wasn't getting elected until the final round and potentially in danger despite hitting quota in the first round. He didn't have any surplus to redistribute and no one's surpluses went to him so I thought it looked very odd compared to what I remembered.

That's the issue with that particular software - what it should have done is just elected TimTurner and not transferred any of his votes: what it did was wait until he exceeded the quota before it would try to transfer votes - that's a problem since it means that if if he had gained a vote in an early stage: rather than that vote skipping him and going on to its next preference it'd be added to TimTurner; and then all of his votes would be redistributed which isn't correct.  Doesn't change anything this time, but that sort of thing could impact future elections.  Unfortunately, there's no better (free) options that I can see
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,582
United Kingdom


« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2019, 07:46:07 AM »

Mr Kenobi; Isaac Cummings from the Nyman Questioner (no it isn't dead its just resting).  I was wondering if you could respond to allegations that you had to flee Texas to Alaska in order to escape significant gambling debts which resulting in your home being repossessed?  We certainly know that there is a warrant out for your arrest back home for unpaid property taxes!

I mean, the fact that I'm asking this question to you in a road in Anchorage where you've clearly been sleeping in a 1992 Ford Fiesta suggests that the answer is clear but I figured that I'd give you the right of first response.
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,582
United Kingdom


« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2019, 07:53:48 AM »

Well, I've been in quiet retirement for quite some time. I'm rather puzzled why there would be allegations about me getting foreclosed when I'm still maintaining the same residence.

Unless I know more of the details of said speculation I have nothing more to say.

But you aren't in the same residence; you're in Alaska.  Unless you've always lived in a Ford Fiesta in Anchorage and have lied to the people of the south for all of these years?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 10 queries.