Fritz Election tracker

[Hatman 🍁]

I'd like to ask a question. This is probably not the right topic for it, but since we don't really have a place for this sort of question I'll still try here.

Well, I'm certainly not an expert in voting systems, but this has always interested me, so that I tried to research about that and now I know the basics. But there is something I don't understand about the voting system used for this election.
The Single Transferable Vote is suppposed to be a proportionnal system, selecting the 5 people that represent better the electors. In this case, why the quota fixed to be elected is 1/6 of the total votes insteasd of 1/5 ? If you fix it at 1/6 where there are only 5 senators elected, the representativity of the elected will be just slowly higher to 5/6, whereas we could have a 100% one with an 1/5 of the votes. This clearly hurts proportionnality of the system and can be dangerous.
If there is a reason why things are so, I hope someone could explain it to me, because this issue worries me since sometimes now. I admit that I can be wrong and will accept any sort of explanation. Thanks a lot.

I don't believe Antonio ever got an answer to his question.  Does anyone have an answer to this?

When Jas gets back from vacation he'll be able to explain it better than anyone.

Why does it have to be so confusing? Do we know who won?

lol

[Meeker]

I'd like to ask a question. This is probably not the right topic for it, but since we don't really have a place for this sort of question I'll still try here.

Well, I'm certainly not an expert in voting systems, but this has always interested me, so that I tried to research about that and now I know the basics. But there is something I don't understand about the voting system used for this election.
The Single Transferable Vote is suppposed to be a proportionnal system, selecting the 5 people that represent better the electors. In this case, why the quota fixed to be elected is 1/6 of the total votes insteasd of 1/5 ? If you fix it at 1/6 where there are only 5 senators elected, the representativity of the elected will be just slowly higher to 5/6, whereas we could have a 100% one with an 1/5 of the votes. This clearly hurts proportionnality of the system and can be dangerous.
If there is a reason why things are so, I hope someone could explain it to me, because this issue worries me since sometimes now. I admit that I can be wrong and will accept any sort of explanation. Thanks a lot.

I don't believe Antonio ever got an answer to his question.  Does anyone have an answer to this?

When Jas gets back from vacation he'll be able to explain it better than anyone.

Why does it have to be so confusing? Do we know who won?

The final results are posted literally two posts before yours.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A candidate with one-sixths of the vote is not going to be overtaken by more than four people,  no matter how. Hence why that's the quota - pointless to distribute any other votes that way. Raising the quota isn't going to make the results more proportional, either. The sixth placed candidate will still be eliminated. Raising the quota higher might even make the result more random.

[minionofmidas]

Just doing this to see what occurs... quota 19 (ie, 1/5 rounded up) or, alternatively, quota 18.6 (exactly one fifth)

Round I

RowanBrandon	16	(Fallen Morgan, Hamilton, NiK, Ronnie, Smid, cinyc, dead0man, RowanBrandon, MasterJedi, filliatre, JewishCon, floridarepub, Libertas, A-Bob, Daniel Adams, officepark)
Marokai Blue	16	(MaxQue, Ebowed, Flyers, opebo, Marokai, Eraserhead, Lief, Holmes, xfactor, Antonio, anvikshiki, Iosif, Smash, Earth, Gmantis, Kalwejt)
Fritz	16	(Sewer Socialist, Sensei, dc_cutie, Fritz, BRTD, Bacon King, Boris, Rob, RosettaStoned, jfern, pnkrocket, jokerman, bgwah, KyleGordon, px75, Ogre Magre)
Franzl	14	(HappyWarrior, Frodo, realistic, sbane, Sam Spade, Torie, bullmoose, GM3, Purple State, Franzl, Tender, Peter, Meeker, Lunar)
Afleitch	11	(Hashemite, Mr. Moderate, Swedish Cheese, Verily, AndrewCT, Barnes, Gustaf, Dibble, Einzige, Afleitch, Winfield)
SPC	8	(Tmthforu94, Mechman, Giovanni, J.J., Brandon H, PiT, Lahbas, NC Yankee)
Duke	5	(Ben, Mint, SPC, DWTL, Duke)
Jas	4	(Xahar, Al, ilikeverin, Vepres)
Sewer Socialist	2	(Lewis, EarlAW)
EarlAW	1	(Jas)

Nobody elected, Sewer Socialist and EarlAW (and Purple State and anybody who wrote himself in but didn't receive a first preference, actually) eliminated. Votes flow to Jas.

Note: haven't checked order of those first three based on second preferences.

Round II

RowanBrandon	16	(Fallen Morgan, Hamilton, NiK, Ronnie, Smid, cinyc, dead0man, RowanBrandon, MasterJedi, filliatre, JewishCon, floridarepub, Libertas, A-Bob, Daniel Adams, officepark)
Marokai Blue	16	(MaxQue, Ebowed, Flyers, opebo, Marokai, Eraserhead, Lief, Holmes, xfactor, Antonio, anvikshiki, Iosif, Smash, Earth, Gmantis, Kalwejt)
Fritz	16	(Sewer Socialist, Sensei, dc_cutie, Fritz, BRTD, Bacon King, Boris, Rob, RosettaStoned, jfern, pnkrocket, jokerman, bgwah, KyleGordon, px75, Ogre Magre)
Franzl	14	(HappyWarrior, Frodo, realistic, sbane, Sam Spade, Torie, bullmoose, GM3, Purple State, Franzl, Tender, Peter, Meeker, Lunar)
Afleitch	11	(Hashemite, Mr. Moderate, Swedish Cheese, Verily, AndrewCT, Barnes, Gustaf, Dibble, Einzige, Afleitch, Winfield)
SPC	8	(Tmthforu94, Mechman, Giovanni, J.J., Brandon H, PiT, Lahbas, NC Yankee)
Jas	7	(Xahar, Al, ilikeverin, Vepres, Lewis, EarlAW, Jas)
Duke	5	(Ben, Mint, SPC, DWTL, Duke)

Duke is eliminated and his votes are redistributed (+4 for SPC (Ben, SPC, DWTL, Duke) and +1 for Franzl (Mint)).


Round III

RowanBrandon	16	(Fallen Morgan, Hamilton, NiK, Ronnie, Smid, cinyc, dead0man, RowanBrandon, MasterJedi, filliatre, JewishCon, floridarepub, Libertas, A-Bob, Daniel Adams, officepark)
Marokai Blue	16	(MaxQue, Ebowed, Flyers, opebo, Marokai, Eraserhead, Lief, Holmes, xfactor, Antonio, anvikshiki, Iosif, Smash, Earth, Gmantis, Kalwejt)
Fritz	16	(Sewer Socialist, Sensei, dc_cutie, Fritz, BRTD, Bacon King, Boris, Rob, RosettaStoned, jfern, pnkrocket, jokerman, bgwah, KyleGordon, px75, Ogre Magre)
Franzl	15	(HappyWarrior, Frodo, realistic, sbane, Sam Spade, Torie, bullmoose, GM3, Purple State, Franzl, Tender, Peter, Meeker, Lunar, Mint)
SPC	12	(Tmthforu94, Mechman, Giovanni, J.J., Brandon H, PiT, Lahbas, NC Yankee, Ben, SPC, DWTL, Duke)
Afleitch	11	(Hashemite, Mr. Moderate, Swedish Cheese, Verily, AndrewCT, Barnes, Gustaf, Dibble, Einzige, Afleitch, Winfield)
Jas	7	(Xahar, Al, ilikeverin, Vepres, Lewis, EarlAW, Jas)

Jas is eliminated and his votes are redistributed (+6 for Afleitch (Xahar, Al, ilikeverin, Lewis, EarlAW, Jas), +1 for SPC (Vepres)).

Round IV

Afleitch	17	(Hashemite, Mr. Moderate, Swedish Cheese, Verily, AndrewCT, Barnes, Gustaf, Dibble, Einzige, Afleitch, Winfield, Xahar, Al, ilikeverin, Lewis, EarlAW, Jas)
RowanBrandon	16	(Fallen Morgan, Hamilton, NiK, Ronnie, Smid, cinyc, dead0man, RowanBrandon, MasterJedi, filliatre, JewishCon, floridarepub, Libertas, A-Bob, Daniel Adams, officepark)
Marokai Blue	16	(MaxQue, Ebowed, Flyers, opebo, Marokai, Eraserhead, Lief, Holmes, xfactor, Antonio, anvikshiki, Iosif, Smash, Earth, Gmantis, Kalwejt)
Fritz	16	(Sewer Socialist, Sensei, dc_cutie, Fritz, BRTD, Bacon King, Boris, Rob, RosettaStoned, jfern, pnkrocket, jokerman, bgwah, KyleGordon, px75, Ogre Magre)
Franzl	15	(HappyWarrior, Frodo, realistic, sbane, Sam Spade, Torie, bullmoose, GM3, Purple State, Franzl, Tender, Peter, Meeker, Lunar, Mint)
SPC	13	(Tmthforu94, Mechman, Giovanni, J.J., Brandon H, PiT, Lahbas, NC Yankee, Ben, SPC, DWTL, Duke, Vepres)

SPC is eliminated. Everybody else is elected without a quota.

I'm not sure if the three people with 16 votes initially are in the correct order, though it turned out not to matter. Note that the change could be larger than it was in this case. (For example, if Mint or Vepres had given Rowan a second preference, their vote would now have flowed there while under the current count, it would have gone straight to their third pref.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just doing this to see what occurs... quota 19 (ie, 1/5 rounded up) or, alternatively, quota 18.6 (exactly one fifth)

[...]

I'm not sure if the three people with 16 votes initially are in the correct order, though it turned out not to matter. Note that the change could be larger than it was in this case. (For example, if Mint or Vepres had given Rowan a second preference, their vote would now have flowed there while under the current count, it would have gone straight to their third pref.)

Well, you made a good point by showing it wouldn't have changed anything in this election. I was aware of that ( not at the time when I asked it, in fact, since we didn't yet know the results ). But the reason why this time the quota has been irrelevant is that nobody got more than the quota, so that not vote had to be redistributed from candidates reaching the quota. This was the case in this election, but would it have been for the previous ? Looking at the previous election, I noticed that some votes have been redistributed. In this case, raising the quota will cause that less votes will be redistributed, so that second preferences of candidates who get the most votes will have less importance ( will cease to be overrepresented IMO ), so that it could change the counts. I agree that such change would not be particularly important, but seeing how close where some Senate elections, it could change something.
As soon as I will have enough time, I'll try to make the count for the previous election, seeing if it changes something. If someone is interested in doing that, it would be great.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, in this election, there were no surpluses to distribute, since the three top vote-getters all received exactly the quota. It might have changed things strategically if the quota were 19 instead, since RowanBrandon, Marokai, & Fritz would not have been as safe sitting on 16 votes. However, the point remains that it would not be any more proportional.

[Antonio the Sixth]

     Well, in this election, there were no surpluses to distribute, since the three top vote-getters all received exactly the quota. It might have changed things strategically if the quota were 19 instead, since RowanBrandon, Marokai, & Fritz would not have been as safe sitting on 16 votes. However, the point remains that it would not be any more proportional.

For the vote to be really proportional, it's necessary that an elected candidate represent exactly the seat he will sit in. And for that, he has to represent the exact number of votes divided by the number of seats. Isn' this reasoning right ?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, in this election, there were no surpluses to distribute, since the three top vote-getters all received exactly the quota. It might have changed things strategically if the quota were 19 instead, since RowanBrandon, Marokai, & Fritz would not have been as safe sitting on 16 votes. However, the point remains that it would not be any more proportional.

For the vote to be really proportional, it's necessary that an elected candidate represent exactly the seat he will sit in. And for that, he has to represent the exact number of votes divided by the number of seats. Isn' this reasoning right ?

     It does makes sense. Maybe we should see what effect the higher quota would have had in other elections. This election was anomalous in that no candidate had a surplus to distribute until it was too little & too late to have possibly changed the result of the election.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Why can't we have one election where people actually know how to interpret our voting system? Just one, that's all I ask.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why can't we have one election where people actually know how to interpret our voting system? Just one, that's all I ask.

Well, that's also Senate's job. Anyways, I agree with you. The current system is too complicated and should be replaced, though we should protect ( and improve ) its proportionality.

[Franzl]

Why can't we have one election where people actually know how to interpret our voting system? Just one, that's all I ask.

Well, that's also Senate's job. Anyways, I agree with you. The current system is too complicated and should be replaced, though we should protect ( and improve ) its proportionality.

Short of voting for party lists, how would that be possible?

I admit the current system is complicated, especially in regards to strategy during the election.....but I think it's a good and fair system in the end

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why can't we have one election where people actually know how to interpret our voting system? Just one, that's all I ask.

Well, that's also Senate's job. Anyways, I agree with you. The current system is too complicated and should be replaced, though we should protect ( and improve ) its proportionality.

Short of voting for party lists, how would that be possible?

I admit the current system is complicated, especially in regards to strategy during the election.....but I think it's a good and fair system in the end

And why not doing that ? If we allow preference voting inside a list, it will be also fair and will not give parties too much power.
My proposal is : List voting plus preference vote, in order to elect 9 Senators every 4 years at the same time. The last one is appointed by the Governors in the same time using approval vote ( "vote par approbation", don't know the english traduction ).

[Hash]

Sadly, I don't think party list PR would be accepted here. There's still too much individualism within the parties to accept that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sadly, I don't think party list PR would be accepted here. There's still too much individualism within the parties to accept that.

Sadly, indeed...

[minionofmidas]

Why can't we have one election where people actually know how to interpret our voting system? Just one, that's all I ask.

Well, that's also Senate's job. Anyways, I agree with you. The current system is too complicated and should be replaced, though we should protect ( and improve ) its proportionality.

Short of voting for party lists, how would that be possible?

Open lists.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why can't we have one election where people actually know how to interpret our voting system? Just one, that's all I ask.

Well, that's also Senate's job. Anyways, I agree with you. The current system is too complicated and should be replaced, though we should protect ( and improve ) its proportionality.

Short of voting for party lists, how would that be possible?

Open lists.

That's exactly my opinion.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why can't we have one election where people actually know how to interpret our voting system? Just one, that's all I ask.

Well, that's also Senate's job. Anyways, I agree with you. The current system is too complicated and should be replaced, though we should protect ( and improve ) its proportionality.

Short of voting for party lists, how would that be possible?

Open lists.

That's exactly my opinion.

Cumulative voting is better.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why can't we have one election where people actually know how to interpret our voting system? Just one, that's all I ask.

Well, that's also Senate's job. Anyways, I agree with you. The current system is too complicated and should be replaced, though we should protect ( and improve ) its proportionality.

Short of voting for party lists, how would that be possible?

Open lists.

That's exactly my opinion.

Cumulative voting is better.

Proportional list cumulative voting, also called "Hagenbach-Bischoff system". Used in Switzerland and Luxenburg.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why can't we have one election where people actually know how to interpret our voting system? Just one, that's all I ask.

Well, that's also Senate's job. Anyways, I agree with you. The current system is too complicated and should be replaced, though we should protect ( and improve ) its proportionality.

Short of voting for party lists, how would that be possible?

Open lists.

That's exactly my opinion.

Cumulative voting is better.

Proportional list cumulative voting, also called "Hagenbach-Bischoff system". Used in Switzerland and Luxenburg.

Any method that allows you to vote for a party instead of a candidate is worthless to me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why can't we have one election where people actually know how to interpret our voting system? Just one, that's all I ask.

Well, that's also Senate's job. Anyways, I agree with you. The current system is too complicated and should be replaced, though we should protect ( and improve ) its proportionality.

Short of voting for party lists, how would that be possible?

Open lists.

That's exactly my opinion.

Cumulative voting is better.

Proportional list cumulative voting, also called "Hagenbach-Bischoff system". Used in Switzerland and Luxenburg.

Any method that allows you to vote for a party instead of a candidate is worthless to me.

No, it isn't if you can also choose the man for which you vote inside the party.