May 3rd 2007 - How I lost :)

[afleitch]

First preference.

Total valid votes - 5646
'Winning Post' - 1412
Rejected papers - 159

DOUGLAS: SNP - 1769
MCLACHLAN: LAB - 1335
SMITH: LAB - 1221
LEITCH: CON - 917
WARD: IND - 214
CLEMENTS: IND - 190

At first glance I was out. But things didn't exactly go downhill afterwards.

Transferral of surplus votes from Douglas

61.549 to CLEMENTS
57.109 to LEITCH
47. 2212 to MCLACHLAN
34.1042 to SMITH
32.4898 to WARD

124.5624 non transferable

WARD eliminated.

With Ward out, his votes, pointlessly in retrospect transfered to the other independent Clements who went out in that round. With Clements out the bulk of his votes transfered to myself.

The final round, before my elimination the tally stood as follows

Douglas - ELECTED (1412)
Mc Lachlan - ELECTED (1412)
Smith - 1339.77366
Leitch - 1113.99736
Non-transferable - 368.22898

Smith's lead over Leitch at Round 1 - 304
Smith's lead over Leitch at Elimination - 225.7763

------

SNP were willing to split their votes, but polling second in preferences was fine by me I was also glad to get 58.3% of Clements transfers in a three way split. The votes flowed down, but I'd simply not stacked up enough in the first round for it to matter. However, polling 16.25% in the first round was above the expected 8-10% vote share I was set at the start of the campaign.

EDIT: I also polled 3.64% points higher in my ward than the candidate for the Hamilton South constituency seat. I'll churn out more useless stats later

[Harry Hayfield]

Very nicely done indeed, but allow me to show you the BBC NI method

First Preference Votes
Douglas (SNP) 1,769
McLachen (Lab) 1,335
Smith (Lab) 1,221
Leitch (Con) 917
Ward (Ind) 214
Clements (Ind) 190
Quota: 1,412
Douglas (SNP) Elected

Transfers (rounded to nearest whole number):
McLachen (Lab) 1,382
Smith (Lab) 1,255
Leitch (Con) 954
Clements (Ind) 252
Ward (Ind) 246
Ward eliminated

[afleitch]

Also found vote shares for the Conservatives in each ward. Bold = elected. I'm in Blue

Bothwell and Uddingston 30.03
Clydesdale East (1) 22.48
Clydesdale East (2) 19.57
Avondale and Stonehouse 19.19
Clydesdale North 17.21
Hamilton North and East 16.24
East Kilbride West 14.0
Clydesdale West 12.93
Cambuslang West 12.61
Clydesdale South 11.89
Hamilton South 10.74 Note: Not the constituency
Hamilton West and East 9.57
Cambuslang East 8.87
Larkhall 7.93
East Kilbride North 6.87
East Kilbride South 6.25
East Kilbride Central 6.21
Rutherglen Central and North 5.42
Blantyre 5.07
Rutherglen South 2.17

[Speed of Sound]

Hey now, thats not so bad....better than I could do. Neat stats, btw.

[Harry Hayfield]

Also found vote shares for the Conservatives in each ward. Bold = elected. I'm in Blue

Bothwell and Uddingston 30.03
Clydesdale East (1) 22.48
Clydesdale East (2) 19.57
Avondale and Stonehouse 19.19
Clydesdale North 17.21
Hamilton North and East 16.24
East Kilbride West 14.0
Clydesdale West 12.93
Cambuslang West 12.61
Clydesdale South 11.89
Hamilton South 10.74 Note: Not the constituency
Hamilton West and East 9.57
Cambuslang East 8.87
Larkhall 7.93
East Kilbride North 6.87
East Kilbride South 6.25
East Kilbride Central 6.21
Rutherglen Central and North 5.42
Blantyre 5.07
Rutherglen South 2.17

How unfair is that eh? To have a vote share that should have elected you and you weren't. Could I ask whether the elected Conservatives were on their own or have a running mate to ensure at least one Con was elected?

[merseysider]

How unfair is that eh? To have a vote share that should have elected you and you weren't. Could I ask whether the elected Conservatives were on their own or have a running mate to ensure at least one Con was elected?

I would imagine that some of the Tories who got elected on a lower vote share were standing in larger wards which had 4 or 5 councillors (and therefore a lower quota) rather than just 3 councillors?

I was interested to note that in Scotland they transfer percentages of votes (the Gregory method) rather than randomly selecting a number of individual ballot papers equal to the surplus and transferring whole votes, like I believe they do in the Republic of Ireland.

Does the Returning Officer use some kind of computer software to manage the count? Back in my student union days I remember we had the option of using a computer programme where you entered the preferences on every individual ballot paper and it would work the result out for you (although in the interests of transparency, as the Returning Officer, I did all the calculations manually).

[Јas]

How unfair is that eh? To have a vote share that should have elected you and you weren't. Could I ask whether the elected Conservatives were on their own or have a running mate to ensure at least one Con was elected?

I would imagine that some of the Tories who got elected on a lower vote share were standing in larger wards which had 4 or 5 councillors (and therefore a lower quota) rather than just 3 councillors?

That's probably it.

I was interested to note that in Scotland they transfer percentages of votes (the Gregory method) rather than randomly selecting a number of individual ballot papers equal to the surplus and transferring whole votes, like I believe they do in the Republic of Ireland.

It's not really a random selection, per se. When dealing with a first round surplus, the votes are subdivided into piles according to the second preference expressed and then a proportionate amount of votes is taken from each. In later rounds, surpluses are transfered on a last in, first out basis.

FTR, I prefer the more precise method used in Scotland and NI.

[afleitch]

The Conservatives were reluctant to run more than one candidate in each ward except where they expected two to win. The SNP for example put up just one candidate for each Glasgow ward. Had they put up 2 in some wards it is likely they would have won more and subsequently put Glasgow in the NOC column.

They did use electronic counting machines which promptly stopped working and contributed to the voting fiasco that day. It allowed me, and indeed the media to watch the votes as they came in appear on screen. The movement of support from the Conservatives to the SNP in some of our strongest areas cost me votes; I had been doing well in the Labour heartlands where I chose to spend the last week and sitting in 3rd place on 1st preferences in some polling stations that reported.

If I had concentrated on the traditional areas, in which I knew some voters were heading towards the SNP to kick out Labour, I think I would have polled less.

No one expected my ward to have the 5th highest vote share (excluding Clydesdale East) and next time more resources can be focused there But I got a thump on the back for the campaign I run. I was as happy as Larry.

[Democratic Hawk]

You polled very respectably , Andrew. Unlike someone I could mention , you didn't come in last

Dave

[minionofmidas]

How unfair is that eh? To have a vote share that should have elected you and you weren't. Could I ask whether the elected Conservatives were on their own or have a running mate to ensure at least one Con was elected?

I would imagine that some of the Tories who got elected on a lower vote share were standing in larger wards which had 4 or 5 councillors (and therefore a lower quota) rather than just 3 councillors?

That's probably it.

I was interested to note that in Scotland they transfer percentages of votes (the Gregory method) rather than randomly selecting a number of individual ballot papers equal to the surplus and transferring whole votes, like I believe they do in the Republic of Ireland.

It's not really a random selection, per se. When dealing with a first round surplus, the votes are subdivided into piles according to the second preference expressed and then a proportionate amount of votes is taken from each. In later rounds, surpluses are transfered on a last in, first out basis.

FTR, I prefer the more precise method used in Scotland and NI.

And very much so. (Although I didn't know Northern Ireland did exact transfers - I thought they used the exact same method as the Free State?)
OTOH, the Scots could have cut a slice from Ireland and eliminated Ward and Clements in one go since it was theoretically impossible for Clements to overtake Andrew.

[Јas]

How unfair is that eh? To have a vote share that should have elected you and you weren't. Could I ask whether the elected Conservatives were on their own or have a running mate to ensure at least one Con was elected?

I would imagine that some of the Tories who got elected on a lower vote share were standing in larger wards which had 4 or 5 councillors (and therefore a lower quota) rather than just 3 councillors?

That's probably it.

I was interested to note that in Scotland they transfer percentages of votes (the Gregory method) rather than randomly selecting a number of individual ballot papers equal to the surplus and transferring whole votes, like I believe they do in the Republic of Ireland.

It's not really a random selection, per se. When dealing with a first round surplus, the votes are subdivided into piles according to the second preference expressed and then a proportionate amount of votes is taken from each. In later rounds, surpluses are transfered on a last in, first out basis.

FTR, I prefer the more precise method used in Scotland and NI.

And very much so. (Although I didn't know Northern Ireland did exact transfers - I thought they used the exact same method as the Free State?)

Nope. The numbers are usually rounded off when published in media which could help give that impression though.

OTOH, the Scots could have cut a slice from Ireland and eliminated Ward and Clements in one go since it was theoretically impossible for Clements to overtake Andrew.

Yep. But then the psephologists amongst us would be hampered in our transfer analysis!

[afleitch]

And the circle of life begins again... Though they have pushed them back by one year So it's a bigger circle!

[Хahar 🤔]

When's the election?

Also, good luck.

[Harry Hayfield]

That's what happened in Wales. Local Elections were held in 1999 (on the same day as the Assembly) and were pushed back in 2001 to 2004 so "electoral pilots could be put in place" (and of course they were not!)

This means that the new calendar reads thus:

• 2010: UK General, London Borough, Met and selected Non Met Locals (possible Scottish Independence Referendum)
• 2011: Scottish and Welsh Elections, Local Elections in England (bar counties and London)
• 2012: Met and selected Non Met, Scottish, Welsh Locals, London Assembly and Mayor