MA: Transition to PR-STV Act (Statute)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Tmthforu94

[tmthforu94]

The title pretty much describes the purpose of this bill. This is a pretty significant change for our regions, so I'd encourage as many folks to weigh in as possible.

[Talleyrand]

My attorney, Bacon King, calculated results for the September and November elections using this proposed system.

September Mideast Assembly Election under PR-STV

Voters: 30
Seats: 5
Quota: 30/(5+1)= 5

First Round

Gass:       10
SPC:          8
Mr. X:         5
PR:             2
Inks:          2
20RP12:     1
JCL:            1
Oldiesfan:  1

Gass, SPC, and Mr. X are elected.

Distribution of Gass's votes

Gass:         5 (elected)
SPC:          8 (elected)
Mr. X:         5 (elected)
PR:             5.5
Inks:          2.5
20RP12:     1.5
JCL:            1.5
Oldiesfan:  1

Progressive Realist is elected.

Distribution of SPC's votes

Gass:         5 (elected)
SPC:          5 (elected)
Mr. X:         5 (elected)
PR:             5.5 (elected)
Inks:          3.25
20RP12:     2.25
JCL:            2.25
Oldiesfan:  1.75

Distribution of Progressive Realist's votes

Gass:         5 (elected)
SPC:          5 (elected)
Mr. X:         5 (elected)
PR:             5 (elected)
Inks:          3.5227
20RP12:     2.4773
JCL:            2.25
Oldiesfan:  1.75

As no candidate has excess votes, Oldiesfan is eliminated as the candidate with the fewest first preferences.

Round Two

Gass:         5 (elected)
SPC:          5 (elected)
Mr. X:         5 (elected)
PR:             5 (elected)
Inks:          5.2727
20RP12:     2.4773
JCL:            2.25

Inks passes quota and is elected.


Order of candidate victory:

1st: Gass
2nd: SPC
3rd: Mr. X
4th: Progressive Realist
5th: Inks

[Talleyrand]

November Mideast Assembly Election under PR-STV

27 voters
5 candidates elected
Quota = 27/(5+1)= 4

First Round

Gass           7 (elected)
Oldies         5 (elected)
Mr. X           4 (elected)
drj               3
Texas Dem  3
SPC             2
Inks            1
JCL              1

Gass, Oldiesfan, and Mr. X meet quota and are elected. Gass and Oldiesfan have surpluses to distribute.

Distribution of Gass's surplus:

Gass           4 (elected)
Oldies         5 (elected)
Mr. X           4 (elected)
drj               5.5714 (elected)
Texas Dem  3.4286
SPC             2
Inks            1
JCL              1

drj is elected.

Distribution of Oldiesfan's surplus:

Gass           4 (elected)
Oldies         4 (elected)
Mr. X           4 (elected)
drj               5.5714 (elected)
Texas Dem  3.4286
SPC             2.6
Inks            1.4
JCL              1
As Mr. X has no surplus to distribute, it's now time to distribute drj's new surplus.

Distribution of drj's surplus

Gass           4 (elected)
Oldies         4 (elected)
Mr. X           4 (elected)
drj               4 (elected)
Texas Dem  4.5849 (elected)
SPC             2.6
Inks            1.4889
JCL              1

TexasDem passes quota and is elected, thus ending the electoral count.


Candidates in order of victory:

1st: Gass
2nd: Oldiesfan
3rd: Mr. X
4th: drj
5th: TexasDem

[tmthforu94]

Thank you to Bacon King for doing this - the irony is I was just beginning to work on this, then saw it posted here. Thanks for saving me a bit of time.

The are very helpful - I would like to remind Assemblymen, though, that a lot of people would have different voting strategies under a PR-STV system than the current system.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I am opposed to this.

[tmthforu94]

A couple reasons why I support this:
1. Currently, we are the only region who doesn't use PR-STV. The federal government also uses PR-STV.
2. Under the current system, one side could win all five seats without even having a majority of voters, if they voted very strategically. PR-STV is much more representative of the electorate.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This is an important issue and one that I have honestly gone back and forth on quite a bit.  Initially, I was strongly opposed to it, then I was leaning towards supporting it.  This is not flip-flopping, instead I have simply heard strong arguments from both sides and I have been giving this a lot of thought.  One of my main original conditions for supporting this system was that it would not have drastically changed the election results in September and November.  While this condition has more or less been met (though in both cases there was one major change), at this point, I have decided that I will definitely oppose this bill.  Honestly, this has been our region's system since I first ran for office and it has worked just fine.  Our current system isn't perfect, but neither is the one in this bill and I'm not convinced that PR-STV is better.  Thus, after careful consideration, I have decided to vote against this bill and I urge my fellow Assemblymen to do the same.

[Kitteh]

I support this change. As was pointed out during the election, the current system allows a small plurality voting bloc to disproportionately influence elections, which is one of the reasons why I oppose FPTP. I believe that this is what happened with Gass and I winning the first and second seats in the last election; Labor voters made up a small plurality of the electorate. Had there been three Labor party members running in the last election, I would not be surprised to see all three elected, in which case Labor would have a majority in the assembly even though they are only a small portion of Mideast voters, while the Mideastern Center-Right which is a slightly smaller percentage of voters would have no representation whatsoever. This proposed system would bring us into line with the rest of Atlasia and make elections more fair and representative. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote Yes.

[tmthforu94]

I support this change. As was pointed out during the election, the current system allows a small plurality voting bloc to disproportionately influence elections, which is one of the reasons why I oppose FPTP. I believe that this is what happened with Gass and I winning the first and second seats in the last election; Labor voters made up a small plurality of the electorate. Had there been three Labor party members running in the last election, I would not be surprised to see all three elected, in which case Labor would have a majority in the assembly even though they are only a small portion of Mideast voters, while the Mideastern Center-Right which is a slightly smaller percentage of voters would have no representation whatsoever. This proposed system would bring us into line with the rest of Atlasia and make elections more fair and representative. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote Yes.

Thank you for having an open mind. I'm not sure I've heard a solid argument why the current system is better. Just because we have had it for years doesn't mean there isn't a better option. I think PR-STV is certainly better, as it ensures that those elected better reflect the population at large, while the minority could conceivably win a super-majority under our current, flawed system.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This is an important issue and one that I have honestly gone back and forth on quite a bit.  Initially, I was strongly opposed to it, then I was leaning towards supporting it.  This is not flip-flopping, instead I have simply heard strong arguments from both sides and I have been giving this a lot of thought.  One of my main original conditions for supporting this system was that it would not have drastically changed the election results in September and November.  While this condition has more or less been met (though in both cases there was one major change), at this point, I have decided that I will definitely oppose this bill.  Honestly, this has been our region's system since I first ran for office and it has worked just fine.  Our current system isn't perfect, but neither is the one in this bill and I'm not convinced that PR-STV is better.  Thus, after careful consideration, I have decided to vote against this bill and I urge my fellow Assemblymen to do the same.

Well, that's egg on my face   I just had a discussion with the Governor in which he was able to address my concerns with this bill.  I plan to support this bill.

[tmthforu94]

And, just so folks don't think any bribery or intimidation took place (), Mr. X's main concerns were with how PR-STV operated, so I mainly just explained it to him. A good explanation of how votes are counted in PR-STV can be found here.

[Talleyrand]

The current system of FPTP in the Mideast is highly outdated, theoretically making it possible for a minority of voters to pick control of the Assembly through strategic voting, an undemocratic option. PR-STV has been proved to work in every other region besides our own, and for federal Senate elections. We can more accurately have a legislative body reflective of our great region if we pass this. And this does not effectively prevent super-majorities, as seen by the calculated results for the November election, so this should not and cannot be interpreted as a powergrab for the executive branch.

Something which has been overlooked is the proposed change in gubernatorial elections. I was unaware that in the current system, the candidate with the most first preferences is guaranteed victory. This could terminate a chance for a moderate candidate to win the Governor's office in the future. These changes will prevent that from happening.

I will emphatically vote for this bill and urge my fellow Assemblymen to do so.

[Gass3268]

I support this, but someone is going to have to sit down and explain to me how PR-STV works because I'm still confused, lol

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Governor, perhaps you could show us how this would work in an actual vote.  I'll make up a ballot for you to tally for us.  There are 7 candidates: A, B, C, D, E, F, and G; there are 11 ballots:

1- A
2- B
3- C
4- D
5- E

1- B
2- A
3- G
4- F
5- E

1- B
2- A
3- F
4- D
5- C

1- C
2- D
3- G
4- B
5- F

1- G
2- F
3- E
4- D
5- C

1- D
2- E
3- A

1- E
2- G
3- B
4- D
5- A

1- F
2- A
3- B

1- C
2- D
3- G
4- A

1- F
2- A
3- B
4- E
5- C

1- F
2- D
3- G
4- A
5- B

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Now, here's how that would work under the current system.  Bold means elected in the present round; underlined means elected in a past round:

Round 1:
A - 1
B - 2
C - 2
D - 1
E - 1
F - 3
G - 1

Round 2:
A - 5
B - 3
C - 2
D - 4
E - 2
F - 4
G - 2

Round 3:
A - 6
B - 6
C - 3
D - 4
E - 3
F - 5
G - 6

Round 4:
A - 8
B - 7
C - 3
D - 8
E - 4
F - 6
G - 6

And Round 5, although it wouldn't matter:
Round 3:
A - 9
B - 8
C - 6
D - 8
E - 6
F - 7
G - 6

[tmthforu94]

Sure.

Voters: 11
Quota: 11/(5+1)+1 = 2
To determine Quota, use this formula:
[Total Valid Poll/(Number of seats to be filled + 1)] + 1

First Round
Candidate A - 1
Candidate B - 2
Candidate C - 2
Candidate D - 1
Candidate E - 1
Candidate F - 3
Candidate G - 1

Candidate's B, C, and F are elected as they reach quota. Candidate F is the only candidate who is over quota, so his votes redistribute. Now we're going to take a look at this three voters:
Voter 1 Preferencing - F, A, B
Voter 2 Preferencing - F, A, B, E, C
Voter 3 Preferencing - F, D, G, A, B

Two of his second preferences go to A, while one goes to D. We now use the following formula:
Number of candidate’s surplus votes/Candidate’s total votes
Therefore, Candidate A would receive .67 from redistribution, while Candidate D would receive .33.

Second Round:
Candidate A - 1.67
Candidate B - 2
Candidate C - 2
Candidate D - 1.33
Candidate E - 1
Candidate F - 2 (His extra vote is redistributed)
Candidate G - 1

At this point, we still don't have a candidate at quota, so we look to eliminate someone. E and G are tied - Since they're tied on first counts, we look and see who has more second preferences. They're also tied on second preferences, so we go to third preferences. G has 4 third preferences, while E has 1. Therefore, Candidate E is eliminated.

At this point, we redistribute candidate E's first preference voter: E, G, B, D, A. As this was the only E vote, his vote flows entirely to candidate G.

Third Round:
Candidate A - 1.67
Candidate B - 2
Candidate C - 2
Candidate D - 1.33
Candidate E - 1
Candidate F - 2 (His extra vote is redistributed)
Candidate G - 2

Candidate G is elected, as he has reached quota. Therefore, you have Candidate's B, C, E, F, and G winning in this scenario.


Does anyone have any questions? While I have always been familiar with the system, this is only the second time I've ever actually counted votes in PR-STV (First time was June 2011 Federal Election). I do believe I did this right, though, and tried explaining it the best I could.

[Kitteh]

I think you mean ABCFG. E was eliminated.

So to compare, under the current system you have ABDFG and under PR-STV you have ABCFG.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think you mean ABCFG. E was eliminated.

So to compare, under the current system you have ABDFG and under PR-STV you have ABCFG.

But how could A be elected?  He hasn't reached the quota.

[Kitteh]

I think you mean ABCFG. E was eliminated.

So to compare, under the current system you have ABDFG and under PR-STV you have ABCFG.

But how could A be elected?  He hasn't reached the quota.

If I understand right, since B,C,F, and G were elected and E was eliminated, that leaves A and D. D has less votes so they are eliminated and A thus wins by default.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So the quota doesn't always have to be met?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Anybody?  I'm not going to bring this to a vote until I'm actually clear on how it works...

[tmthforu94]

So the quota doesn't always have to be met?

No it does not. Exhausted votes make it difficult for all 5 candidates to reach quota.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So then A, B, C, F, and G would win under PR-STV?

[tmthforu94]

So then A, B, C, F, and G would win under PR-STV?

Correct. Putting E instead of A was just an error based on the fact I did it late at night.