tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post7204607173623800781..comments2023-06-14T17:33:55.624+10:00Comments on Foo's Eve Musings: CSM Matias Otero resigns, CSM Asayami Dei appointedFoohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02444693774790165427noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-52737883748335821262014-09-14T22:21:34.354+10:002014-09-14T22:21:34.354+10:00@Ael : your evidence is at http://en.wikipedia.org...@Ael : your evidence is at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tasmanian_House_of_Assembly_casual_vacancies" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tasmanian_House_of_Assembly_casual_vacancies</a><br /><br />Using a recount method, 39 vacancies filled since 1965. 38 to to same party; 1 moving from one 'independent' (Australian Democrats) to another 'independent' (Greens)<br /><br />Either 38 out of 39 'like for like' members being elected on a recount, in a real world does not appear random to me.<br /><br />Of course selection by recount assumes that people voting now will vote the way they did during the original election. This is a polite fiction.<br /><br />I use both Tasmania and Australia as a point of reference, as it is the first life example I have followed most. It has 3 main factions; not as many as Eve does but a very rough approximation.<br /><br />You will find that STV usually polarises between candidates of different 'sets'.<br /><br />For example following the scrutiny sheets available at <a href="http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/StateElection/Results.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/StateElection/Results.html</a> (clicking on 'Division of xxx results at the bottom). I understand and accept that the scrutineer sheets are hard to read at first. It is very unusual to have 'take the next candidate' give what could be decided as 'fair'.<br /><br />I have provided references, and real world examples of how STV systems have worked. These are not the only ways for the system to work. <br /><br />There are some (both here and on EN24) that don't like my analysis. From what I understand it is because it doesn't fit with their preconceptions. <br /><br />I also accept that STV will occasionally turn up a result for the last seat that appears somewhat bizzare. <a href ="http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2014/08/ricky-muirs-strange-path-to-the-senate.html#more>http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2014/08/ricky-muirs-strange-path-to-the-senate.html#more</a> (TLDR: micro parties between them get 17% of the vote; one of the micro party members gets elected on 6th/last spot)<br /><br />Stating that you disagree is fine but won't change anyone's mind unless you provide examples and what others have done. Even then, with the best of examples and logic, you might not change people's minds. <br /><br />My own summary:<br />* Appointment by recount is as likely as anything to provide 'like with like' candidates.<br />* Appointment by last excluded is as likely as anything to provide 'like with opposite' candidate.<br />* Likely is not the same as always<br />* All elections can provide weird results; STV is no exception<br />Foohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02444693774790165427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-44567617164082563232014-09-14T15:37:43.149+10:002014-09-14T15:37:43.149+10:00Sorry, a recount still suffers from the same probl...Sorry, a recount still suffers from the same problem as last excluded candidate.<br />The votes were cast under a specific scenario (with all the candidates in the running). There is no guarantee that any voter would vote the same way if you re-ran the election (complete with time machine and the removal of the candidate stepping down). Votes were cast under specific circumstances and are invalid if the circumstances change.<br /><br />Further, I see no evidence that doing a recount in this manner would produce an outcome "better" than a random number generator.Aelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788190394672505925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-54825996237321177132014-09-11T07:27:32.795+10:002014-09-11T07:27:32.795+10:00The ability to exclude the candidate is provided b...The ability to exclude the candidate is provided by adding a single line near the top of the file.<br /><br />In this instance, inserting a new line 2; with the value of -27 (Matias' candidate number)<br /><br />Foohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02444693774790165427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-86862428274688728542014-09-11T06:13:19.483+10:002014-09-11T06:13:19.483+10:00I seems to remember from looking at some corner ca...I seems to remember from looking at some corner cases that the code has the ability to withdraw candidates by adding the list of withdrawn candidates. So it's even more trivial than Gevlon points out. There is no reason not to do it and plenty of reasons it is the right thing to do. I kind of wish somebody who knows this shit had educated leelo about the voting system before this happened.Megaromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441064934188930950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-89570174780279120282014-09-11T01:24:20.532+10:002014-09-11T01:24:20.532+10:00@Gevlon : Not quite.
Mcblueshooter goes from bein...@Gevlon : Not quite.<br /><br />Mcblueshooter goes from being knocked out at round 13 of 33 to being defeated at round 32 of 32<br /><br />For workings : compare the 'drool warren based on original vote' with the 'drool warren with matias excluded' links in the bottom of the main article.<br /><br />The *only* difference between the 2 vote sources is that Matias is excluded.<br /><br />In the primary votes, Matias has 1453 and Mcblueshooter 355<br /><br />In the re-run, on the first round, Mcblueshooter jumps up to 831, or gets 33% of now available Matias' vote. Not a landslide, but still significantly more than random.<br /><br />At the end of the day, it is clear (to me at least) that the 'by fiat' approach of CCP is the same as a recount option. It is less clear that Mcblueshooter is on a different party ticket to Matias. While the flows are weak, they are not random.<br /><br />I need to have a look at who else got a better than random preference flows, but that is a task for tomorrowFoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02444693774790165427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-19305343234162177482014-09-11T00:05:10.646+10:002014-09-11T00:05:10.646+10:00Recounting could be done with trivial effort, by l...Recounting could be done with trivial effort, by loading the ballot file into Notepad and deleting the code of Matias. So an "X, Y, Matias, Z" vote changes into "X, Y, Z".<br /><br />Then re-run the vote counter program.<br /><br />The reason why their "first excluded" gave the same as a recount can be seen on my cross-vote table: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.hu/2014/05/csm9-election-analysis-rewrite.html<br /><br />Matias voters had no particular second preference, those who voted for Matias, voted for other candidates randomly. So Matias was the only candidate from his "party".Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-75242816531812533732014-09-11T00:02:34.326+10:002014-09-11T00:02:34.326+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.com