User talk:Tóraí/Poll on Ireland article names

I guess I wouldn't...

I guess I wouldn't publicize this too widely. -- Evertype·✆ 21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

lol it really is interesting to watch the vote changes, the battle between E and C seems to have a big impact on Fs lead. E has atleast 25 votes in the final stage yet when C makes it into the finals it only has 20 giving F a bigger lead. Is also strange to see B has suddenly started to do well its a damn shame theres still 40 days to go though, i cant wait that long! :( BritishWatcher (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why haven't they invented decent cyber-cash yet, so we could have side-bets on the outcome? ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

lol its going to be worrying enough waiting the 40 days for the result, be far worse if we all had money ridng on this. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a (botched) attempt to bring in electronic voting machines in Ireland over the last few years. One of the things people had against the idea was that the result of elections would be known straight away - counting STV votes (by hand) in Ireland can take anything from two or three days to a week (or even longer!). Are you won over to STV yet, BW? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh i hate the idea of electronic voting machines, im even against postal votes with the exception of people that for medical reasons cant make it to the polling station. I think i get the STV system now but i still support the simple first past the post system, its certainly alot easier to calculate the vote and understand whats going on. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's true but actually the system we're using here is the same as most British political parties use for electing their leaders, including, ironically enough, the Conservatives. The only difference is that people vote once instead of trooping back to vote again and again as each choice is eliminated. Valenciano (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Query

RA, how come you have D currently on 11 votes? I just checked the ballot page and there are only 9 D votes? Valenciano (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerical error :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

STV

Hi Rannpháirtí anaithnid,

Thanks for this truly interesting page. A little haven of education and calm in a storm. I assume that the tables are an exact simulacrum of the official Wiki methodology, so can I ask a couple of questions?

- What is the best Wiki article to read on STV in order to understand the Wiki implementation? (All the stuff about Droop, Hare etc is somewhat psephologically challenging.)

- I have looked at the tables and tried to understand the the 'Exhausted' column. Is it correct that unless a voter includes one or other (or both) of the final two candidates, then their ballot will eventually be discarded as 'exhausted'?

- I assume that it is pointless casting the 'sixth preference' because it will always be outranked by prefs 1-5?

- I have not read/found any general guidance suggesting that everybody should cast 5 votes. Did I miss it? I suspect that some of the 'exhausted' voters will have been as uninformed or sheeplike as me, and been simultaneously overwhelmed with ambivalence at the subtle differences between 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th preferences. Thus they stated only their top 1 or 3 and may consequently be disenfranchised in the final count.

- ergo. Should an additional note be included in the voting instructions to reduce 'accidental disenfrachisement'?

Regards. Autodidactyl (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

PS - I have bookmarked this page, so it will probably be clearer if you reply here. Autodidactyl (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Autodidacty, we are kind of winging it over on that poll. Odds on it will work out. There is no "Wiki implementation" of STV - and technically we are using instant-runoff voting, IRV, for the poll since there will only be one "winner". Essentially it is this:

1. Count the first preferences and sort them into piles (e.g. a pile for option A, a pile for option B, etc.)
2. Remove the option with the least number of votes
3. "Transfer" those votes according to each individual voter's next preference (e.g. suppose A was the lowest, and there were 5 votes for A, 2 of these might have place B second so transfer those two to B; two more may go to C; one voter might not have stated any further preferences after A, so their votes go into the "exhausted" pile)
4. Repeat the process until there are only two options left - the winner is the option with the biggest pile

The reason we are winging it is because we have not defined what to do in a "tie breaker" i.e. two or more options are tied as the lowest ranked option in each "round". There are a variety of ways to break ties - random selection, choose the option with the least first prefs, choose the option with the least votes in the last round, etc. I'm using software to do the counting (OpenSTV). In the earlier rounds you can see that it has to choose between tied options and it used a variety of methods. With the grace of god there will be enough votes cast to make tied rounds unlikely in this vote (or else that the breaking the ties won't have an effect on the outcome!).

(Stuff about Droop etc. is only relevent to "real" STV - the kind where there are more than one winning candidate. It doesn't matter for us.)

... so, after that: Yes, you're right about eventually being discarded in the exhausted column. Yes, a six preference is technically pointless. I wouldn't say you are "disenfranchised" if you don't full in all of your preferences, but you are saying, "After this option, I don't care which option wins." I wouldn't be very on for changing the instructions on the ballot paper (they were very hard negotiations about everything to do with that a ballot paper) - I'd say leave a comment in the comments section (on the ballot page ... as a kind of "note" to other voters), if you are really concerned about it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of those who are voting for F at this stage it seems pretty pointless for them to include more than one vote considering it looks likely F will make it into the final stage so second preferences will make no difference. By the way RA, next time u do an update will you be including the strikers? please do so they can be calculated into the tally. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye, update please, so I can go to bed! The "strikers" is something that'll need to be sorted... those who withdrew because of the profiling deleted their votes, those who've struck through their votes could still end up being counted... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL - no update tonight ... I didn't know I had such an audience. Go to bed, Bastun. I won't be counting the "strikers" - if people strike they strike. It's not up to me to force them to vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a bit like an addiction i always come back and check every so often to see if the page has been updated, guess i better got to bed too :(. How long does it take u to put in all the data and get out a result?? Also please do take into account the strikers, im sure they will undo the strikes before the poll closes so its safer to count those two now than see a sudden surge near the end. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Many Thanks Rannpháirtí anaithnid. An excellent clear and comprehensive response. However, I wish I was 100% sure that the 'short selections' intended to say "After this option, I don't care which option wins." rather than simply not fully understanding.

Perhaps BritishWatcher's addiction to this page is only a 'withdrawal symptom' when Sarah777 has a whole evening off. The debate seems so dull, slow, one dimensional and predictable without her. Autodidactyl (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

lol very true. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Rannpháirtí anaithnid =) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Barchart

RA, Yet more excellent work. Thanks. Autodidactyl (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

*NEW* Bot

I've written a bot to prepare the ballot file for OpenSTV directly from the page so this tally is absolutely precise (barring bugs!). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible for the bot to "count" the struck-out votes and list them as invalid/spoiled? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...I was heading out the door last night after posting the update here and thought, "Hmmm, actually the bot does count struck-out votes." I'll fix that bug this evening (Irish time) and add a part to count them as "empty"/"invalid"/"spoiled".

The bot can also easily count a subset of voters, so for example it could read the member's list at WP:IECOLL and prepare a tally of only those voters. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new bot overlords! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)