Still seeking to understand the system

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
But is information what concerns you or what Government that method used to collate that information ended up delivering? The former might concern staticians and antropoligists etc. but that's not really what elections are supposed to be about...
The rational strategy in a Prisoner's Dilemma game is to defect; it doesn't follow that given the choice of playing a Prisoner's Dilemma game or some other kind of game, that one would choose to play a Prisoner's Dilemma game.

Every vote is a manipulation and of course it has consequences.

But the logic as I see it followed through to it's proper end is that the vote of the proleteriat serve as nothing more than directionless bullwark to those who know how to vote stragically rather than anyone that voted for having any real significance bar the "coin toss". Oh and with the election paccts it might not be a coin toss anyway. Vote 1 X Vote 2 Y Posters etc...
I don't really understand what you mean here.
 


orbit

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
700
Why would tactical voting be a disadvantage? Surely the whole point of having a vote is getting the people you want to get into power into power? Tactical voting seems a way of acheiving that
What is normally meant by tactical voting is say in the UK system, your preferred candidate is Lib-dem, but the candidate is not likely to get elected, so you are faced with the dilemma of voting either for your preferred candidate (which may end up being a wasted vote), or for your second favourite. It is grossly inefficient because you have no way of knowing in advance whether your favourite candidate would be elected.

STV solves this problem so that your vote goes to your favourite candidate if he really can get elected, and it goes to your second favourite candidate, if he can't. It is simple and elegant, and there is no need for tactical voting.

Also this is why all this stuff about theoretical mathematical anomalies in STV need to be put in perspective. When compared to the elegance and simplicity of the system, from the voter's perspective, the anomalies are totally insignificant.

Stringjack is right about the internal combustion engine analogy. Voters don't need to understand how the votes are counted any more than drivers need to know how the engine works. It really doesn't help voters in any way (despite what some people think).
 

Christel

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
659
Stringjack is right about the internal combustion engine analogy. Voters don't need to understand how the votes are counted any more than drivers need to know how the engine works. It really doesn't help voters in any way (despite what some people think).
From what perspective do you say that? I find such attitude rather amazing. Not only may there be voters who want to understand, but I feel for informed voting it is necessary that voters understand how the system works.

Isn't voting something much more basic than driving a car?
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
From what perspective do you say that? I find such attitude rather amazing. Not only may there be voters who want to understand, but I feel for informed voting it is necessary that voters understand how the system works.

Isn't voting something much more basic than driving a car?
Voters who wish to be informed can learn about the system. And the whole point is that one can drive perfectly well without needing to know how the engine works - similarly, one can vote perfectly well without needing to know how the voting system works. Being informed about the system would have no effect on how a person votes (well, practically no effect).
 

Christel

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
659
Voters who wish to be informed can learn about the system. And the whole point is that one can drive perfectly well without needing to know how the engine works - similarly, one can vote perfectly well without needing to know how the voting system works. Being informed about the system would have no effect on how a person votes (well, practically no effect).
I'm not so sure. I'd like to know for example why people decide to vote from 1 to 10 if they do, and if they did different, would they understand the system. The same question for those that only vote down a few numbers.

And even for those who wish to understand it's difficult. It is just not an easy system. I had actually thought some mathematcal person is known by name for having invented it. It must have been invented by someone? It's so unobvious.
 

orbit

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
700
From what perspective do you say that? I find such attitude rather amazing. Not only may there be voters who want to understand, but I feel for informed voting it is necessary that voters understand how the system works.

Isn't voting something much more basic than driving a car?
Don't get me wrong. I am totally in favour of explaining the system to voters who want to know about it. We should go out of our way to explain it t. My point was, that the majority of voters aren't interested and don't need to be.
 

orbit

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
700
I'm not so sure. I'd like to know for example why people decide to vote from 1 to 10 if they do, and if they did different, would they understand the system. The same question for those that only vote down a few numbers.

And even for those who wish to understand it's difficult. It is just not an easy system. I had actually thought some mathematcal person is known by name for having invented it. It must have been invented by someone? It's so unobvious.
It was invented by an English man Thomas Hare
 

Christel

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
659
Don't get me wrong. I am totally in favour of explaining the system to voters who want to know about it. We should go out of our way to explain it t. My point was, that the majority of voters aren't interested and don't need to be.
Sorry if I misunderstood. You basically mean that everyone can vote according to whatever system and does not HAVE to understand it?

Thanks for the link to the inventor.

I'm not sure of the context to this paragraph quoted, and what he intended to say with it, but find it interesting:

"Can it be supposed that the moment the electors are allowed a freedom of choice they will immediately be seized with a desire to vote for some distant candidate with whom they are unacquainted, rather than for those whom they know - who are near to them, whose speeches they have heard and who have personal recommendations to the favour and respect of the town and neighbourhood."

What did he prefer? It remimds me a lot of clientilism.
 

orbit

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
700
Sorry if I misunderstood. You basically mean that everyone can vote according to whatever system and does not HAVE to understand it?

Thanks for the link to the inventor.

I'm not sure of the context to this paragraph quoted, and what he intended to say with it, but find it interesting:

"Can it be supposed that the moment the electors are allowed a freedom of choice they will immediately be seized with a desire to vote for some distant candidate with whom they are unacquainted, rather than for those whom they know - who are near to them, whose speeches they have heard and who have personal recommendations to the favour and respect of the town and neighbourhood."

What did he prefer? It remimds me a lot of clientilism.
I'm not sure what he was getting at. Maybe just that when given a greater choice, people don't necessarily educate themselves to use it. They still go for what they know. Parochialism rather than clientilism maybe.
 

seathestars

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
11
Hi christel
This is a link that explains how the mechanics of the PR-STV system works: http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/Voting/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1895,en.pdf
But it’s hard to understand so what I’ll try to do is, use an actual election, imagine the mind set of some sample voters and show you where there votes went on the day of the count. I’ll use the GE in the Meath constituency in 2002 because it where I have the best local knowledge and back then it had five seats.
The link to the count is here: ElectionsIreland.org: 29th Dail - Meath Count Details
Sample voter 1
This voter comes has left wing views and voted for candidates that best shared her views. She voted Ward (Lab) 1, Fitzgerald (Ind former Lab) 2, O’ Byrne (green) 3 and Reilly (SF) 4.
Ward was eliminated on count 7, so the vote transferred to Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald was eliminated on count 9, as O’ Byrne was already eliminated the vote transferred to Reilly. After count 9 there were 6 candidates left and five seats needed to be filled. At this stage of the count Reilly had 8,080 votes. Brady who was the next lowest candidate had 9,876 votes. Brady had 1,796 votes There were two surpluses left of 200 votes belonging to Bruton and 954 belonging to Wallace. These votes could not bring Reilly level or ahead of Brady and there were no more candidates to be eliminated so English and Brady were deemed elected without reaching the quota.
Sample voter 2
This voter is from north Meath and no party ties. He decided to vote for candidates in his area. He voted Brady 1, Farrelly 2, ward 3 and O’ Byrne 4,
Brady was elected on the last count without reaching the quota so the vote stayed with brady throughout the count .
Sample voter 3
This voter is from south Meath. He voted Dempsey 1, ward 2. Bruton 3 and Reilly 4
Dempsey was elected on the first count and got 11,534 votes the quota was 10,681 leaving Dempsey with a surplus of 853. This is where it gets complicated. So Dempsey doesn’t need 853 of his votes Some voters would have voted 1 Dempsey and not allocated a 2. These are called non transferrable votes lets say there are 2,000 non transferrable. This leaves Dempsey with 9,534 transferrable votes. But he need to keep 8681 of the transferrable votes and all 2,000 non transferrable in his pile.
So you put the number of the surplus 853 over the 9534 transferrable votes which gives you a multiplier of 0.08947 so they then sort where all Dempsey no.2s are going.
Ward got 235 of Dempsey no.2s. So (212 x 0.08947) is 21.0254 or 21 votes. So 21 votes will go over to ward and 214 will stay with Dempsey. The returning officer will simply take 21 votes from the top of the pile of the 235 that were 1 Dempsey, 2 Ward.
Therefore 91% of the time this vote will stay with Dempsey and 9% of the time the vote will transfer.
Ward was eliminated on the 7th count and there is a 9% chance that the vote transferred. In which case the next highest preference was for Bruton. It was on this count that Bruton received more votes than the quota. He had a surplus of 200 votes.
 

Christel

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
659
Hi christel
This is a link that explains how the mechanics of the PR-STV system works: http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/Voting/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1895,en.pdf
But it’s hard to understand so what I’ll try to do is, use an actual election, imagine the mind set of some sample voters and show you where there votes went on the day of the count. I’ll use the GE in the Meath constituency in 2002 because it where I have the best local knowledge and back then it had five seats.
The link to the count is here: ElectionsIreland.org: 29th Dail - Meath Count Details
Sample voter 1
This voter comes has left wing views and voted for candidates that best shared her views. She voted Ward (Lab) 1, Fitzgerald (Ind former Lab) 2, O’ Byrne (green) 3 and Reilly (SF) 4.
Ward was eliminated on count 7, so the vote transferred to Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald was eliminated on count 9, as O’ Byrne was already eliminated the vote transferred to Reilly. After count 9 there were 6 candidates left and five seats needed to be filled. At this stage of the count Reilly had 8,080 votes. Brady who was the next lowest candidate had 9,876 votes. Brady had 1,796 votes There were two surpluses left of 200 votes belonging to Bruton and 954 belonging to Wallace. These votes could not bring Reilly level or ahead of Brady and there were no more candidates to be eliminated so English and Brady were deemed elected without reaching the quota.
Sample voter 2
This voter is from north Meath and no party ties. He decided to vote for candidates in his area. He voted Brady 1, Farrelly 2, ward 3 and O’ Byrne 4,
Brady was elected on the last count without reaching the quota so the vote stayed with brady throughout the count .
Sample voter 3
This voter is from south Meath. He voted Dempsey 1, ward 2. Bruton 3 and Reilly 4
Dempsey was elected on the first count and got 11,534 votes the quota was 10,681 leaving Dempsey with a surplus of 853. This is where it gets complicated. So Dempsey doesn’t need 853 of his votes Some voters would have voted 1 Dempsey and not allocated a 2. These are called non transferrable votes lets say there are 2,000 non transferrable. This leaves Dempsey with 9,534 transferrable votes. But he need to keep 8681 of the transferrable votes and all 2,000 non transferrable in his pile.
So you put the number of the surplus 853 over the 9534 transferrable votes which gives you a multiplier of 0.08947 so they then sort where all Dempsey no.2s are going.
Ward got 235 of Dempsey no.2s. So (212 x 0.08947) is 21.0254 or 21 votes. So 21 votes will go over to ward and 214 will stay with Dempsey. The returning officer will simply take 21 votes from the top of the pile of the 235 that were 1 Dempsey, 2 Ward.
Therefore 91% of the time this vote will stay with Dempsey and 9% of the time the vote will transfer.
Ward was eliminated on the 7th count and there is a 9% chance that the vote transferred. In which case the next highest preference was for Bruton. It was on this count that Bruton received more votes than the quota. He had a surplus of 200 votes.
Thank you very much for this. I need to print this out and study off computer, with all the figures.

Meanwhile probably just another question I have: Why does there have to be the quota?
I understand that is what makes all the surplus transfers necessary?

If there wasn't a quota, votes for eliminated candidates could still be transferred, couldn't they?
 

Pauli

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
1,181
Thanks for your and all other answers so far. And sorry for not having mentioned that I'm still on about the Irish voting system.

Will read your link which seems not easy to understand. My neighbour, who's Irish by the way, wouldn't. This system seems rather distant from common sense, doesn't it?
Given the economic policies we have endured since 1997, you will have noticed that common sense is frowned upon in this country. Why should the electoral system be any different?
 

seathestars

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
11
Meanwhile probably just another question I have: Why does there have to be the quota?
I understand that is what makes all the surplus transfers necessary?

If there wasn't a quota, votes for eliminated candidates could still be transferred, couldn't they?
PR-STV stands for proportional representation, single transferable vote.
There doesn’t have to be a quota but it is better if there is.
If there wasn’t what would happen is all the lowest candidate would be eliminated till there is one candidate left, greater than number of seats to be filled. i.e six candidates for five seats. The candidate with the least votes would be eliminated and the remaining ones would be elected.
What a quota does is recognise that a candidate only needs to get so many votes to be guaranteed to be elected. The formula for calculating the quota is: divide the valid votes by the number of seats plus one, ignore any fraction and add one. As an example, if there are 1,000 valid votes and 4 seats, the quota is calculated as follows:
1,000 + 1 = 201 or a fraction over 20%
4 + 1
So depending on the number of seats to be filled the quota is always a fraction over the following
Seats Quota
1 50.00%
2 33.33%
3 25.00%
4 20.00%
5 16.67%
6 14.29%
7 12.50%
8 11.11%
9 10.00%
10 9.09%

It is impossible for two candidates to get 50.01% each in an election where one seat is being filled or for five candidates to get 20.01% where four seats are being filled.

Why a quota is better is the system wants the result to be as proportionate as possible. Imagine an election where two seats were being decided in a constituency very much in the centre. Three candidates are seeking election two with centre views and one which is on the extreme right. The candidate on the right is completely mad and thinks we should go to war with everyone. The two candidates in the centre have much the same views except one played county football and won the euro millions and gave all the money to charity. The election turned out as follows the footballer / charity candidate got 97% of the vote, the war monger got 2% and the other centre guy got 1%. Without a quota the footballer and the war monger get elected. With a quota system the footballer / charity candidate would not need 64% of his votes which in this case all transferred to the other centre candidate thus the two centre candidates get elected and their views best represent the views of the electorate and we don’t have to go to war. :)


Hopes this explains it a little.
 

Christel

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
659
PR-STV stands for proportional representation, single transferable vote.
There doesn’t have to be a quota but it is better if there is.
If there wasn’t what would happen is all the lowest candidate would be eliminated till there is one candidate left, greater than number of seats to be filled. i.e six candidates for five seats. The candidate with the least votes would be eliminated and the remaining ones would be elected.
What a quota does is recognise that a candidate only needs to get so many votes to be guaranteed to be elected. The formula for calculating the quota is: divide the valid votes by the number of seats plus one, ignore any fraction and add one. As an example, if there are 1,000 valid votes and 4 seats, the quota is calculated as follows:
1,000 + 1 = 201 or a fraction over 20%
4 + 1
So depending on the number of seats to be filled the quota is always a fraction over the following
Seats Quota
1 50.00%
2 33.33%
3 25.00%
4 20.00%
5 16.67%
6 14.29%
7 12.50%
8 11.11%
9 10.00%
10 9.09%

It is impossible for two candidates to get 50.01% each in an election where one seat is being filled or for five candidates to get 20.01% where four seats are being filled.

Why a quota is better is the system wants the result to be as proportionate as possible. Imagine an election where two seats were being decided in a constituency very much in the centre. Three candidates are seeking election two with centre views and one which is on the extreme right. The candidate on the right is completely mad and thinks we should go to war with everyone. The two candidates in the centre have much the same views except one played county football and won the euro millions and gave all the money to charity. The election turned out as follows the footballer / charity candidate got 97% of the vote, the war monger got 2% and the other centre guy got 1%. Without a quota the footballer and the war monger get elected. With a quota system the footballer / charity candidate would not need 64% of his votes which in this case all transferred to the other centre candidate thus the two centre candidates get elected and their views best represent the views of the electorate and we don’t have to go to war. :)


Hopes this explains it a little.
First may I ask where you got the 212 here in your previous post?

"Ward got 235 of Dempsey no.2s. So (212 x 0.08947) is 21.0254 or 21 votes." I missed this. I feel there's too much maths involved anyway.

Then I don't know what to think about your sample three candidates above. You could get a football/warmonger candidate, and all sorts of mixes, couldn't you?

Anyway, I looked at the information I have on the counts of the 4 electoral districts in my county, to check what effects the surplus transfers had. I know that's not representational, but just thought I follow the idea that they probably don't make much difference.

I three districts the candidates with the most votes in the first count finally made it. Only variation in two positions occurred via elimination transfers.

In one district a candidate that was not amongst those with the most votes at first countmade it, due to a great amount of (first) elimination transfers.

I did not see any great changes occurring from surplus transfers.

Seems the same in the count you used as example in your previous post if I'm right?

Has anyone ever studied nationwide counts re this question: What differences does surplus transfer make, and would it be more effective to scrap it?

From a common sense point of view, if you believe the preference/proportionality to be important, I think it is more obvious to people that votes of eliminated candidates are transferred, and much easier and directly understandable. I still don't get why surplus votes need be transferred. Without this less work and time would be involved.

Another question occurred: How is it decided whether elimination or surplus transfers are undertaken first, the order of these? I saw that differs in my four electoral districts.
 

seathestars

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
11
First may I ask where you got the 212 here in your previous post?

"Ward got 235 of Dempsey no.2s. So (212 x 0.08947) is 21.0254 or 21 votes." I missed this. I feel there's too much maths involved anyway.
Sorry the 212 figure is wrong it should be 235. There is some maths involved but once you know what’s going on it is not that difficult.

Then I don't know what to think about your sample three candidates above. You could get a football/warmonger candidate, and all sorts of mixes, couldn't you?
What I was trying to show was that transferring the surplus was more representative of the electorate views .
Here another example ElectionsIreland.org: 29th Dail - Dublin Central First Preference Votes
It is the Dublin central constituency in 2002. That is Bertie Ahern’s constituency and 2002 was a very good election for FF. FF got 39.58% of the first preference votes which is just shy of two quotas. A quota being 20% in a four seater. Bertie being so popular at that time got the lions share at 32%. If the was no surplus transfer it would have meant that SF would of took the last seat the same number of seats that FF would of had even thought FF got nearly 40% and SF only getting 15%.
Anyway, I looked at the information I have on the counts of the 4 electoral districts in my county, to check what effects the surplus transfers had. I know that's not representational, but just thought I follow the idea that they probably don't make much difference.

I three districts the candidates with the most votes in the first count finally made it. Only variation in two positions occurred via elimination transfers.

In one district a candidate that was not amongst those with the most votes at first countmade it, due to a great amount of (first) elimination transfers.

I did not see any great changes occurring from surplus transfers.

Seems the same in the count you used as example in your previous post if I'm right?
Yes you are right. In most counts the distribution of surpluses or eliminated candidates does not affect the result. This is the case most of the time but sometime transfers are crucial. SF for example suffer from not getting transfers from other parties. Also a lot of SF votes don’t transfer.
From a common sense point of view, if you believe the preference/proportionality to be important, I think it is more obvious to people that votes of eliminated candidates are transferred, and much easier and directly understandable. I still don't get why surplus votes need be transferred. Without this less work and time would be involved.
It is definitely easier to understand how the eliminated transfers are distributed. Your right if you did not distribute surplus transfers the day of the count would be quicker but it would not be as fair.
Another question occurred: How is it decided whether elimination or surplus transfers are undertaken first, the order of these? I saw that differs in my four electoral districts. .
Generally surpluses are distributed before candidates are excluded. The rule is that a surplus must be distributed in the next count if it meets one or more of the following conditions:
• Can elect the highest continuing candidate,
• Can bring the lowest candidate level with or above the second lowest candidate
 

Christel

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
659
Sorry the 212 figure is wrong it should be 235. There is some maths involved but once you know what’s going on it is not that difficult.



What I was trying to show was that transferring the surplus was more representative of the electorate views .
Here another example ElectionsIreland.org: 29th Dail - Dublin Central First Preference Votes
It is the Dublin central constituency in 2002. That is Bertie Ahern’s constituency and 2002 was a very good election for FF. FF got 39.58% of the first preference votes which is just shy of two quotas. A quota being 20% in a four seater. Bertie being so popular at that time got the lions share at 32%. If the was no surplus transfer it would have meant that SF would of took the last seat the same number of seats that FF would of had even thought FF got nearly 40% and SF only getting 15%.

Yes you are right. In most counts the distribution of surpluses or eliminated candidates does not affect the result. This is the case most of the time but sometime transfers are crucial. SF for example suffer from not getting transfers from other parties. Also a lot of SF votes don’t transfer.


It is definitely easier to understand how the eliminated transfers are distributed. Your right if you did not distribute surplus transfers the day of the count would be quicker but it would not be as fair.
Thanks for your answer.

Just shortly re

"If the was no surplus transfer it would have meant that SF would of took the last seat the same number of seats that FF would of had even thought FF got nearly 40% and SF only getting 15%."

In one way it seems one is asked for individualo candidates where party affiliation seems not important. On the other hand you for example argue in the above that two parties would have had same amount of seats with rather different amount of votes. (I assume this was a particular extreme example with Berty Ahern candidate in the constituency?) Also then parties take control in County Councils. I think the relation individual/party is not quite clearly elaborated to the public/on the system.

Re

"Generally surpluses are distributed before candidates are excluded. The rule is that a surplus must be distributed in the next count if it meets one or more of the following conditions:
• Can elect the highest continuing candidate,
• Can bring the lowest candidate level with or above the second lowest candidate"

I suppose this means where the two conditions mentioned are not the case that elimination transfers are done first?
 

seathestars

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
11
In one way it seems one is asked for individual candidates where party affiliation seems not important. On the other hand you for example argue in the above that two parties would have had same amount of seats with rather different amount of votes. (I assume this was a particular extreme example with Berty Ahern candidate in the constituency?) Also then parties take control in County Councils. I think the relation individual/party is not quite clearly elaborated to the public/on the system.
People vote in very different ways. For example I vote for the candidates of a particular party. Some people vote for candidates in there area, other people vote for women candidates and other vote for men. There are loads of different reasons that people choose to vote the way they do. And that is totally for them to decide.
Transfers will go everywhere. I was tallying at the Meath bye election 4 years ago and I seen a couple of votes that had SF no. 1 and PD no. 2 and vice versa. Well its hard to see the logic in these voters thinking. One is a right wing party the other is left. McDowell had been slating SF in the media. And SF were given as good as they got back. But the voters choose to vote that way and there was logic behind it. I just don’t know what it was. Maybe the voter knew both candidates.
But there are defiant patterns. Candidates of the same party transfer well to each other. People in the same regions do as well. Labour candidates will transfer well to other left wing parties. Non government parties will generally transfer better to each other. Women transfer better to other women. Hell you’ve a better chance of getting a transfer vote if your last name is Day rather than Way because your name appears higher up the ballad paper.
 

Christel

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
659
People vote in very different ways. For example I vote for the candidates of a particular party. Some people vote for candidates in there area, other people vote for women candidates and other vote for men. There are loads of different reasons that people choose to vote the way they do. And that is totally for them to decide.
Transfers will go everywhere. I was tallying at the Meath bye election 4 years ago and I seen a couple of votes that had SF no. 1 and PD no. 2 and vice versa. Well its hard to see the logic in these voters thinking. One is a right wing party the other is left. McDowell had been slating SF in the media. And SF were given as good as they got back. But the voters choose to vote that way and there was logic behind it. I just don’t know what it was. Maybe the voter knew both candidates.
But there are defiant patterns. Candidates of the same party transfer well to each other. People in the same regions do as well. Labour candidates will transfer well to other left wing parties. Non government parties will generally transfer better to each other. Women transfer better to other women. Hell you’ve a better chance of getting a transfer vote if your last name is Day rather than Way because your name appears higher up the ballad paper.
I did various things last time. I voted party, I voted local, I voted independent, I voted for newcomer, and in all I was trying to vote against... I found it quite non straight forward to vote with this system.

But another question: In general elections it seems clear that a party with the most seats will form at least part of government?

How is it with this control of Council procedure? Is this a regulated or rather loose procedure, and what does it actually mean? I know it has to do with positions on commitees etc, and found it quite funny that this time FG here didn' FF give much, after they had cooperated for years.
I guess that many voters in local elections don't think of Control of Council, but by the voting system are encouraged to think it's mainly about expressing their preferences for individuals?
 

seathestars

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
11
But another question: In general elections it seems clear that a party with the most seats will form at least part of government?
FF has had the most seats in the Dail since 1932. But have not always been in government. FG and labour sometimes have had enough deputies to form a government
How is it with this control of Council procedure? Is this a regulated or rather loose procedure, and what does it actually mean? I know it has to do with positions on commitees etc, and found it quite funny that this time FG here didn' FF give much, after they had cooperated for years.
I guess that many voters in local elections don't think of Control of Council, but by the voting system are encouraged to think it's mainly about expressing their preferences for individuals?
Councils work the same way as the national parliament except there are fewer members on a council than TDs in the Dail. So after the election the parties and independents do deals to gain control. In Meath this time round FG got 11 seats and labour got 4 there are 29 seats in total so 15 form the majority. FG and labour did a deal. The time before FF got 14 members elected. One short of 15, so they done a deal with one independent to gain control of the council.
So it works the same way as national government is decided except the major parties are more willing to do deals with independents and SF. And give higher positions to independents for there support such as chair of the council for one year. It’s very rare for an independent to get a senior ministry for supporting a government. But independent councillors do sometimes get to be chair or get put on important committees for there support in the council chamber.

What system do you use in your home country and do you think it is better?
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top