tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post5312262448343261186..comments2024-03-17T21:29:12.457+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Hobart City Council Elections Candidate Guide and Preview 2014Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-24581199479763343172014-10-19T12:58:40.815+11:002014-10-19T12:58:40.815+11:00"or is it that the 2 differences they are ref..."or is it that the 2 differences they are referring to are: 1) The number to be elected varies and 2) 2 decimal places are used?"<br /><br />It's that one. The initial transfer value is 1 in state elections as well.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-38075622344726676202014-10-19T12:46:51.560+11:002014-10-19T12:46:51.560+11:00That confirms how I thought I understood transfer ...That confirms how I thought I understood transfer value. So I guess what I'm confused about is why it says the following on this page:<br /><br />http://tec.tas.gov.au/pages/ElectoralInformationMain.html<br /><br />"Is Hare-Clark the same in Local Government elections?<br /><br />There are two small differences. For Tasmanian Local Government elections, the number to be elected varies (depending on the election), the initial transfer value is 1 and all votes are calculated to 2 decimal places to reduce the loss of votes by fraction."<br /><br />So I guess my question becomes "Is one of the small differences they are referring to that the initial transfer value is NOT 1 in other elections?" or is it that the 2 differences they are referring to are: 1) The number to be elected varies and 2) 2 decimal places are used?"<br /><br />Thanks again for your repliesDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08236477623325410948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-29613150349377004352014-10-18T23:51:09.096+11:002014-10-18T23:51:09.096+11:00For tactical voting if someone is certain to quota...For tactical voting if someone is certain to quota on the first count or on surpluses from the first count then it doesn't matter where you put them so long as it isn't 1, so the ordering of any such candidate and any other candidate (beyond 1) doesn't matter. If your 1-vote candidate is excluded and your 2-vote candidate is already in, then your vote goes straight on to 3 at full value.<br /><br />The initial transfer value is 1 while a vote has not been part of a surplus. So if the candidate holding your vote is excluded then your vote has transfer value 1 for the next person who receives it. If they are then excluded it is still worth 1 for the next and so on. <br /><br />But if a candidate gets 1500 primary votes and quota is 700 then each one of those votes has a new TV of (1500-700)/1500 = 0.5333333..., with close to half the vote's value staying permanently with the elected candidate. Votes that have been part of a surplus are never at full value again.<br /><br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-38230445372361898132014-10-18T23:31:51.195+11:002014-10-18T23:31:51.195+11:00Thanks for that. I'm sure that like 5 years a...Thanks for that. I'm sure that like 5 years ago I had a spreadsheet for some election where all the counts were shown with transfer values as well. It really helped my understanding but don't see that format anymore.<br /><br />Smith had over 1700 first pref in 2011 with another 600 sitting with Wilson (Green or Greenish can't remember) on her exclusion. Woodruff and the last Green had a combined total over 1600 in 2009. The quota this time looks to be around 700 which is why I started looking into it. Both of them have increased their exposure over the intervening time running for higher offices so it should be interesting. It seems like they will both have surplus with Smith having the larger by quite a bit I'm guessing. She also stood for Mayor in 2011 and got over 2000 first pref and nearly 2500 after the exclusion. Though Woodruff is standing for Deputy this time and that will presumably bump up her primary quite a bit than it otherwise would be.<br /><br />So if the tactical vote is to put Ian 1, does it matter which order for Smith and Woodruff? As Smith is sure to have way over a quota it seems like Woodruff should go 2.<br /><br />One final question: I've thought about that difference 'initial transfer value is 1' and it's not quite making sense to me. To use Smith as an example: say she gets a big surplus, like 800 over a quota of 700. How do they distribute the surplus at full value?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08236477623325410948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-16047906804966796272014-10-18T22:30:38.548+11:002014-10-18T22:30:38.548+11:00Re tactical voting in Council elections, yes, exac...Re tactical voting in Council elections, yes, exactly the same thing applies as in state elections. A #1 vote for a candidate who gets over a quota immediately effectively becomes diluted by the preferences of everyone else who voted 1 for that candidate. If they mostly voted the same way you did that's less of a problem since the effective loss is only a very small fraction of a vote; it's a bigger problem for someone whose voter preference is unusual.<br /><br />One of these days it may stop working because everyone finds out and starts doing it, but for the time being it does make sense for a few Greens supporters who are confident they know what they are doing to vote 1 for their team's minor candidates.<br /><br />To my knowledge the distributions published are only in the form given. It is possible to determine the transfer values for surpluses early in the count but beyond that reverse engineering could get trickier. TEC would probably still have them however.<br /><br />I haven't had time to look at Huon Valley (or anything other than Hobart) in any detail. A trick in trying to model results is that last election some number of voters would have voted 1 Armstrong 2 Smith despite them being politically opposed. However since Smith was in with quota those votes would have then passed on to another candidate, so it's hard to say how many Smith might have got. <br /><br />Well-regarded sitting councillors who split from the Greens have tended around the state to outpoll them, and with a rather strong LegCo run also under her belt it wouldn't surprise me to see Smith way over the reduced quota. But I'm not sure what proportion of that will hold through to the Green ticket. If I'm right and Smith either has a larger surplus than Woodruff or else puts Woodruff over, then it will be mainly Smith's votes that will decide whether the Greens are in the hunt for another seat.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-17737579359105780662014-10-18T17:56:09.675+11:002014-10-18T17:56:09.675+11:00Rereading your Tasmanian Times comment/article
ht...Rereading your Tasmanian Times comment/article<br /><br />http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/kevv about tactical voting I'm wondering if much changes when talking about local council elections. From what I've been able to learn the major differences are that the initial transfer value is 1 and 2 decimal places are used to reduce loss by fraction.<br /><br />What I'm curious about is the chance of electing a third Green candidate (though not officially as Liz Smith resigned from the Greens to contest the LC) now that all 9 are up at once with 3 not standing again. So would it make sense to preference the minor candidate Ian Mackintosh over Liz and Rosalie to improve his chances?<br /><br />Also, was wondering if the full distribution of votes are available for past elections. I know I've seen one example previously (probably State or Federal) but now all I can find are condensed versions where many counts are lumped together and no transfer values are given. Such as this from the TEC: <br />http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/pages/LocalGovernment/PDF/ReportsIndividual/2011/2011%20Huon%20Valley%20Council%20election%20report.pdf<br /><br />Cheers.<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08236477623325410948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-1847447503552564842014-10-18T10:26:28.856+11:002014-10-18T10:26:28.856+11:00Yes the links off http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/...Yes the links off http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/LocalGovernmentElections2014/LGCandidates.html each go to pages which have links on the right to electronic versions of the Candidates Statements, where you can click on web links if the candidate has specified a web link. The web links don't appear in the printed versions unless the candidate has chosen to include them in their candidate statement.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-10230792742895716602014-10-18T10:08:20.534+11:002014-10-18T10:08:20.534+11:00Here's what I've been able to find for the...Here's what I've been able to find for the Huon Valley Council. There's the main TEC page:<br /><br />http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/LocalGovernmentElections2014/2014LGCandidates/HuonValley.html <br /><br />Next to the list of candidates is a link to the candidates statements which opens a pdf:<br /><br /> http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/LocalGovernmentElections2014/2014LGCandidates/Statements/Huon%20Valley%20CS%20Web.pdf<br /><br />The interesting bit (as all the previous info comes with your ballot) is that this pdf has web links to each of the candidates sites.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08236477623325410948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-91465002827073066522014-10-12T00:04:10.403+11:002014-10-12T00:04:10.403+11:00Hi Kev, (and hi Di, we stood together on tickets i...Hi Kev, (and hi Di, we stood together on tickets in 1980 and 1982...!), thanks for helping us understand the intricacies, and in helping to sort the wheat from the chaff...<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09030985503071607741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-78075156255309662652014-10-07T16:25:28.711+11:002014-10-07T16:25:28.711+11:00Firstly, be very careful on the Councillor paper t...Firstly, be very careful on the Councillor paper that you have the numbers 1 to 12 (for Hobart - number varies by Council) included each once and once only, whatever decision you make about other numbers. If you omit or duplicate even one number between 1 and 12 then your vote is invalid, but if you make mistakes after 12 the worst that can happen is your vote exhausts when it gets to the mistake - which it probably won't. <br /><br />Secondly, the more boxes you fill on any of the papers, the less likely it is that your vote will ever exhaust from the system. So yes, vote for as many as you can stomach. Indeed, I recommend continuing until you get to a point where, between all the remaining candidates, you no longer care which ones get in or miss out.<br /><br />Even when it comes to candidates you cannot stomach, if you see some of them as lesser evils than others then it is a good idea to go all the way through in order to put the candidates who you're most opposed to last. Putting a candidate dead last can never help them in any way at all since your vote will never reach them. Putting a candidate who you oppose higher than last will only help them if the only candidates they are left competing with are those who you are even more opposed to.<br /><br />For the Mayor and Deputy papers, your vote is passed on at full value whenever it is transferred.<br /><br />For the Councillor papers, it is more complex. When the candidate who holds your vote at any time is excluded, then your vote is passed on to the next preference without losing any value. <br /><br />However, if your vote starts with a candidate who is elected on primary votes alone, or it later reaches a candidate at the stage of the count at which that candidate crosses the line, then part of your vote is deemed to have been used electing that candidate, and your vote is then passed on to the next preference at reduced value. If the candidate you vote 1 for isn't elected on primaries but is later elected on preferences, then your vote just stays with that candidate to help them win and never goes anywhere else. Preferences from it might still be used in the future if that candidate resigns and there is a countback to fill their seat.<br /><br />For advanced players there are some tactical voting tricks possible in this system for the Councillor papers. I posted about this issue in detail on Tasmanian Times at http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/kevv . The only one I recommend is that if there are a number of candidates you think are more or less equally good, and you are very confident that some of them will be elected easily, then vote 1 for one you are not so confident about. This protects having part of your vote used up electing someone who was always going to win, and increases the chance your vote will help someone who needs it at full value. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-24617143793807179642014-10-07T15:27:58.825+11:002014-10-07T15:27:58.825+11:00Kevin, what is the best advice for voters in terms...Kevin, what is the best advice for voters in terms of not "wasting" their vote? Should we vote for as many candidates as we can stomach? Is the vote passed on to the next preference at full value?Di Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17809329200462835263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-79673818597558253992014-10-05T01:56:09.179+10:002014-10-05T01:56:09.179+10:00Cooper's run for Mayor will certainly increase...Cooper's run for Mayor will certainly increase her profile. Anyone who ran for DLM just looking for an aldermanic profile-boost out of it was wasting their time even more completely than normal and probably started kicking themselves as soon as they saw that the Christie ticket had flooded the ballot. <br /><br />The key question with Cooper is this: historically over the past few decades it's been extremely difficult for first-time candidates to win. Those who have done so have almost all been one or more of (i) endorsed by a major ticket (ii) already high-profile for non-Council reasons (iii) Liberals. So, is running for Mayor while also running a distinctive campaign style another way to build the level of profile required in a hurry? It's possible it is; I'd be going out on a limb if I said it was probable.<br /><br />I think it will come down to how much name recognition she can build up in the next few weeks based around the media opportunities that mayoral candidates get. <br /><br />(And yes, leadership contenders do get extra spending caps, though I'm not sure how many of them will actually be making use of that.)Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-70257706170071332162014-10-04T23:57:00.311+10:002014-10-04T23:57:00.311+10:00I'm not sure if it worked last time (sorry if ...I'm not sure if it worked last time (sorry if it has and I've sent you two)<br />What do you think of Cooper's chances? Her run for Lord Mayor may increase her profile (does it increase her spending cap?) and she seems to be actually campaigning. Would she be a good chance to defeat, say, Foley or Ruzicka?mstjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10542158830887996937noreply@blogger.com