Greetings All!
I have been reading (not for the first time) the booklet
from the Electoral Commission which was dropped through
my letter-box the other day. The description given of
how "Alternative" votes would be counted seems to leave
unresolved some possible scenarios.

Consider (as in their example) 4 candidates: A, B, C, D.

In the constituency of Chew Backie, the Number 1 votes
were roughly equally distributed over A, B and C, all
getting less than half. Candidate D was everybody's
second choice, and nobody's first choice. So, on the
basis of the "Round one" rules (page 5), there will be
at least one further round of counting.

So, according to the "Round two" rules (page 6), the
candidate with the fewest number 1 votes is removed
from the contest -- in this case Candidate D.

NOW:
** Each ballot paper on Candidate D's pile is looked
   at again.

BUT: Candidate D doesn't have a pile -- he got no
"number 1" votes! So nothing gets added to A or B or C.

AND: Candidate D has now been removed from the contest.

BUT:
** If the ballot paper does not show a number 2 vote
   it is no longer used.

At this point, in the absence of an explicit resolution
in the booklet, there are (at least) three possibilities.

[1]: each ballot paper (all had D as number 2) is deemed
to have a number 2 vote which is for D, in which case
D is re-instated and gets a huge pile, and will probably
win, since he now has a vote from every constituent and
other candidates will progressively drop out by having
least votes.

[2]: Candidate D having been eliminated in Round one,
all votes for candidate D are eliminated. Now there
is no paper with a number 2 vote, so all ballot papers
are no longer used and the election is void.

[3]: Candidate D (in position 2 on all papers) having
been eliminated, the candidates with "number 3" votes
are promoted to "number 2" and the candidates with
"number 4" votes are promoted to "number 3". We now
have ballot papers with "number 2" votes which are
added to the A, B and C piles accordingly.

Possibility [3] is compatible with the "Round three"
rules (page 7), where (candidate C having been removed):
** Each ballot paper on Candidate C's pile is looked
   at again to see if any of the remaining candidates
   are ranked.
** If so, the ballot paper is moved to the pile of
   the candidate ranked highest on that ballot paper.

However, that's not how it was stated for Round two.
One suspects that this is what they mean for Round two
as well. But, if so, why can't they damn well say so???

But even so there is a complication. The "number 2"
votes (promoted as above from "number 3" votes) are
now in the A, B and C piles, but (say) a "number 2"
for B which is in the C ("number 1") pile can't be
added to B's withnout removing it from the C pile
(see also below).

Another interesting (though perhaps unlikely) unresolved
situation is where the "number 1" votes are exactly equal
across candidates. In that case all candidates get less
than half, and *each* candidate has the fewest votes!
So should they all now be removed from the contest??!!

Well, presumably that is not what is intended. I guess
that they would then leave all the candidates in, and
look at the "number 2" votes. But you can't now put
a ballot paper with (say) A as number 2 onto A's pile
without taking it away from (say) B's pile (where B
was the "number 1" choice on that paper).

So how do you proceed in that situation? Make a copy
of that paper and put it on A's pile??? I think things
would then start to get out of hand ...

Alternatively (and it might be the wisest things to do
with a procedure as complex -- and undoubtedly error
prone -- as this) one might simply enter the lot into
a computer and leave that to work it out. And that may
well be the intention -- so bye-bye to the small army
of vote-counters sitting at tables and sorting ballot
papers into little piles by FPTP single votes, to be
gathered up and summated at the end of the day. (And
probably just as well with a system like this one).

But if there is a computer program for this, presumably
it has a strictly defined algorithm, with flow-chart,
to cover all possibilities. Why can't we be shown this??

Just a few thoughts! And I'd be grateful for comments
from anyone who knows how it is really suppoed to work.
The "information" sent out by the Electoral Commission
is too noddy by more than half, and seems designed to
soothe the uncritical who have no stomach for trying
to pursue implications!

Best wishes to all,
Ted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 14-Apr-11                                       Time: 20:29:13
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************