I was listening to a discussion on RNZ the other day essentially saying that the nats are out of ideas and that Key's been pushing his ministers to come up with new ones .... apparently good ideas are so thin on the ground that this one bubbled to the top.
and "sCOOLs", who thought of that one? JK must have figured it would make them seem all modern and down with it, the whole thing sounds like a Simsons plot, you can just imagine Principal Skinner announcing "we're going to call the sCOOLs" ....
For those who haven’t seen it this week’s John Oliver is particularly appropriate – skip forward to 15:20 ….
“that’s just crazy, you’re basically giving kids a box containing video games, pornography and long division and claiming 100% of them chose the right one”
“One major study found that ‘Students in online schools lost an average of about 72 days of learning in reading …. lost 180m days of learning in math during the course of a 180-day school year’ …. and 180 minus 180, as those kids might put it, is ….. 3”
Not exactly, I was in there yesterday, all gone ... Now there are some restful fountains and a stream of mice ...
As has been pointed out elsewhere the main purpose of this bill is more likely part of a private member's ballot stuffing exercise designed to dilute the number of high profile opposition bills that have been drawn
Second and subsequent preferences are contingency choices only, whereby the voter is saying (to the electoral officer / STV calculator), if my first preference candidate does not need all of my vote, or is excluded from the count, I want my vote to be transferred, in whole or in part, as the case may be, to my second preference candidate, to help elect that person, and so on.
Here I have to disagree – your second and subsequent preferences are more than contingency choices … for example if you and your neighbours give candidate A twice as many votes as they need to be elected then a full 1/2 of your vote is still live and will pass to your second choice, and will keep being passed down your preferences until it is used up …
In fact because the chances of a candidate getting exactly exactly the perfect amount to get elected it’s quite possible that tiny little bits of your single vote will get distributed all the way down your preference list (missing those candidates that get kicked out for being lowest) modulo the precision that the algorithm mandates.
Both Bev Butler and yourself have nothing to worry about. Very briefly, a 43-vote difference between candidates, in an NZ STV (Meek’s method) election, where 32,820 votes were cast, is huge. That is not in any way close, as it might be in an FPP election.
I think it's really smaller than that as it only requires half that many mistakes to turn it around.
In general though I really think that votes should be counted, in public, in the city where they are cast, sending them elsewhere to be counted seems to me to be just plain wrong.
I tried to get DIA officials to recommend that the Regulations be amended so that full preference data could be made publicly available, so people could run the data using their own STV programs, to confirm the results (also necessitating the public availability of the source code), but they weren’t interested.
I agree, they should do this, appropriately anonymised
What I don’t understand are the ramifications of multi-member STV contests. In Wellington, we have two or three seats in each ward, and (some) parties choose to endorse candidates – but they only ever endorse one candidate in any ward.
I think it's more an issue of branding ....
Is that because putting up more candidates would reduce the chances of any one of them winning?
No, provided that the faithful rank their candidates as #1 and #2 (and I don't think it matters which way around, but I need to think about that more carefully, I can't find an example where it makes a difference)
BTW I'm an STV fan, but I should point out a couple of down sides:
- scrutineers are practically impossible, at least here in Dunedin, 'counting' (typing it in to the computer) is done 300km (in Chch) away over a period of 3 weeks - a scrutineer would have to relocate for close to a month to do their job - it's so hard that in practice no one does it
- a recount is either impossibly expensive (requiring all the votes to be typed in again), or farcical (running the STV program again on the same data)
In the example I linked to above the last candidate who lost lost by 43 votes but could not afford a real recount