Converted everything to XHTML 1.1

1 files changed, 75 insertions, 66 deletions

diff --git a/project/templates/stvcount.html b/project/templates/stvcount.html
index 02b47ec..b19b4d7 100644
--- a/project/templates/stvcount.html
+++ b/project/templates/stvcount.html
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 
 
 {% block style %}
-    <link href="/css/stvcount.css" rel="stylesheet">
+    <link href="/css/stvcount.css" rel="stylesheet" />
 {% endblock %}
 
 
@@ -22,26 +22,27 @@
 <h5>19/2/2017</h5>
 
 <p>To give an incredibly brief summary of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Australia"
-target="_blank">Australia's political system</a>, both the Federal Parliament and most of the State
+class="external">Australia's political system</a>, both the Federal Parliament and most of the State
 Parliaments are bicameral. The lower houses are generally elected by Instant Runoff, while the upper
-houses generally have half elections using Single Transferable Vote. There are exceptions and a whole
-lot of differing details, but that's the overall pattern.</p>
+houses generally have half elections using Single Transferable Vote. There are exceptions and a
+whole lot of differing details, but that's the overall pattern.</p>
 
 <p>In 2016, however, the Federal Parliament underwent a Double Dissolution, causing the entirety of
 both houses to go to an election. This had the outcome of 20 out of 76 seats going to third parties
-in the upper house, a record number. Even more than the 18 there were prior. As the entire purpose of
-a Double Dissolution is to break deadlocks in parliament, to have the outcome go in the
+in the upper house, a record number. Even more than the 18 there were prior. As the entire purpose
+of a Double Dissolution is to break deadlocks in parliament, to have the outcome go in the
 <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-03/crabb-election-2016-is-lose-lose-for-malcolm-turnbull/7565840"
-target="_blank">complete opposite direction</a> probably caused some dismay from Malcolm Turnbull
+class="external">complete opposite direction</a> probably caused some dismay from Malcolm Turnbull
 and his Liberal/National government.</p>
 
-<p>This raises the question: Would they have been better off had a normal election happened instead?</p>
+<p>This raises the question: Would they have been better off had a normal election happened instead?
+</p>
 
 <p>To calculate the likely outcome, the ballot preference data is needed. That's the easy part, as
 the Australian Electoral Commission makes that available
-<a href="http://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/SenateDownloadsMenu-20499-Csv.htm" target="_blank">here</a>
-in the 'Formal preferences' section. Then, a program is needed to execute the STV algorithm, which is
-as follows:</p>
+<a href="http://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/SenateDownloadsMenu-20499-Csv.htm" class="external">here</a>
+in the 'Formal preferences' section. Then, a program is needed to execute the STV algorithm, which
+is as follows:</p>
 
 <ol>
     <li>Set the quota of votes required for a candidate to win.</li>
@@ -55,48 +56,51 @@ as follows:</p>
     <li>Repeat steps 3-5 until all seats are filled.</li>
 </ol>
 
-<p>Seems simple enough, right? Except not really. There is a surprising amount of complexity in there, and most
-of it is to do with how to transfer votes around. So, in addition, there are the specifics for the version
-used for the Australian Senate:</p>
+<p>Seems simple enough, right? Except not really. There is a surprising amount of complexity in
+there, and most of it is to do with how to transfer votes around. So, in addition, there are the
+specifics for the version used for the Australian Senate:</p>
 
 <ul>
-    <li>Voters are given the option of voting either "above the line" or "below the line". The latter is
-        standard STV. The former used to be a group voting ticket, but for 2016 and later it is treated as
-        a shorthand way of voting, as per instructions
-        <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/Voting_Senate.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.</li>
-    <li>There are <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/candidates/files/ballot-paper-formality-guidelines.pdf"
-        target="_blank">specific guidelines</a> on what constitutes a correctly filled out ballot. This is
-        important for parsing the formal preference data.</li>
-    <li>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_quota" target="_blank">Droop quota</a> is used.</li>
+    <li>Voters are given the option of voting either "above the line" or "below the line". The
+        latter is standard STV. The former used to be a group voting ticket, but for 2016 and later
+        it is treated as a shorthand way of voting, as per instructions
+        <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/Voting_Senate.htm" class="external">here</a>.</li>
+    <li>There are <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/candidates/files/ballot-paper-formality guidelines.pdf" class="external">specific guidelines</a> on what constitutes a correctly filled
+        out ballot. This is important for parsing the formal preference data.</li>
+    <li>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_quota" class="external">Droop quota</a> is
+        used.</li>
     <li>All votes are transferred from elected candidates at a fraction of their value, as per the
-        <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Gregory" target="_blank">
-        Gregory Method</a>. This can result in fractions with surprisingly large numerators and denominators.
-        This also results in occasional discarding of fractional votes during transfers.</li>
-    <li>Should the next applicable preference of a ballot be a candidate who has already been elected, that
-        preference is ignored and the ballot is transferred to the next preference.</li>
-    <li>If the number of remaining candidates is equal to one more than the number of remaining vacancies,
-        the candidates with the highest vote totals at that point are considered elected.</li>
+        <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Gregory" class="external">
+        Gregory Method</a>. This can result in fractions with surprisingly large numerators and
+        denominators. This also results in occasional discarding of fractional votes during
+        transfers.</li>
+    <li>Should the next applicable preference of a ballot be a candidate who has already been
+        elected, that preference is ignored and the ballot is transferred to the next preference.
+        </li>
+    <li>If the number of remaining candidates is equal to one more than the number of remaining
+        vacancies, the candidates with the highest vote totals at that point are considered elected.
+        </li>
 </ul>
 
 <p>My implementation also includes <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Bulk_exclusions"
-target="_blank">bulk exclusions</a> using applied breakpoints in order to increase speed slightly and minimise
-superfluous logging.</p>
+class="external">bulk exclusions</a> using applied breakpoints in order to increase speed slightly
+and minimise superfluous logging.</p>
 
-<p>At this point I'm fairly sure my program provides an accurate count. However, my numbers still differ
-slightly from the ones provided by the AEC's official distribution of preferences. Investigations into the
-exact cause are ongoing.</p>
+<p>At this point I'm fairly sure my program provides an accurate count. However, my numbers still
+differ slightly from the ones provided by the AEC's official distribution of preferences.
+Investigations into the exact cause are ongoing.</p>
 
 <h4>Results</h4>
 
-<p>Calculations were done for each state using the formal preference data with vacancies set to 6 instead of 12,
-and the results were added to the Senators elected in 2013 to find the probable outcome. The results for
-ACT and NT were taken as-is, because the few Senators elected from the territories are not part of the half
-election cadence anyway.</p>
+<p>Calculations were done for each state using the formal preference data with vacancies set to 6
+instead of 12, and the results were added to the Senators elected in 2013 to find the probable
+outcome. The results for ACT and NT were taken as-is, because the few Senators elected from the
+territories are not part of the half election cadence anyway.</p>
 
-<p>Computational resources required varied from approximately 50 seconds using 46MB of memory for Tasmania, to
-nearly 30 minutes using 1452MB memory for NSW. The vast majority of that time was spent parsing preference data,
-and the program is single threaded, so there is still room for improvement. All counts were run on a Core 2 Quad
-Q9500.</p>
+<p>Computational resources required varied from approximately 50 seconds using 46MB of memory for
+Tasmania, to nearly 30 minutes using 1452MB memory for NSW. The vast majority of that time was spent
+parsing preference data, and the program is single threaded, so there is still room for improvement.
+All counts were run on a Core 2 Quad Q9500.</p>
 
 <table>
     <caption>Probable non-DD results by state</caption>
@@ -265,30 +269,35 @@ Q9500.</p>
     </tr>
 </table>
 
-<p>* These three parties were all part of the Palmer United Party at the 2013/2014 election, but split up mid term.</p>
-
-<p>Surprisingly, these projected results <em>still</em> have 20 out of 76 seats held by third party candidates, despite
-the half election putting them at a disadvantage. The number of third party groups the Liberal/Nationals have to
-negotiate with to pass legislation (assuming Labor and Greens attempt to block) equally remains unchanged.</p> 
-
-<p>The Greens manage to do slightly worse, even though their usual position of winning the 5th or 6th seat in most states
-often allows them to obtain more representation than their primary vote would otherwise support. This can't even be
-attributed to a bad 2013 result, as their primary vote both then and in 2016 was nearly identical.</p>
-
-<p>One Nation's much reduced number of seats can be attributed to the inherent geographic bias that any system involving
-electing candidates across many independent divisions has. If like-minded voters are all in one place, they
-receive representation, but when the same number of voters are spread out, they get nothing. When this effect
-is intentionally exploited it's called gerrymandering, but here it's merely an artifact of electing Senators from each
-state separately. One Nation's support is strongest in Queensland but is relatively diffuse. Any claims of Pauline
-Hanson being <a href="http://junkee.com/malcolm-turnbull-will-probably-need-pauline-hansons-support-to-pass-any-laws/82138"
-target="_blank">one of the most powerful politicians in Australia</a> are thus overblown.</p>
-
-<p>The Xenophon Group, by contrast, has the vast majority of their support concentrated in South Australia. So the result
-for them remains unchanged.</p>
-
-<p>The most noteworthy outcomes for the question though, are that the Liberal/Nationals would have obtained more seats,
-and Labor would have been in a more difficult position to block the passage of legislation. Meaning that yes, the
-Liberal/National government would definitely have been better off with a normal election.</p>
+<p>* These three parties were all part of the Palmer United Party at the 2013/2014 election, but
+split up mid term.</p>
+
+<p>Surprisingly, these projected results <em>still</em> have 20 out of 76 seats held by third party
+candidates, despite the half election putting them at a disadvantage. The number of third party
+groups the Liberal/Nationals have to negotiate with to pass legislation (assuming Labor and Greens
+attempt to block) equally remains unchanged.</p>
+
+<p>The Greens manage to do slightly worse, even though their usual position of winning the 5th or
+6th seat in most states often allows them to obtain more representation than their primary vote
+would otherwise support. This can't even be attributed to a bad 2013 result, as their primary vote
+both then and in 2016 was nearly identical.</p>
+
+<p>One Nation's much reduced number of seats can be attributed to the inherent geographic bias that
+any system involving electing candidates across many independent divisions has. If like-minded
+voters are all in one place, they receive representation, but when the same number of voters are
+spread out, they get nothing. When this effect is intentionally exploited it's called
+gerrymandering, but here it's merely an artifact of electing Senators from each state separately.
+One Nation's support is strongest in Queensland but is relatively diffuse. Any claims of Pauline
+Hanson being <a href="http://junkee.com/malcolm-turnbull-will-probably-need-pauline-hansons-support-to-pass-any-laws/82138" class="external">one of the most powerful politicians in Australia</a> are thus
+overblown.</p>
+
+<p>The Xenophon Group, by contrast, has the vast majority of their support concentrated in South
+Australia. So the result for them remains unchanged.</p>
+
+<p>The most noteworthy outcomes for the question though, are that the Liberal/Nationals would have
+obtained more seats, and Labor would have been in a more difficult position to block the passage of
+legislation. Meaning that yes, the Liberal/National government would definitely have been better off
+with a normal election.</p>
 
 <p>Nice job screwing over your own party, Malcolm.</p>