diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'project/templates/stvcount.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | project/templates/stvcount.html | 141 |
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> |