From e59ca4a3eaa53d66fb2dcd3ddbdd86d99b04b7c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jed Barber Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:21:26 +1200 Subject: Converted everything to XHTML 1.1 --- project/templates/stvcount.html | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) (limited to 'project/templates/stvcount.html') 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 %} - + {% endblock %} @@ -22,26 +22,27 @@
19/2/2017

To give an incredibly brief summary of Australia's political system, both the Federal Parliament and most of the State +class="external">Australia's political system, 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.

+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.

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 complete opposite direction probably caused some dismay from Malcolm Turnbull +class="external">complete opposite direction probably caused some dismay from Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberal/National government.

-

This raises the question: Would they have been better off had a normal election happened instead?

+

This raises the question: Would they have been better off had a normal election happened instead? +

To calculate the likely outcome, the ballot preference data is needed. That's the easy part, as the Australian Electoral Commission makes that available -here -in the 'Formal preferences' section. Then, a program is needed to execute the STV algorithm, which is -as follows:

+here +in the 'Formal preferences' section. Then, a program is needed to execute the STV algorithm, which +is as follows:

  1. Set the quota of votes required for a candidate to win.
    2. @@ -55,48 +56,51 @@ as follows:

  2. Repeat steps 3-5 until all seats are filled.
-

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:

+

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:

My implementation also includes bulk exclusions using applied breakpoints in order to increase speed slightly and minimise -superfluous logging.

+class="external">bulk exclusions using applied breakpoints in order to increase speed slightly +and minimise superfluous logging.

-

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.

+

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.

Results

-

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.

+

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.

-

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.

+

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.

@@ -265,30 +269,35 @@ Q9500.

Probable non-DD results by state
-

* These three parties were all part of the Palmer United Party at the 2013/2014 election, but split up mid term.

- -

Surprisingly, these projected results still 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.

- -

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.

- -

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 one of the most powerful politicians in Australia are thus overblown.

- -

The Xenophon Group, by contrast, has the vast majority of their support concentrated in South Australia. So the result -for them remains unchanged.

- -

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.

+

* These three parties were all part of the Palmer United Party at the 2013/2014 election, but +split up mid term.

+ +

Surprisingly, these projected results still 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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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 one of the most powerful politicians in Australia are thus +overblown.

+ +

The Xenophon Group, by contrast, has the vast majority of their support concentrated in South +Australia. So the result for them remains unchanged.

+ +

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.

Nice job screwing over your own party, Malcolm.

-- cgit