Thatâs not the case. Your vote keeps transferring if it keeps featuring in a surplus or an eliminated candidate.
The actual selection of the surplus is complicated though. Because it specifically only distributes the last votes that exceeded the quota then I would think votes that transferred in are more likely to transfer on than other votes. Open to correction on that bit. Anyone care to enlighten me? They certainly arenât excluded anyway.
The general point on Pat the Cope absorbing SF transfers is definitely relevant though.
Is it the case that if Pat the Cope gets elected on Dohertyâs from Dohertyâs surplus, resulting in a surplus for himself then that is transferred on?
This is the kind of shit I forget between elections.
Basically, Dohertys surplus to quota would be distributed based on proportion of next valid/live preference of the block of votes that got him over the quota.
So Doherty ends up transferring 2000 no 2 votes to Gallagher. Gallagher only needs 1200 for a quota so 800 of the no 3s from Doherty are transferred on in the next count.
So Doherty ends up transferring 2000 no 2 votes to Gallagher. Gallagher only needs 1200 for a quota so 800 of the no 3s from Doherty are transferred on in the next count.
[/quote]
800 is Gallagherâs surplus.
There is a % of Dohertyâs votes to Gallagher that are transferable. That may be > 800 or < 800.
If itâs say 1600 transferable votes (i.e. > 800) then the 1800 are all counted and divided among the next preferences, say MacLochlainn 1200 and Pringle 400. They are put into little piles and the the first 600 of MacLochlainnâs bundle of 1200 are all transferred to MacLochlainn and the first 200 of Pringleâs bundle of 400 are all transferred to Pringle. Gallagher keeps the other 800 of transferable votes though he doesnât need them (along with the 400 non transferable votes). Those 800 transferable votes which were not transferred are distributed after the count is complete and everyone elected to determine the final standings of everyone (for expenses purposes and records etc).
If there are only 400 transferable votes (i.e. < 800) then the full 400 are distributed.
Labour junior minister Ged Nash said the interview showed Adams had âlittle or no concept of the marginal tax rate.
Given ample opportunities to clarify his partyâs position, Gerry Adams didnât even recognise the extent of his errors and dismissed any such questioning. âThis is a man who has to take his shoes off to help him count to 20.â
Below is my explanation. It is a little complicated.
Distributions work as follows:
If a candidate clears the quota ON THE FIRST COUNT and has say 5000 votes to redistribute the 5000 are redistributed based on the % of overall to the 2nd preference.
Lets say candidate 2 gets 20% of second preferences from ALL of Candidates no. 1âs, he then gets transferred 1,000 votes.
Here is where it gets complicated. From the second count on.
Lets say candidate 2 clears the quota by 500 now. To redistribute this 500 ONLY the 1,000 that are transferred in are analysed to be distributed.
The logic behind this is that none of candidate 2âs first preference votes would have been distributed if transfers hadnât brought them over the line, therefore they are not counted only those which brought them to the quota are transferred.
In contrast if a candidate is eliminated ALL of their votes are redistributed according to preferences.
The implication of this is that those votes which are transferred are indeed more likely to transfer again.
STRATEGY TO MAXIMISE YOUR VOTE
The way the system works if there are 5 candidates who you have equal fancy for you should vote them 1-5 in order of how unlikely they are to be elected, i.e. least likely first as that means your vote will carry on to the more likely to be elected.
If you vote for the most likely to be elected first then your vote will more than likely stop counting before you get to the last on your list.
So if you take Limerick and imagine I like the SD candidate and Mickey Noonan exactly equally. I know Noonan is a cert so I give him 2 and the SD lad 1.
A well wielded vote could actually give you a lot more bang for your buck, than a poorly used one.