2018 Tasmanian election – Animations of the Distributions of Preferences

Thanks to the excellent animation work of the ABC’s Markus Mannheim, I’ve pulled together animations that show the distribution of preferences in all five seats at the 2018 Tasmanian election.

These are good illustration of how the system works to fit seats to votes recorded by candidate.

Below the animation on each page I have included some notes on the key points in each count.

As a result I haven’t gone ahead with repeating my previous post on the Bass distribution of preferences for other seats.

The animations for each seat can be found through this link.

3 thoughts on “2018 Tasmanian election – Animations of the Distributions of Preferences”

  1. Hi Antony,
    The animation shows that there are exhausted votes even after one candidate is eliminated or elected (e.g. in Franklin there are currently 8 exhausted votes after Will Hodgman is elected) – does that mean that some votes just had one preference given (and were allowed due to a savings measure)?

    COMMENT: These votes are a tally of what’s called ‘loss by fraction’. Applying transfer values to ballot papers sees vote tallies rounded down creating a tiny loss by fraction. I’ve merged this total, 8 votes in Franklin, with the zero exhausted votes rather than have a separate total.

  2. Thanks, those are a great visualisation of both the preference flows, and the count process in general.

    Why is there the occasional partial exclusion of a candidate? It seems to happen when the distribution of the partial portion of excluded candidate’s votes takes another candidate/s over a quota, and is immediately followed by a full exclusion/distribution of the candidate’s remaining votes, which is then followed by the distribution of the elected candidate’s surplus.

    COMMENT: Each count corresponds to a bundle of votes at a particular transfer value. These are distributed in decreasing order of transfer value. A candidate that passes a quota in one of these counts can receive no more preferences. There are several cases in the count where I have separated these counts rather than merge them.

  3. Ah, I think I figured it out. Is it because an excluded candidate’s votes are distributed in separate counts grouped by their transfer value, and once a count puts a candidate over a quota they can no longer receive more votes, but the distribution of the excluded candidate’s votes (of lower transfer value) still needs to finish before the elected candidate’s surplus votes are distributed?

Leave a Reply