[peter_co]

*These results are preliminary, and unofficial*
SLD: 16
PUC/PUC-L: 13
PNL:13
CA:7
SN:15
POP: 4
LC: 7
RF: 8
THP: 13
Total: 96

Since we will have 100 delegates, the number of delegates per party remains to be determined. Btw., do we use a D'Hondt system?

edit: oops right about PUC

[ingliz]

I made it 13 for the PUC/PUC-L

14/15 for the SN, 1 vote could be denied

8 for the RF

[Falx]

Above results miss switches made between parties:
Double checked non-official results.
CA 7
PNL 13
PUC 13
SN 15
POP 4
SLD 16
LC 7
RF 8
THP 13

[ingliz]

PNL & THP check out

[Sephardi]

So a blue and orange coalition of PNL, PUC/PUC-L, CA, and SLD, would have 51% and that seems like the only coalition that has a chance. Though it will be hard for CA and PNL (even some PUC members) to deal with some of the demands made by the SLD leader.

[peter_co]

Indeed Sephardi, that seems the only viable option, barring a minority government, which I think most want to avoid.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Though it will be hard for CA and PNL (even some PUC members) to deal with some of the demands made by the SLD leader.

Gnote is not the leader of the SLD, Paradigm is, and he's much more reasonable than Gnote.

[Sephardi]

Oh.

Good.

[Thunderhawk]

@ Peter_co

I refused ballot, and some one else had a spoilt ballot though they may have fixed that.
Please include those, seperately, in the list of votes.


If the establishment answers my protest with silence, then my future protests will be demonstrated with violence.

[peter_co]

I refused ballot, and some one else had a spoilt ballot though they may have fixed that.
Please include those, seperately, in the list of votes.

Please note that as I stated at the beginning of the thread, the results that I posted are not official. I merely tried to give the best estimate that I could of the results so that participants would have a rough idea of the situation, what coalitions were viable, etc. I took into account changes in vote where a voter explicitly stated their intention to change their vote from one party to another. However, I did not deal with more complex cases, for example where it was not clear if a vote was valid, or as in your case, whether your last statement negated your vote, or whether there was an apparent intention to vote for a certain party.

The Court Clerk will compile and certify the official list.

[Vladimir]

the percentages make counting seats very odd. How about we just use 96 seats with seats perparty directly proportional to the votes???

[Dave]

One problem is that not all voters are party members. We should norm the number of seats based on the party with the smallest number of members per vote. I don't think we should have a problem with fractional votes either (e.g. a seat have 1.3 votes or whatever).

[Vladimir]

but then each party will decide how to be represented on its own accord, e.g. some may decide to give seats only to some of their members, with a few seats per person.

I don't think we should have a problem with fractional votes either (e.g. a seat have 1.3 votes or whatever).

the trouble with having 100 seats then is that there will be less than one vote per seat, and also irrational numbers which have to be rounded up and that could lead to more (or less) than a 100 seats when added back up after all the divison..
e.g. SN-RF has 23.958333333333333333333333333333.......... seats which we can't work with, but if we round to 24 and do the same for other we'll end up with over 100 seats

[Dave]

but then each party will decide how to be represented on its own accord, e.g. some may decide to give seats only to some of their members, with a few seats per person.

This seems better than some parties having seats in which the MPs never vote at all.

the trouble with having 100 seats then is that there will be less than one vote per seat, and also irrational numbers which have to be rounded up and that could lead to more (or less) than a 100 seats when added back up after all the divison..
e.g. SN-RF has 23.958333333333333333333333333333.......... seats which we can't work with, but if we round to 24 and do the same for other we'll end up with over 100 seats

Why do we need whole numbers?

[Vladimir]

because we can't work numbers with infinite decimals

[Dave]

Why not?

[Vladimir]

Because it is cumbersome (and inaccurate) compared to easy round numbers. Why overcomplicate this for the sake of having 100 seats?

[Dr House]

well we're already using the D'Hondt method to convert votes into seats anyway.

[Thunderhawk]

We have 96 votes and 100 seats. One vote = 1 seat seems the easiest first step.
If we *must* have 100 seats, then we have to do something with the left over 4 seats. Either distribute them to the other parties (D'Hondt ?) or we can do something else.

In the spirit of my refused ballot, I request one of those 4 seats always abstain from all votes, effectively resulting in 99 seats, and thus would make 50/50 splits impossible.

[Zyx]

Well, I am a bit upset that Falx collected so many votes using the exact same party as I had but refusing to make a platform.

Good grief!