Thanks for posting the summary information Jon, it makes for interesting reading. Now that I've had a day to consider the results, here are some observations:
1. The CSDF did outstandingly well, with over 50% of the first preferences cast (23 out of 44). This is clearly a firm mandate for the CSDF platform and our best election result ever. If this had been a 'first past the post' election the CSDF would have swept the board. With such strong support it's rather surprising that we only got 2 out of the 7 seats; 3 would have been more in keeping with the level of support expressed.
2. CSDF supporters were generous in their support of other factions too, with around 50% of the points gained by the DPU, NuCARE and the Simplicity Party coming from being ranked by CSDF supporters according to the first table.
3. Some factions are more generous than others though and we can see evidence of tactical voting. This election was the first one in which voters could eliminate factions they did not want to vote for. We can see how the different factions' supporters behaved by looking at the second table and dividing the number in the second column (contributed) by the number in the first column (members). This tells us, on average, how many points a supporter of a faction contributed to the other factions contesting the election. These work out at:
CSDF 5.4
DPU 4.5
NuCARE 3.7
Simplicity 6.0
So, the CSDF, Simplicity Party and (to a slightly lesser extent) DPU supporters were more generous in ranking other factions as well as their first choice than NuCARE voters. NuCARE supporters, either on their individual initiative or because they were orchestrated, acted more 'selfishly' by eliminating the other factions more systematically.
This has some interesting potential consequences. Will it, for example, make some factions more or less likely to cooperate with each other in the new RA? With four factions and the legislature split 2-2-2-1, getting a majority in favour of a bill (let alone a constitutional amendment) is going to be a tricky business. Will factions choose to 'punish' those who seem to have played a cleverer tactical game? The first test will no doubt be the election for Chancellor...
There will be concerns expressed that this election result is not 'fair'. I'm sure I'll be accused of special pleading but, with over 50% of the first preferences cast, I think CSDF supporters would be right to feel somewhat cheated with only 2 out of 7 seats. It could be argued that the electoral mathematics have led to a perverse result. What will the reaction to that be? If voters see that ranking other factions as well as your first choice actually disadvantages your preferred party, will that lead to more 'one-party' voting where voters eliminate all but their first choice in order to maximise the power of their vote? Will this lead to calls for further electoral reform to combat tactical voting?
All very interesting, and somewhat surprising.