h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Frankly, I would have agreed with you this morning as a FPP system would have helped Clive win, but now that I've switched and I'm working for Jack, I support a PR system as it will halp Jack win.

Well... okay

I am afraid that a proportional system may benefit some candidates more than others. I have absolutely no way of predicting what would happen, so I don't know how my Party would be affected. I wonder why the rather dashing Returning Officer chose this voting system? We all know he isn't biased. It seems like an odd switch to me though

A system that 'helps' a candidate who begins the day in a low position to win is eminiently less fair than a system that 'permits' the person who gets the most votes to win.

No, it gives people who don't have a chance a chance.

So if a candidate gets 15 percent of the vote it's all right for him or her to win, even though the remaining 85 percent might have an active objection to that candidate?

An objection they can express by way of a list of preferences. The system seems perfectly fair to me.

>>I am afraid that a proportional system may benefit some candidates more than others<<

Yes - the ones that get the most votes, first votes counting more than second votes, but second (third, fourth) votes not simply being ignored. Voters should be careful about their order of preference, but I really can't see what's wrong with it otherwise.

<>

Usually the reason people don't have a chance is because no one wants them to win enough to vote for them.

<>

No Trin Tragula. I agree with you there. It is always better for the winner to have a majority of the vote. That's why I suggested a runoff. But neither is it all right for someone who starts off with 5 % of the vote to ultimately win.

I will naturally work within the rules. And I am hoping that this system grows on me. But counting second and third votes is totally foreign to anything in my experience.

I feel the need to stick up for preferential voting. It's the system used in my part of the real world for real elections, and it works. I'd prefer the New Zealand model of multi-member electorates with proportional representation, but that's not really suitable for hootoo.

But back to preferential voting. With the distribution of preferences, although my favourite candidate might not be elected, there is a greater chance that one I can tolerate will be. (There's an additional cheap thrill in all this - when the ballot paper has 9 names on it, the excitement can be in deciding who goes *last*.)

First-past-the-post voting is unsatisfactory. A person could win with 35% of the vote, regardless of the fact that 65% of the electorate might loathe that person. In preferential voting, that person might not win. If they do win, it is with the support of 35% and the acquiescence of at least 15% + 1. If they don't win, their supporters might see their second preference win - which is always better than having to put up with the freak at Number 9 on the ballot.

A run-off second round has its advantages, but for simplicity's sake one round of voting is quite enough. In preferential voting, there is essentially a series of run-off rounds based on the single ballot paper. The effect is the same, and it's a whole lot quicker. Down this way, we generally know the make-up of the new Paliament, and the name of the Prime Minister-elect, within 3 hours of the polls closing. That's a whole lot more than certain other jurisdictions have managed lately...

>>That's why I suggested a runoff<<

In an ideal world that would be ... ideal. But Croz may already be wondering why he agreed to do this as is: stick further rounds of voting in and he'd probably have to give up sleeping

First past the post is fair only if there are two runners; any more than that and all sorts of inequities start showing up (as with the current British electoral system ). Counting second (etc.) preferences works well in a number of countries which have many different political parties.

>>But neither is it all right for someone who starts off with 5 % of the vote to ultimately win.<<

I agree, but think that's highly unlikely to happen - chances are the party with the most first-choice votes will find that echoed further down the lists as well and the problem won't arise. What this system does is prevent any one party strongarming their way in with, say, 15% of the vote without the preferences of the other 85% having any say in it - the winning party will need to be appealing more broadly than just to a hardcore rump of supporters.

Which also encourages a less oppositional style of campaigning, perhaps. ?

A less oppositional style of campaigning? Definitely. Under our system, all parties have to do their best to cater for everybody. Wedge politics is in nobody's interests.

I'm sure that once I get used to the idea, it won't seem as odd to me.

As to campaign styles - I just hope everyone has a good time with this, candidates and voters as well. Here, have a special recipe brownie and some of Uncle Harvey's cider.

Oo, thankyou very much

Ivan?

<>

Ivan, we're doing our best to pander to one and all. I believe Jodan even offered the state of Michigan to one potential voter.

"Wedge politics is in nobody's interests."

For chrissakes, this is a virtual election. What're we going to wedge voters with? Our collective stances on Badgers? Tony Curtis? Thing? Thur? Hell, I think it's more fun this way.

I saw (at least I think I did) some folks going around asking for 2nd place votes. Asking for secondary votes isn't the election I signed up for, folks It's too complicated for my sheepish brain. I don't see what was wrong with the old system - it elected our last President, didn't it?

Yeah, and Illinois

Those special recipe brownies are freakadelic , man.
Wait, where'd the man go? Ahh!
Oh.
Woah

You gave away Illinois?

Were you using it?

I need Illinois to get from here to Indiana.

What's in Indiana? Other than the road to get into Ohio of course

Racing cars. Vroom!