On Nov 5, 6:41 am, Kathryn Huxtable
wrote:
> On 2010-11-04 14:06:06 -0500, Doug Freyburger said:
>
> > Kathryn Huxtable wrote:
>
> >> I *strongly* like preference voting, where you rank your preferences
> >> for the candidates in order. "None of the above" would certainly be an
> >> option. This is the way Hugo ballots are counted. I've heard that
> >> Australia uses preference voting as well.
> > The system of ranking the candidates 1 through N was called the
> > Australian system as far back as I can remember so either they do use it
> > or they used to.
> Well, for all *I* knew, it was called that as some sort of obscure
> insult that I didn't get. Maybe having to do with their being in the
> southern hemisphere, whereas most of the population of the planet is in
> the northern.
> But I really *don't* know.
> Duggy?
Australia certainly does use the preferential system. Obviously, we
don't call it the Australia system but I won't say they don't use the
term elsewhere.
With the House of Reps that's pretty straight forward - count
everyone, then recount the preferences for anyone who isn't going to
win.
Senate is a little different, it's preferential, proportionate voting
so the top 6 candidates (for a state) or top 2 (I think, for a
territory) get the job... so once they complete the count they recount
a couple from the bottom and count their preferences and repeat until
you get the top 6 candidates.
In recent years, however there's been a slight change... you can vote
above the line for one party or below the line 1 - N for every
candidate. Last couple of elections there have been 40 - 60
candidates below the line. I think that's too hard for most people,
but I find a certain satisfaction voting for someone last.
I'm sure none of that makes sense.
===
= DUG.
===
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)
|
