I heard someone on TV explain it Walt. I was in the other room but I heard everything. I got so confused. Apparently the counting goes through stages. It's kinda like musical chairs. You get eliminated after each round. I have no idea when it was invented or how much it used. Like busy boxes and make work projects to give the appearance of achieving something? Sheesh. Thank you for your reply! :)
But it goes through stages. You rank them. First go around the one who gets the fewest votes is eliminated. Then you vote again. If it's a tie you cannot eliminate so you vote again until someone gets half the votes which is a win. The others lose. You could go through a few rounds of voting Walt. How is that much simpler? Thank you for your reply! :)
I'm saying it's simpler if whomever gets the most votes on the first count, wins. It doesn't matter if that person doesn't get 51% of the votes, as long as they have the highest percentage of all candidates.
I don't know if there is in NYC ... I've never lived or voted there. Where I've lived, it's always been whomever gets the most votes - wins. If there are two candidates - that is 51% of the vote. If there are three candidates - that is 34% of the vote. If there are four candidates - that is 26% of the vote.
Of course, if it's within a certain percentage, there's an automatic recount.
What with the way things are going and the speed thereof what do you think voting will be like in 2024 for president? Be gentle. Thank you for your reply Walt! :)
It still has flaws, but normally it makes candidates more likely less extreme, since in theory you have to appeal to a bigger spectrum of the voters to achieve that.
As I heard it described it seems cumbersome and time-consuming. You rank folks. The one who gets the fewest votes is eliminated. Then you vote again and if no one gets half the votes you vote again. How is that better? I vote once. I want it to count. I don't want to keep having to vote over and over and over. I think it's ridiculous. No disrespect intended. Thank you for your reply O! :)
Sounds like preferential voting, which is the way things are done in Australia and a fairer system imo. You put a "1" beside the name of your preferred candidate, then sequentially 2 through however many candidates there are, from next best to least preferred. That way if your boy/girl doesn't get up, your vote STILL counts against the guy you DON'T want. Here's how it works: first preference votes are counted. The candidate with the least number of first preferences is eliminated, but votes for that candidate still count as the number twos for that candidate are distributed and added to everyone else's first preferences. The combined totals are then tallied, of the candidates remaining the one with the least number of ones and twos from the first failed candidate is eliminated - that candidate's number twos, and number three from the first eliminated candidate whose second preference was this one, are redistributed and once again totals are tallied. The process continues until only two candidates remain. The biggest pile wins, and every vote is in one of those 2 piles. They all count.
I don't like it R. I want to vote ONCE. I don't want to have to keep voting and voting and voting until folks are eliminated. Why complexify it so much? Really I don't get how that is "better". What am I missing? Thank you for your detailed explanation. How many times have you had to vote using that system? :(
Every time I've voted, so in my 34 years since I turned 18, I've done it quite a lot. You do only vote once, you just number every square. It's a little extra work for the officials who do the counting is all. It means you can vote against as well as for.
Huh! I did not know about that method R. I guess I just assumed all voting everywhere is the same. Silly me. It does take longer to get results though right. The counters have to go through several stages to get to the winner. You vote once but just for several in order of preference. Then "they" got into action. I wonder if that is commonly done in other countries? Thank you for your informative reply and Happy Thursday to thee and thine! :)
Third party candidates are more likely to be elected under a preferential system - provided that that candidate gets the second or third highest number of first preferences. If enough ppl vote AGAIMST one of the establishment candidates by putting them last, then second preferences count.
Tell that to Nick Xenophon, Rebekha Sharkie, Rex Patrick, Stirling Griff, Natasha Stott-Despoja (a friend of mine), Don Chipp, Pauline Hanson ... all third party candidates elected under that system. It works, and it does tend to limit government excesses - the crossbench holds the balance of power, so the most draconian bills are blocked or amended.
Walt O'Reagun 