- A Notion of Motion 2017-05-19
- The Way Forward 2017-03-01
- 2015 Electoral-Reform Commitment 2017-02-28
Are the voters sophisticated enough for this method?
Are voters sophisticated enough for this? It doesn’t matter. Such complexity as exists is primarily in the tally, and, to some extent, in the evaluation of the result. But, while we need to document and explain these for those who … Continue reading →
Can I still vote for only one Candidate?
Can you vote for only one candidate? Certainly, if you want. This means you fail to rank the other candidates relative to each other, simply saying that you like that one choice more than everyone else, and dislike all the … Continue reading →
Confusing if lowest first-preference wins, or largest doesn’t?
Firstly, the given tally procedure does not record nor report votes in terms of aggregate first-, or second-preferences, etc., and cannot be reverse-engineered to discover this. This is by design, and I would recommend against modifying the tally procedures to … Continue reading →
Campaigning for your next-preference support?
Another significant consequence of preferential voting (Condorcet methods, particularly, IRV less so) is that second- and subsequent-preferences are important. This fundamentally changes the game. Parties and candidates will of course continue to court voters for their first-preference votes, but if … Continue reading →
What about strategic voting?
We’re all familiar with strategic voting in our FPTP system; it goes like this: We’ve got candidates , , and ; “We” really don’t want to win, and we foresee that while each of and will get significant portions of … Continue reading →
Won’t we elect only centrists, who will simply agree on everything?
This is similar to the “favouring middle-of-the-road candidates” question, absent the pejorative notion of “favouring.” The idea here again seems to be that non-centrist voters would tend to find common cause in centrist candidates so that, when there is no … Continue reading →