> From: Warren Ockrassa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I'd agree with EC concerns. There are better systems in place now in > other countries that we'd do well to consider. I'm fond of runoff > elections. Had they been in place in 2000, Gore would have taken the > house. (Since most dual votes for Nader would have reverted to single > ones for Gore.) >
I am not sure how the details of voting in the USA but we (Australia) use a system of preferences. When one votes, you mark your choices in order, say 1 through to 5. So say I voted: Kerry 3 Nader 2 Bush 4 Kennedy 5 Washington 1 All the 1's are counted first, and basically the 3rd, 4th and 5th placed on this count are eliminated. In this case, if Washington finished 3rd, my vote would turn into a vote for Nader. If Nader had finished 4th, my vote would then turn into a vote for Kerry, etc etc, until it turned into a vote for one of the top 2 finishers.This way, everyone ends up voting for the winner, or 2nd place, and the winner always has a more than 50% (nominal - 2 person preferred basis). Using this system, all those who voted for Nader in 2000, would have had their votes given to their second (third etc) choice, which may have had a bearing on the outcome. It has its own flaws of course, but it does allow a slightly more subtle outcome, in terms of letting the voter express his preference, without his vote being essentially valueless if he does not vote for one of the top two candidates. It gets complex when one gets 78 candidates, as in our recent Senate elections in NSW, and so we have this 'above the line' voting thing, where the parties file their preferences for you, and you just put a 1 by their name, and follow their preference decisions. This results in all sorts of horse trading, and can result in the lazy voter ending up electing someone they didn't really want, but that is not the systems fault, more the voters. In our recent elections, the HEMP party (Help End Marijuana Prohibition), stuffed up its filing of preferences, and ended up giving all its preferences to all the parties most opposed to it, which caused some general mirth, and no doubt the smoking of many consolation spliffs at HEMP party HQ. Andrew _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
