>I might add that the same result would be obtained in one election using >the Australian system of single transferable vote, in which the voter marks >his preferences by 1, 2, 3, etc. It was introduced in Queensland in the >19th century and is now used in all electios throughout Australia to the >lower houses of parliament. This system is also used in elections in Ireland. Basically all the votes are counted according to 1st preference, and the candidates listed in order of votes. The lowest candidate is eliminated and his votes transferred to the others according to the next preference. This continues until someone exceeds 50% of the vote, or there is only one left. This avoids the problem that occurs with US and UK electoral systems that can force you to end up voting for someone you don't like simply to prevent someone you dislike even more from getting in (the "Split Vote" phenomenon that happened this time with Nader voters in the US or Liberal Democrats in the UK). It is also superior to European two-pass elections which involve getting the whole population out for two ballots, whereas the STV system gives the same flexibility as having N-1 separate elections (N = candidates, eliminating one at a time) within the same physical ballot. What's the relevence to metric ? Well, only that both are up against the "not-invented-here" obstacle, despite their technical superiority. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Wade, EuroKom | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (all domain mailers). Dale House | X400: g=tom;s=wade;o=eurokom;p=eurokom;a=eirmail400;c=ie 30, Dale Road | Tel: +353 (1) 278-7878 Stillorgan | Fax: +353 (1) 278-7879 Co Dublin | Disclaimer: This is not a disclaimer Ireland | Tip: "Friends don't let friends do Unix !"
