elections - WHAT DO YOU WANT?

[exnihilo]

Huh? Tactical voting is eliminated by STV? I don't see that, sorry. I can vote for X, knowing that he won't win but that Y most likely will on the redistribution and I just ignore Z. Surely that's the same as the tactics you describe for FPTP?

[David Bean]

No, because I'm describing a situation in which X is the most preferable but unlikely to win, but Y and Z are in close contention but Y is preferable to Z. STV lets voters vote for their first preference first and then the others in order, whilst FPTP forces a single choice, and encourages voters in this situation to vote tactically for Y.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Akasha]

x

[exnihilo]

I would rather have a tactical vote that had involved some actual thought about the candidates than a quick 1,2,3,4 down the list without ever engaging the brain.

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting exnihilo from 19:31, 21st Mar 2006
I would rather have a tactical vote that had involved some actual thought about the candidates than a quick 1,2,3,4 down the list without ever engaging the brain.

All 1,2,3,4 s down the list cancel each other out now, as the position of candidates on the ballot paper is randomised.

[exnihilo]

Whether they cancel each other out or not is irrelevant. The point is about thinking carefully about one's vote.

[hmmmhaveabanana]

We need proper proxy forms as well as an official policy on what reasons proxies can be given.

[Akasha]

Quoting hmmmhaveabanana from 01:45, 23rd Mar 2006
We need proper proxy forms as well as an official policy on what reasons proxies can be given.

There are proper proxy forms, available from the general office throughout campaign week

[atreus]

Does it bother anybody else that someone could be prefered by most students as their second choice, recieving a ranking of 2 by a majority, however, because this canidate does not recieve a large amount of first votes, s/he gets redistributed early, and the majority preference is lost?

The whole idea of the Union voting system is that by ranking their preferences, a greater majority preference for a canidate can be found. The great problem with the redistribution scheme is that it may not actually reflect majority preference (as demonstrated above). Thus, wouldn't it make more sense to weight the numbers. If there were seven canidates, then a 1 ranking would receive a 7 weight (or votes)? Yes, it would take longer to count; but this should not be an excuse for a more representative system (otherwise, why would we have democracy and sub-committees and the whole shabang?).

[Thackary]

If the majority preference is for someone to be placed second, then surely it stands to reason that the majority would prefer someone ELSE to be first.