My Finish Predictions - Iowa

[Platypus]

The way we do caucus here is absolutely INSANE.

We all go into the room, and the chair, after a while, gets us to stand in corners. "Gephardt supporters in that corner, Dean in that one, Kerry over there, and Edwards here. Undecided please head to the center of the room."

Then, every group is rated on its viability.


So, If Kerry gets 25%, Dean gets 25%, Gephardt gets 20% and Edwards gets 10%, with 20% undecided, Edwards is eliminated, and the people who voted for Edwards would be disbanded, and join the other groups or sit in the undecided area.

Now, Kerry has 30%, Dean has 27% and Gephardt has 22%.

Becuase Gephardt's group is still viable, because with the undecideds (21%) it could have 43%, therefore being ahead of Kerry.

Now, all the groups try to convince the undecideds to join them. After an hour or so, the tallies look like this:

Kerry 35%
Gephardt 33%
Dean 32%

Now, delegates are assigned. Just say there are seven.

All the candidates automatically get one automatically (caucus law) and then because they all have the right amount, they can all get 1 more delegate. The last delegate goes to Kerry because he has the most support, even if the other two were just behind him.

This sydtem is good and bad. I think it's good that it is preferential, but bad in that we will never know how many people actually voted for whoever comes fourth.

If 15% of the state votes for Edwards, that would be great for his campaign, but ity is basically un-tallyable, because no figures of who voted for whom is there. 15% would be an unviable group, so he wouldn't get many electoral votes at all.

If there were seven delegates for the whole state, then the fifteen percent would get him one.

Unfair for Edwards, good for Dean and Kerry (their competition doesn't get anything)

Anyway, I predict Kerry will win, then Gephardt, then Dean. Su[pport for Dean has just evaporated here over the last week or so, and a lot of undecideds are going to Gephardt and Kerry.

I'm voting Dean, preferencing Edwards, then Kerry.

[Platypus]

Why can't you just vote?

I agree

Or at least alternate vote.

I'm actually quite a fan of the AV system; at least in theory you have to get 50% of the voters to win; its more democratic and fairer to minor parties without damaging the bigger ones (ie Greens get 8% first round, but prefrences go to Dems, so Dems don't lose anything)

[Platypus]

Yep, and New Zealand.

We have some aussies on the board, we should ask them if it's a good system or not

From what I've read of the process, it's good-and fair.

[Platypus]

I've been to Canuckistan, Malaysia, Singapore and Australia.

After college, I think i'll backpack around Europe

[Platypus]

Carey is Australian.

I am indeed, and like all other voting systems, preferential voting has its pros and cons. It's good because firstly, you can be guaranteed that somebody will not be elected with a small percentage of the public's approval, secondly because it allows compromise, and thirdly it's a third party firendly system (third parties aren't seen as 'spoilers' and there isn't that much shame for voting for them, as well as third parties can win some elections, due to the fact that they could be most people's 2nd choice)

The downside, of course, is that often the winner isn't the candidate who initially had the most support, as well as the fact that it requires you to vote for everyone. However, I like it.

It works as follows: when you vote, you are given a list of candidates to vote for. Each of them have a box in front of their name. In each box, you rank them with numbers, descendingly (ie. 1 for first choice, 2 for second and so on until the boxes are filled) then the votes are counted. If a candidate has 50% + 1 or more of the votes, he/she wins. However, if the candidate has 50% or less, that's when the preferences kick in.

For example, let's make a hypothetical election between Candidate A, B, C and D.

The initial results (number 1 votes) are as follows:

Candidate A   54%
Candidate B   40%
Candidate C     4%
Candidate D     2%

Candidate A would automatically win because it has more than 50% of the vote. However, if this were the scenario:

Candidate A    46%
Candidate B    40%
Candidate C    10%
Candidate D      4%

There would be no initial winner, because nobody has more than 50%. What would happen in this scenario, is the candidate with the least votes would be eliminated (in this case, Candidate D) and all the ballots with his/her vote as number 1, will be reassigned based on the number 2 vote. So let's say that from the ballots for D, 2% chose A as their second choice, 1% chose B and 1% chose C, the second round results would look like this:

Candidate A    48%
Candidate B    41%
Candidate C    11%

Still nobody would have more than 50% of the vote, so the next candidate (Candidate C) will be eliminated, and all the number 2 votes from the C ballots (if their second choice was D, then their 3rd choices are counted) and all the 3rd choices of the old D ballots inside this group are counted, and added on to the totals. Lets say in this scenario, A only gets 1% and the other 10% went to B. The results would look like this:

Candidate A    49%
Candidate B    51%

Candidate B would win the election. Even though, initially, Candidate A had the most votes (and under most other electoral systems would be the winner,) the fact is most voters preferred Candidate B, to Candidate A, so B'd win.

That's how it works. Sorry if this post was long and confusing, but I thought I'd explain it to anybody who was confused about it.

No, it was clear and concise. Thank you

I think the Australian mix of compulsory and altenate vote is best; in theory, at least, any candidate must have support of 50% +1 of the electorate to be elected. Here allyou need 20% :rolleyes:

(Plus, incumbents win in low turnouts)

[Platypus]

Well, make that 23% +1 for Edwards.

It's him, Dean or Kerry, but, as the article said, the shine has come off Dean. Kerry is OK, but a bit too conservative. Edwards is conservative but charismatic, a bit like Clinton; he would have a fair chance of winning. I still think he'd make the best VP of the lot, and that Gephardt, Kerry or Dean would be better Presidents, but Edwards is the most likely to be elected.

[Platypus]

If Edwards survives the first round, he'll pidk up ALOT of the leftovers (who would primarily be Gephardters)

He is seen as "not a bad guy"

A bit like a conservative Kennedy. Not that many people really liked him that much before the election, but alot of people thought he was an OK guy.

[Platypus]

The union movement in Iowa isn't exactly significant

In my part of the state (Davenport, in the far east) It's a Dean/Kerry/Edwards affair; there are basically no Gephardt-ers campaigning here compared to Deanites (every second scorner )

Dean seems to be putting alot into our town, and I think he'll win it, but Kerry and Edwards will both be close. Gephardt might get 10% or so, and be an unviable group; his support will go to Edwards, i think, which will make it a Dean/Edwards race that Dean will win.

[Platypus]

Well, I don't think Dean will wn big, if he wins at all, and i'm an Iowan democrat

[Platypus]

I'm heading off now, and I'm voting for Edwards, then Dean, then Kerry.

The result is going to be determined on turnout.

If it's under 40%, Dean or Gephardt; between 40-60%, anyone, over 60% Kerry or Edwards.

And it's cold, so I don't know if it will be over 60%

maybe 50%.

[Platypus]

Ditto. Although Dean's ads were too sugary sweet or too evil