Poll on preferential voting

[Keystone Phil]

I voted that it should be repealed and soon!

Make sure to vote in the poll, Jedi! And if you already have, good. We need to show the Senators that the people they represent don't want this!

[Fritz]

The system doesn't work to deny those who receive a plurality of votes from winning, in fact I believe you are the first to receive a plurality who has lost the election although I may be mistaken on that.

To be completely accurate, I believe that Nym90 won the last Presidential election with a plurality of first preferences.  Gustaf won the election after StevenNick's second preferences were counted.

[JohnFKennedy]

The system doesn't work to deny those who receive a plurality of votes from winning, in fact I believe you are the first to receive a plurality who has lost the election although I may be mistaken on that.

To be completely accurate, I believe that Nym90 won the last Presidential election with a plurality of first preferences.  Gustaf won the election after StevenNick's second preferences were counted.

Ah, ok then. Thanks for the information Fritz, I stand corrected.

[TheWildCard]

The system doesn't work to deny those who receive a plurality of votes from winning, in fact I believe you are the first to receive a plurality who has lost the election although I may be mistaken on that.

To be completely accurate, I believe that Nym90 won the last Presidential election with a plurality of first preferences.  Gustaf won the election after StevenNick's second preferences were counted.

Ummm just for the record Nym90 won a majority of the vote in the first election but he only won by one single vote.

[ilikeverin]

You just don't want to accept that preferential voting means One voter, MORE THAN ONE vote. You can make it sound like the fair system and the will of the people. The poll shows that Atlasians don't want it. They are the voters. Put aside your political interests because I know that some of you consider that in this decision. If I was to lose by popular vote, I'd be happier losing that way than losing because someone had more than one vote.

One voter = one vote. The people want it. Listen to them.

In IRV, isn't it one ballot = eventually counted once?  That's how I see it.

[JohnFKennedy]

You just don't want to accept that preferential voting means One voter, MORE THAN ONE vote. You can make it sound like the fair system and the will of the people. The poll shows that Atlasians don't want it. They are the voters. Put aside your political interests because I know that some of you consider that in this decision. If I was to lose by popular vote, I'd be happier losing that way than losing because someone had more than one vote.

One voter = one vote. The people want it. Listen to them.

In IRV, isn't it one ballot = eventually counted once?  That's how I see it.

I already said that.

[Gustaf]

Prefernetial voting is one man - one vote. It's that you change the alternatives in the counting process. No one casts more than one vote.

And this poll right now has a difference of 1 vote between favouring and opposing the repeal. Conservatives should be wary of changing a working system on a whim with such weak popular support for it.

I can understand that it was tough losing that way, but the rules are fair.

[Nym90]

I vote no on this poll. I strongly support preferential voting.

[Gustaf]

Well, we now have a majority in favour of preferential voting. So much for "the people want it"

[Keystone Phil]

Well, we now have a majority in favour of preferential voting. So much for "the people want it"

Oh remember, Mr. President...not everyone has voted

[Gustaf]

Well, we now have a majority in favour of preferential voting. So much for "the people want it"

Oh remember, Mr. President...not everyone has voted

Your point being...? You have claimed for some time that the people wants something...that doesn't seem to hold true any longer. The number of votes in the poll is now pretty close to the number of people who voted in the presidential election, so we're approaching some sort of more accurate image of the popular view.

[Rococo4]

one vote per person......just like real elections

[Keystone Phil]

Well, we now have a majority in favour of preferential voting. So much for "the people want it"

Oh remember, Mr. President...not everyone has voted

Your point being...? You have claimed for some time that the people wants something...that doesn't seem to hold true any longer. The number of votes in the poll is now pretty close to the number of people who voted in the presidential election, so we're approaching some sort of more accurate image of the popular view.

Take another look at the votes, Mr. President.

[© tweed]

Repeal it!

[Gustaf]

Well, we now have a majority in favour of preferential voting. So much for "the people want it"

Oh remember, Mr. President...not everyone has voted

Your point being...? You have claimed for some time that the people wants something...that doesn't seem to hold true any longer. The number of votes in the poll is now pretty close to the number of people who voted in the presidential election, so we're approaching some sort of more accurate image of the popular view.

Take another look at the votes, Mr. President.

You still don't get the point? No clear popular call can be seen for any side. It's been changing back and forth, but it's virtually tied. You cannot say that "the people" wants anything, regardless of whether you're up by one vote, down by one or tied.

All that can be seen is sour grapes from the losing side in an election, much like that which we had from the Democrats after the 2000 election.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, we now have a majority in favour of preferential voting. So much for "the people want it"

Oh remember, Mr. President...not everyone has voted

Your point being...? You have claimed for some time that the people wants something...that doesn't seem to hold true any longer. The number of votes in the poll is now pretty close to the number of people who voted in the presidential election, so we're approaching some sort of more accurate image of the popular view.

Take another look at the votes, Mr. President.

You still don't get the point? No clear popular call can be seen for any side. It's been changing back and forth, but it's virtually tied. You cannot say that "the people" wants anything, regardless of whether you're up by one vote, down by one or tied.

All that can be seen is sour grapes from the losing side in an election, much like that which we had from the Democrats after the 2000 election.

2000 election doesn't compare. This isn't sour grapes. I lost, I graciously conceded, I accept defeat. Our point is the prevent something like this happening again.

And as for your statement about the people not wanting to repeal it, I'm not the only one making statements regarding what the people want. Others on your side have said that the people want to preferential voting so we're even. Whatever the results of this poll, I hope our Senators and our Atlasian government take the people's opinion into consideration.

[Gustaf]

Well, we now have a majority in favour of preferential voting. So much for "the people want it"

Oh remember, Mr. President...not everyone has voted

Your point being...? You have claimed for some time that the people wants something...that doesn't seem to hold true any longer. The number of votes in the poll is now pretty close to the number of people who voted in the presidential election, so we're approaching some sort of more accurate image of the popular view.

Take another look at the votes, Mr. President.

You still don't get the point? No clear popular call can be seen for any side. It's been changing back and forth, but it's virtually tied. You cannot say that "the people" wants anything, regardless of whether you're up by one vote, down by one or tied.

All that can be seen is sour grapes from the losing side in an election, much like that which we had from the Democrats after the 2000 election.

2000 election doesn't compare. This isn't sour grapes. I lost, I graciously conceded, I accept defeat. Our point is the prevent something like this happening again.

And as for your statement about the people not wanting to repeal it, I'm not the only one making statements regarding what the people want. Others on your side have said that the people want to preferential voting so we're even. Whatever the results of this poll, I hope our Senators and our Atlasian government take the people's opinion into consideration.

I haven't claimed that the people wants anything, b/c I think it's clear that no obvious mandate for any side can as yet be seen. We introduced preferential voting after a long debate. If you guys want to make a change I suggest you do it within the context of our political system: find out what senatorial candidates oppose/ support the repeal and try to make the voters vote for the "right" candidates.

[JohnFKennedy]

At the moment, of the total voting population (I have it as 109) 17.4% favour repealing preferential voting and 16.5% favour keeping it.

[platypeanArchcow]

Keystone Phil, your 8 last-place votes mean that the majority of your district preferred Akno to be their senator over you, hence "preferential voting".  You should think of preferential voting not as a 1, 2, 3, 4 list, but as a ranking of each candidate relative to every other.  Thus, a preferential ballot contains several discrete pieces of information.

--1st preference, used to determine the participants of each runoff
--Vote in each runoff

[Keystone Phil]

Keystone Phil, your 8 last-place votes mean that the majority of your district preferred Akno to be their senator over you, hence "preferential voting".  You should think of preferential voting not as a 1, 2, 3, 4 list, but as a ranking of each candidate relative to every other.  Thus, a preferential ballot contains several discrete pieces of information.

--1st preference, used to determine the participants of each runoff
--Vote in each runoff

What don't you understand? Its unfair to have people say I want so and so but JUST IN CASE THEY DON'T GET ENOUGH, I'll go with candidate A to prevent candidate B. It should not be allowed. Look at it this way...most voters did not prefer Akno to be their Senator on the first ballot. He was not their first choice. Someone's first choice should be their ONLY choice. And if you want to bring up someone being preferred, let's talk about the fact that more people preferred me over the others. 11 voters (count up my votes, Moose's and Gov. NickG.'s) preferred someone else besides Akno at first. But some think this idea of well let me do everything possible to deny that one candidate a Senate seat is a good system. It's not.

Now the 2A Senate special election is over. Under the current system, Akno won fairly. I accepted defeat and conceded without making a big deal. I'm no sore loser. However, I feel this is an unfair system that needs to be abolished. One voter = one vote.

[JohnFKennedy]

Ok, firstly let's settle this disagreement over preferential voting and the claims that it is not "one voter = one vote", seeing as the District 2 election is what sparked this problem, we will use this as an example. On the first ballot the result was:

Akno21: 4 votes
BullMoose88: 2 votes
Gov. NickG: 4 votes
Keystone Phil: 6 votes

Total Number of votes cast is 16 votes.

BullMoose88, as the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and his votes pass to the second preferences. One voter preferenced Akno21 second, the other nobody so we now have:

Akno21: 5 votes
Gov. NickG: 4 votes
Keystone Phil: 6 votes

Total Number of votes cast is 15 votes.

Now NickG is eliminated so it stands as follows:

Akno21: 8 votes
Keystone Phil: 6 votes

Total Number of votes cast is 14 votes.

(One NickG voter did not place anybody else)

So, we had 16 voters and in the end 14 votes, I am no maths genius (well maybe ) but how can it be said that one voter has more than one vote if the number of votes does NOT exceed the number of voters.

This system of preferential voting is better known as instant run-off voting, in the case that no candidate receives a majority of the vote and thus not a majority support, candidates with the least amount of votes are eliminated to remove their effect on the election. This means those that garnered the larger amounts of votes and a greater amount of support from the voters are left and the winner is whoever the majority of the voters prefer out of the total number of candidates.

The system we use allows the candidate with the greatest support of the two major candidates to win the election.

I personally believe that this system we have allows greater participation among our forum members, back in the days before preferential voting when we had a system of Democrats, Republicans and Progressives, the two left-leaning parties, the Democrats and Progressives had formed an agreement not to run against each other for fear of handing an election to the Republicans. Under this system we generally ended up with two candidate races, Democrat vs. Republican or Progressive vs. Republican with the Democratic-Progressive alliance generally winning most elections.

Now that we have preferential voting, people no longer fear of becoming "spoilers" by running and splitting the vote between them and another member with similar views as it doesn't matter when we get to the later rounds if their voters preference the other second (like with Akno21 and Gov. NickG). This system allows for more participation by forum members meaning we can have races with up to four or so candidates as we did in District 2.

This system also helps to elect a chosen candidate quickly and easily, I would ask you to cast your minds back to the North-Eastern Gubernatorial Race which I have cited once before, we did not have preferential voting then and ended up with not one, but two ties eventually broken by a mutual decision by the candidates, with preferential voting, gone are the days of two tie races.

Preferential Voting also prevents strategic voting, another place where I will cite the North-Eastern Gubernatorial Election as an example, there were two left-leaning candidates, Siege40 and Handzus26 both vying for the Governorship.

It was clear that this would be a close contest and .Andrew, the UAC Candidate was gaining steam early with Siege40 a close second and Handzus26 at the back with only his own vote. This meant that it seemed it would either be Siege40 or .Andrew as the winner and so those who may have prefered Handzus26 of the two left-leaning race contenders quite probably chose to vote for Siege40 because he stood the better chance of winning.

Preferential Voting stops this form of strategic voting.

Now, Keystone Phil, you said that you only realised this system could be a problem during your own bid for the Senate, yet, the exact same thing happened in the Presidential Race, Nym90 and Al actually received very slightly more first preference votes than Gustaf and Supersoulty as Fritz pointed out to me, I think the margin of victory may have been one, but, most of the Stevennick and 9iron768/PBrunsel voters chose to preference Gustaf and Supersoulty higher than Nym90 and Al which gave Gustaf and Supersoulty the election.

I believe Keystone Phil, that you were an active member at the time of that election, yet you never complained about preferential voting not allowing the candidate with the most first preference votes to win then. Why the change of heart then?

This may be completely wrong, and, if it is, I apologise to you profusely Phil, but, in the case of the Presidential Election, under your prefered system, the left-leaning ticket of Nym90 and Al would have won which may (although I admit to not holding insight into your opinion) have dictated your view that preferential voting was not a problem whereas in the District Two election, it was you that was in the situation of receiving a plurality of first preference votes yet still losing. As I said, I do not profess to know that this is your motivation, in fact I will take your word that your defeat is NOT your motivation in this issue. This is merely a possibility and a possibility with any of those favouring repealing preferential voting, but, as I said, I do not profess to hold insight into your views and would not dare to claim this as fact.

I would just like to now point to the fact that this poll is in fact tied so neither side should be claiming the support of the people as neither side has it, this is a devisive issue to say the least and should be treated as such meaning the Senators should not be flippant in their decision but should think over the issue for a long while, it has split public opinion which is something that should be pivotal for the Senate's decision.

I urge all Senators to consider the merits of both sides of this argument before they have made a decision, it may seem that I have not done this and have chosen a side, however, you will notice that I have yet to vote either for or against repealing preferential voting, please don't merely let your own views dictate your decision although at this time that may seem the only way to do so with such a fifty-fifty split in public opinion.

I would in fact, like to urge my fellow Senators to put consideration to an abstention on this issue with such a decisive split in voting, especially if they are on the fence themself, however, if you have a strong view, listen to it, listen to your heart when voting as seeking a decision from public opinion won't work in this instance with such an even split.

Anyway, I have rambled on far too long with my arguments for preferential voting and then my urges to my fellow Senators so I will end this message here.

Thank you for spending your time reading my post.

[Keystone Phil]

Ya know JFK, I have explained before why I had a "change of heart" about preferential voting. The reason is because I realized how much it matters to have ONE vote cast. Sure the fact that I lost helped me realize it's an unfair system but I don't want to be branded a sore loser. I have stated why I am not whining about the results in the past and I'll restate them if need be. I'm now challenging the system and it seems many others are too. You Senators have to wake up to the fact that you are representing the people of this forum. A good number want this repealed and not debating this should NOT be an option. Our voice will not be silenced.

Now JFK if you think you're going to catch me in some trap you're wrong. I am for the popular vote system EVEN IF my opponents benefit. I'm not a hypocrite so stop trying to make me out as one. I would not have agreed with Nym or Handzus if they won but atleast I would know that they were elected under a far better system.

Senators, as I have stated earlier, this should not be a situation were you decide whether or not to debate this issue. You represent us. You represent the people. The people want this debated. Please start soon.

[JohnFKennedy]

Ya know JFK, I have explained before why I had a "change of heart" about preferential voting. The reason is because I realized how much it matters to have ONE vote cast. Sure the fact that I lost helped me realize it's an unfair system but I don't want to be branded a sore loser. I have stated why I am not whining about the results in the past and I'll restate them if need be. I'm now challenging the system and it seems many others are too. You Senators have to wake up to the fact that you are representing the people of this forum. A good number want this repealed and not debating this should NOT be an option. Our voice will not be silenced.

Now JFK if you think you're going to catch me in some trap you're wrong. I am for the popular vote system EVEN IF my opponents benefit. I'm not a hypocrite so stop trying to make me out as one. I would not have agreed with Nym or Handzus if they won but atleast I would know that they were elected under a far better system.

Senators, as I have stated earlier, this should not be a situation were you decide whether or not to debate this issue. You represent us. You represent the people. The people want this debated. Please start soon.

Keystone Phil, please re-read my post, you will note I said that I do not claim you are doing this to benefit yourself and only now complaining about it despite left-leaning people losing in the past. You will notice I said it was a possibility, I never claimed it as fact, I merely said that that was a possible reason that so many had now come out against it, in fact, you will notice I said that I believe this is NOT your reason for now opposing our system of voting. As I said, please re-read my post and you will see that is what I said.

[Gustaf]

We are debating it...

I can see little change now, you went from claiming that the people wanted a repeal to claiming that they want a debate...since, of course, there is now a 1-vote majority against the repeal...

[platypeanArchcow]

Ya know JFK, I have explained before why I had a "change of heart" about preferential voting. The reason is because I realized how much it matters to have ONE vote cast.

Oh, I could attack this in so many different ways!

You might get more than one vote in an FPTP election--say one for Senate and one for President!

OK, that was silly.

But seriously, what is wrong with liking two different candidates and not minding either of them elected?  And what is wrong with the majority not wanting a certain candidate to be elected?  Isn't it undemocratic if the candidate elected is the least satisfactory to the majority of voters?

I believe that we should postpone this debate until passions from this election have cooled.  I think that, however subconsciously, many of us (including me) may be basing our opinion on it.