Article X-Preferential Voting

[Platypus]

This is just a first draft for the article (we can't have amendments until we have the actual constirution, eh?)

"Elections for President, as well as Senatorial elections, will run as such. All voters must vote for all candidates in the order they prefer. The candidate with the lowest first-round vote will be eliminated, and all the voters for that candidate will have their vote reviewed, and their vote redistributed to their second-choice candidate. This will continue until one candidate has a clear majority of votes. If there is a tie, then the candidate with the most first round votes will be elected. If there is still no result, a new election will be held between the top two candidates."

As I said, rough draft-any good?

[Fritz]

Finally, an explanation of how this works.  That is all I have wanted to see.

This only makes a difference in 3-way or higher races.  Looking at the current Senatorial races, there are none.  Indeed, several are running unopposed, and there are seats where no one has declared a candidacy.  This whole system seems to add an unnecessary complication to the procedure.

But, that is an argument on the merits of preferential voting, which apparently has already been debated at length before my arrival here.  So, moving on, here are my questions:

Suppose in the first round, candidate A received 5 votes, candidate B received 4 votes, and candidate C received 3 votes.  In this scenario, A received a plurality but not a majority of the vote.  So, we need to look at second-choice votes from C voters.  They all cast their second-choice vote for B.  B wins 7-5.  Have I got it right?

Scenario 2: A got 5 votes, B got 3, and C got 3.  B and C are tied for second place.  B and C voters each cast their second-choice votes for each other (B for C and C for B).  The tie is not resolved.  All B and C voters strongly object to A and refuse to put his name as a third choice.  Who wins?

The Constitution does have a clause regarding unresolved Senate elections (they go to a national poll); there should be something regarding unresolved Presidential elections, probably going to the Senate.

[Fritz]

Sorry, forget my scenario 2 question.  I see the answer in hughento's post.

[Gustaf]

Sorry, forget my scenario 2 question.  I see the answer in hughento's post.

Wait a minute...does this mean that in scenario 2 A wins out-right?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think if there is a tie and it is NOT between the final two candidates (as in JLD's scenario 2), the tie is resolved by looking at how ALL voters ranked the two candidates.  For instance, if during the first round:
A gets 5 votes
B gets 3 votes
C gets 3 votes

Then the first candidate eliminated will be the candidate who the majority of A's voters put in last place.  So if three people ranked ACB and two ranked ABC, C would beat B head-to-head among all voters, 6-5.  Therefore, B would be eliminated and all their voters would be tranferred to A or C based on their second-choice preference.  If all the B voters ranked C second, C would beat A in the finals.  

If there were still a tie in the head-to-head match-up I guess the elimination order should be resolved by a coin-flip, as it is in real life. (or by a re-vote if feasible)

It should also be clear that you don't HAVE to rank ALL the candidates in order for your vote to count.  If you only rank a single candidate, your vote will count for that candidate unless or until he is eliminated, after which the vote will not be re-assigned.

[dunn]

It should also be clear that you don't HAVE to rank ALL the candidates in order for your vote to count.  If you only rank a single candidate, your vote will count for that candidate unless or until he is eliminated, after which the vote will not be re-assigned.

good point

[Fritz]

HUh??

That is in no way what Hughento's article says.  You look at the second choice from the losing candidate's voters (in my scenario, B and C are tied for loser).  There is no mention of figuring the winning candidate's voters second choices into the equation.

[12th Doctor]

So your just going to call it an "Article" now.  Bullsh**t.  The original intention of this fanstast election thread was to make a government and process as much like the real United States as possible.  This is a huge step away from that intent.  I demand that this be striccken down immediatlly.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

HUh??

That is in no way what Hughento's article says.  You look at the second choice from the losing candidate's voters (in my scenario, B and C are tied for loser).  There is no mention of figuring the winning candidate's voters second choices into the equation.

Right, I guess I'm suggesting a change to Hughento's wording.  That is just how I've always heard of this system resolving ties in elimination order.

[Platypus]

The system works best if voters have to list all candidates.

Supersoulty-it is the atlas forum, not america. if another system works better, use it.

American democracy isn't perfect, neither is Australian democracy, but this element of their system is better. And the forum agrees with me.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The system works best if voters have to list all candidates.

Supersoulty-it is the atlas forum, not america. if another system works better, use it.

American democracy isn't perfect, neither is Australian democracy, but this element of their system is better. And the forum agrees with me.

It's true that the system works best if everyone ranks all the candidates.  But inevitably, someone won't understand the system and won't rank everyone.  I think it's more fair if we count their vote to the extent that we can.

[Emsworth]

I believe that the Australian requirement is that a minimum number of the candidates (half?) be ranked in order for the vote to be "formal" (i.e., valid). If fewer are ranked, then the vote is informal.

[Platypus]

every candidate must have a number next to their name to be valid.

IIRC, their communist party told everyone to put their candidates as number one, and everyone else as number three, so it had to be valid. This loophole was closed, IIRC, soon after

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

every candidate must have a number next to their name to be valid.

IIRC, their communist party told everyone to put their candidates as number one, and everyone else as number three, so it had to be valid. This loophole was closed, IIRC, soon after

OK, I don't care whether we decide you have to rank all the candidates or not.  As long as it is REALLY CLEAR WHO THE CANDIDATES ARE, which has not always been the case in some of these threads.