If STV is too complex or difficult to sell, how about a simple system of transferring un-needed surplus votes? This could be the almost-forgotten Gove system - where candidates advertize ahead of time where un-needed votes would go in case they receive a surplus or in case they are eliminated from the running. The recipient could be a candidate running in a different district.
After that all votes would be transferred and none wasted except for a few at the end of the process. Votes would travel along the stated route indicated by the candidates until most would find a home.
After the initial first-choice count produced in each district and across the country, and calculation of quota for each, the vote totals of the candidates in each district would be examined, starting alphabetically (or some other random way) in the first district those with quota are declared elected. if still seats remaining, least popular candidate is eliminated and so on until all the district's seats are filled. Then moving on to next district.
if a candidate is elected, the surplus ballots transferred in block to the candidates' previously indicated choice.
If eliminated, all the votes moved to the candidate's choice likewise.
After the first transfer a vote would go along lines indicated by successive candidates and so on.
Many votes in this system and in STV find homes by electing a candidate by the first choice or the first back-up preference. so same as in this system. The voter would thus have very good idea of where his or her vote would be placed in the end under Gove.
(In FPTP, there are no transfers - so many votes are wasted and voters have no liberty to have their vote transferred so the FPTP system really says if you don't find a winner in the first choice, it is transferred to the trash can.)
No votes would be wasted under Gove. For example in FPTP when one open seat remains and two candidates remain, sometimes almost half the votes remaining are lost being trapped in a district. But with Gove the least of the two remaining candidates wold be eliminated and his or her votes transferred - routed around - until leaving the district to someone outside the district. This part calls for at least one candidate of a party in a district indicating a candidate outside the district as the back-up preference. So a little organizing is required. Votes could be routed through already eliminated or elected candidates to get them to where they could be used, so there would be actually few "exhausted" votes. Safeguard could be made that two candidates do not send vote to each other. Such a pairing could in some cases result in wastage. But even this may not be an important issue. Gove is not as good as STV because it does not allow voters to rank candidate based on personal choice, but voter can decide whether to give vote to A knowing if A is eliminated, vote will be moved to A's choice, B. Or the voter can say no, he or she does not like B, so it is better to vote for C, knowing if C is eliminated, the vote will be moved to C's choice, A. And then under some circumstance move on to B (but only as a sort of third choice). So there is some liberty for voter to rank his or her choices. Not as fair or as giving of liberty to voters, Gove is better than FPTP. Interesting to think about. It could be useful for poor countries or Canada's Far North, places suffering from poor transportation and communication.
Thanks for reading.
=================================
Komentáře