Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
I wasn't thinking of determining the outcome by the number of seats, but simply by the total of what is now the primary vote.
Damn crooked voting/election system!
- Thread starter Whiskers
- Start date
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,887
- Reactions
- 6,913
Well if we did it by votes only (proportianal), based on the results :
38% Labor
11.7% Green
43.7% Coalition
6.6% Others.
So if we had 200 seats in Parliment we would have
76 Labor
23 Green
87 Coalition
13 Independant.
Guess What!!
Pretty much the same result.
Whichever party got in would need the independants.
The Coalition would need all of them.
Labor would need the Greens and 2 of them.
38% Labor
11.7% Green
43.7% Coalition
6.6% Others.
So if we had 200 seats in Parliment we would have
76 Labor
23 Green
87 Coalition
13 Independant.
Guess What!!
Pretty much the same result.
Whichever party got in would need the independants.
The Coalition would need all of them.
Labor would need the Greens and 2 of them.
Whiskers
It's a small world
- Joined
- 21 August 2007
- Posts
- 3,266
- Reactions
- 1
I was leaning toward an optional preferential system across the board once I started thinking about it all again recently, but then I thought a first past the post system with a runoff vote of the two highest canditates if no canditate has a clear majority (more than 50%) may be more democratic.
I expect it may be the best for the top job, President or prime minister, but could get a bit arduous at the local level. But if the term was fixed to three or four years it may be worth the trouble to get better representation.
I expect the optional preferential system is supposed to get the same result, theoretically, but I wonder if it actually works out that way when people see that their first choice didn't get the majority or didn't figure in the final two, and may change their second vote from what would have been their second preference.
I expect it may be the best for the top job, President or prime minister, but could get a bit arduous at the local level. But if the term was fixed to three or four years it may be worth the trouble to get better representation.
I expect the optional preferential system is supposed to get the same result, theoretically, but I wonder if it actually works out that way when people see that their first choice didn't get the majority or didn't figure in the final two, and may change their second vote from what would have been their second preference.
