[Powderworks] More PG stuff
davidschultz5000 at yahoo.com
Mon May 3 04:32:36 MDT 2004
To my Canadian ears, that sounds like a bizarre
If I'm reading into this correctly, you're saying that
there cannot be a winner, at least on a
riding/constituency level, based on a plurality of the
vote (ie. whoever simply has the most votes out of X
number of candidates -your traditional
first-past-the-post system), instead the winner needs
an outright majority, based on coalitions if need be.
Does a party decide where their vote will go before
the election (that's the way it sounded by your
description), or can they decide after?
I'm also think I've read somewhere that in the Aussie
system a certain number of seats are based on the
results in ridings, while others are 'open' seats
based on overall nationwide or perhaps statewide share
of the vote (modified rep-by-pop).
Sorry, I need details, I'm a political geek.
--- David <miata at arach.net.au> wrote:
> G'day Beth,
> I'm not 100% full bottle, but I'll try and explain
> this before some
> political nerd throws in their 2 cents.
> Each political party states their "preference" as to
> where their voter's
> votes should be placed if they do not win the seat
> in the election.
> For example they say "If we do not have enough votes
> to win, then our
> preference is to have all the votes given to us,
> added to Peter's (the
> greens) total.
> (Because that's who "our" (labor) voters would
> prefer if we (labor)
> don't get elected).
> This is the same system and reason, the best man
> didn't win our last
> aussie election. Some sniveling little scumbag
> ferret of a man won with
> less votes than Big Kim did.
> It's a great system until the redneck minority buddy
> up with the fat
> cats to overthrow the blue collar masses.
> - let the flames and political nerding begin.
> Powderworks mailing list
> Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs