Preferential Voting
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2015
- Deane explain how preferential voting works. He shows how this electoral system can sometimes produce surprising results!
SUBSCRIBE NOW
ruclips.net/user/subscription_c...
CONNECT WITH CURIOSITY
Facebook ➤ / curiosityshow
Twitter ➤ / curiosityshow
Curiosity Show ➤ www.curiosityshow.com.au 
Наука
This isn't quite right. What needs to be explained is that a simple majority (i.e.: over 50% of the vote) needs to be achieved by a candidate. If this doesn't happen, the candidate who's coming last is eliminated and has their preferences redistributed according to the next preference on each of those ballots. This process repeats until a single candidate gets the 50% needed.
that was so easy to understand.. Thank you
+Shantel A I'm glad you followed my simple example. It's amazing how many people don't understand how preferential voting works. It pays to cast your preferences VERY carefully. Deane.
9 iout of 10 voting Australians (I was one of them don’t understand and conflate it with us style first past the post or how to vote forms.
This video has become relevant again in the past week
At first I was slightly appalled at such a system, but after a minute if thinking, it seems much better than first past the post system.
It tends to keep out of office the people we dislike the most - Rob
@@CuriosityShow so cool that you guys are still replying to comments
That's actually very fair, although it might not seem that way at first.
That's .... Confusing
Made it look so simple. If only the senate was as straight forward. Harder to work out than Chinese arithmetic
Thanks for your comments. Today, as we cast our votes in Australia, many people will be wondering how their preferential votes will influence the outcome! Deane.
In my opinion in such a system (the preferential one) each position should be assigned a weight - what I mean is - 1st position is 100%, 2nd is 50 and 3rd is 33 (or 1, 0.50 and 0.33 respectively) - for I believe a second place on a ballot is not or should not have the same "value" as 1st place. It would maybe complicate counting a bit but would change the outcome. For example, in your video, it would be different (4+0.66) for Adams and (3+1.0) for Brown - and Adams would win. What do you think?
Corwin Maximus I was thinking that way as well. The shabby techniques used to attract votes needs to be addressed mathematically until we have a fully developed ethical population.
You are missing the point of preferential voting completely. Your system would introduce tactical voting again (the main thing that preferential voting wants to avoid). This isn't a sports event where being first gets you extra points.
With preferential voting you get the winner that most people can agree on, which is what you want. It is like having a vote, eliminating the last contender, then vote again, eliminate the last contender aso. until one has more than 50% of the vote, except you do it all with a single ballot.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 If it were applied from the start and for every round - yes. The total "vote count" for each candidate would be the summation of vote*weight. Seems more fair that your 3rd choice counts for 0.33 of a vote and for someones first choice to count for 1 whole vote. it would simplify things in my mind.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 People like their favorites (or 2nd, nth...) to win, I understand that. Not saying the system doesn't work, it's all based on mutual agreement either way - I just think my way is better.
"That's Bullshit"
Thats insanity
I agree Dean. Love your show by the way mate. You guys are legends :)
Actually FPTP is insanity when you really think about it
is this
what
Mustache
Shows you how wrong the preferential voting system is. Second becomes first all of a sudden!
The counterargument is that under a First Past The Post voting system, the winning candidate may not necessarily have the overall majority of support from the electorate. Maybe those Collins voters voted for Brown because they were the lesser of the two evils between Adams and Brown?
In the first way he counted the ballots, Adams, who MORE THAN HALF the people said was NOT their first choice, was declared the WINNER. There were nine ballots, he didn't even get five of them, and yet he won. With a MINORITY vote, he WON, simply because he had a plurality. Having a plurality means you do come out on top in one way-but it also, by definition, if it's a non-majority plurality, means MOST people opposed you . . . and still you're supposed to be somehow the candidate of choice.
Preferential voting tries to dig deeper. If there are ten candidates and not one of them wins the majority in the first ranking, the preferential system says "O.K. We couldn't get more than half the people to agree on who the best candidate is. Can we see whether most of them agree on who the second best one is?"
I think two parts of the problem are (1) there also are other ways to do preferential voting and (2) it is hard to come up with a clear written explanation, to come up with a clear physical demonstration, and to repeat this enough times for the people asked to accept or reject the new, preferential system to be deeply sure that they know what they're voting for or against. Where I live, there recently was a non-binding referendum just to see how interested we were in switching to "ranked-choice voting": from the language of the ballot question, which tried hard to be clear, it was hard for even very bright people to tell what was going on; the explanations by the local news media were too short and rushed to follow; I ended up filling at least one page of a notebook with pretend ballots to see how the system described in the referendum would play out-and, if I remember right, I still wasn't sure that the system described would yield the result claimed. I *think* I decided to vote for it anyway-and I think it didn't pass. The fact that I'm not even sure how I voted on the question, if I even did, says something about the difficulty of devising the system, describing it clearly, and getting people to see it as so advantageous that they're sure to favor it.
Uncle Joe.