We have PR here (but aren't we usually ahead of the rest, these days - smoking ban, levy on plastic bags etc).
But there's a weird thing about PR -(and while I try to explain what I mean, do please bear in mind that I got an 'F' grade in my Leaving Certificate Maths exam - which is ironic, because my job now consists of calculating people's tax liability, but anyway...)....
When someone reaches the quota, and they are elected, their 'surplus' is divided between the other candidates... but that's not actually fair. Say Mr Blair needed 10,000 votes to be elected, and he actually got 15,000. The other 5,000 votes are examined, to see who gets the second preference on them... and they are shared out accordingly. So if Mr Howard (for example) got 3000 of the second preferences there, he might get enough to reach the quota and be elected, whereas Mr Kennedy might only get 2000, and not be elected.
However, it could be possible that of the 15,000 original first preferences that Mr Blair got, there were actually more second preferences going to Mr Kennedy - of the 10,000 that were 'used' to elect Mr Blair, 7000 of those could have put Mr Kennedy second.
But it's just the luck of the draw as to which votes are used as 'surplus' votes. The same thing happens when a candidate is eliminated - their second prefences are used. Again, there has to be some luck as to which candidates second preferences are used.
Perhaps I've got this wrong - but I don't think so! Perhaps some kind person could clarify the point. Thank you please!
|
- but even then each state is given a 'vote value' which makes some use of proportionality). Proportional Representation, or a variation of it, on the other hand, as advocated by the LibDems, is the system used by the most economically-advanced nations in the world - so who said it led to unstable governments (and where is he now?)?
