Can I just say that my wife and I did some preferential voting yesterday (NSW state election?) AIFG? Or AIWFG, past tense?

Preferential voting in this case meant a ballot about A5 size, with six candidates on it, which you number from one to six or just vote 1 for your favourite candidate.

But there was another senate ballot, about the size of a hand-towel, with about a hundred weird little parties on it.

What we did is just get the literature from the party we like and do what it told us to do -- essentially copy their recommended voting strategy onto the ballot. We were in and out in thirty seconds, despite the hand-towel.

I'm sorry, John -- I can't tell from your post -- are you pro 3 or 4 as the other option?

gd ... r

Or how about having both 3 and 4 and 6 as options. No we don't have rank anything.

Question 1) We are deciding between 3, 4 and 6 as the number of months to close formal discussion on an issue once a formal vote is take. Which of these three number do you prefer 3[] 4[] 6[] Abstain[] Please check one.

Question 2) If no choice wins a majoirty, and the choice you favored option is does not make the runoff, what (if anything) is your second choice? 3[] 4[] 6[] no preference[] Please check one. Note that you cannot answer this question if you chose "abstain" for the first question. You cannot choose the option you picked for your first quesiton.

Not complex, no math. Two simple questions.

t -edited because I forgot and put stuff in angled brackes without using html or quickedit to make them stay

So what you're saying is you want three choices on a preferential ballot, but people only get to rank their first and second choices?

So what you're saying is you want three choices on a preferential ballot, but people only get to rank their first and second choices?

Voting complexities make baby Jesus cry.

So what you're saying is you want three choices on a preferential ballot, but people only get to rank their first and second choices?

Well, ranking the first two make the third choice obvious. (For the record, I'm fine with this proposal, or with 6 and 3, or with 6 and 4.)

Well, ranking the first two make the third choice obvious.

Right. All I'm saying is that what Gar described isn't an alternative to a preferential ballot -- it is one.

But they are not ranking. They are simply saying in advance who they would vote for in a runoff in case their preference lost. The effect is the same as preferential votig, but then again the effect of preferential voting is the same as a runoff.

But they are not ranking.

Yes they are. They're picking a first and a second choice, only with overcomplicated wording. How is that not ranking?

I'm not going to quibble but if it is preferential voting it is not mathy preferential voting no ranking. You say who you want to vote for, and you say who you like if your preference loses. (And you don't have to choose anyone.) So if it is preferential voting, it is preferential voting without the math, and completely clear what you are doing.