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.
For the person counting the ballots, the math is identical to a preferential ballot. The person voting doesn't have to do any math in either situation.
:The thing about the "overcomplicate wording" is that it makes explainations un-needed. People said they have trouble mentally translating rankings into a run-off. I don't understand it, but I believe them. So this step by step thing makes it absolutely clear how each choice affects the outcome. I'm sure the wording can be improved,but by dividing it into two choices, no one has questions about how the ballots are counted. I have nothing agains regular preferential voting - I just think this may be easier on the highly math and complexity resistant.
