[EM] Compulsory ranking (was part of the turkey thread)

Bart Ingles bartman at netgate.net
Sun Jul 6 15:17:02 PDT 2003

> Chris Benham wrote:
> Anthony Duff wrote:
> >
> > True.
> > I don’t know the reasoning for the ballot to be
> > compulsory fully ranked.
> >
>    C.B:  IRV was first introduced in Australia to rescue a large
> number of conservative candidates from the threat of a Labor win.
> Presumably then, the original  "reasoning" was the hope that many
> votes for Labor could be declared invalid. Since then it has been
> maintained partly by demonising  FPP, and also because since the
> demise of the DLP  Labor has also benefited from preferences and so
> neither major party likes the idea of voters being able to abstain
> from a choice between them.

It may be that compulsory ranking is in place to maintain the illusion
of a "guaranteed majority".  With less than full rankings, it's possible
to have a winner with less than 50% of the total number of ballots, even
after all votes are "transferred".

And if the rules are worded such that 50% of total number of votes is
required, then there may not be a recognized winner.

I view the majority concept as nonsensical for three or more
candidates-- it might be nice to have a winner with more than 50% of the
total votes, but the idea of this as a requirement seems to be based on
several logical fallacies.  It's a nice round number though.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list