4,193
edits
Preferential voting: Difference between revisions
Suggesting merge to Ranked voting article
mNo edit summary |
(Suggesting merge to Ranked voting article) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{merge to|Ranked voting|date=August 2022}}
{{Wikipedia}}
Line 20 ⟶ 21:
(4) Often the term preferential voting is used for any kind of intraparty preference.{{Clarify|reason=|date=February 2020}}
Ballot design or voting machine instructions are particularly important in such systems, as each voter is expected to express a rather complex set of
Example: if there are 4 candidates, A, B, C and D, then a voter could rank them as A>B>C=D (A is the voter's 1st choice, but they'll take B if they can't get A because B is their 2nd choice, and C and D are equally preferable), B>C (B is better than C), etc. When a voter doesn't rank all candidates, it's usually assumed they have no preference between the candidates they didn't rank, and that they prefer every candidate they ranked over all of their unranked candidates.
Line 43 ⟶ 44:
==Scope for corruption==
A potential problem with preferential votes is that they can be used to undermine a
As an example, in the Irish general election of 2002, the electronic votes were published for the Dublin North constituency. There were 17 candidates, allowing more than 966 million million possible patterns of preferences, but there were fewer than 44,000 votes cast. The most common pattern (for three of the candidates in a particular order) was chosen by 800 voters, and more than 16,000 patterns were chosen by just one voter each.
One way to avoid this possibility for buying a vote and confirming it has been cast as specified is to prevent partisan observers from systematically viewing individual voter's preferences. Another option is to, when publishing the ballots, truncate preferences that are voted by fewer voters than some threshold. For instance, if a hundred voters all voted A>B>C but then each of these voters ranked the remaining candidates in an unique order, only publish 100: A>B>C.
==How to Vote Cards and "Above the line" voting==
Line 53 ⟶ 54:
==Parliamentary procedure==
Recent editions of [[Robert's Rules of Order]] mention preferential voting. The book notes, "While it is more complicated than other methods of voting in common use and is not a substitute for the normal procedure of repeated balloting until a majority is obtained, preferential voting is especially fair and useful in an election by mail if it is impractical to take more than one ballot" (RONR [10th ed.], p. 411, l. 23). Rather than discuss Condorcet, the Borda count, and other lesser-known variations, the book simply states, "Preferential voting has many variations. One method is described here by way of illustration," and proceeds with a description of [[instant
== Notes ==
Line 60 ⟶ 61:
Interesting hybrids of [[Rated method|rated methods]] and ranked methods can be thought of when allowing the voter to establish how strong their preference is between each ranking. Rankings generally assume a voter has a maximally strong preference between every pair of candidates they indicate any preference between, while ratings assume a voter's preference in one [[head-to-head matchup]] directly influences their preference in another i.e. a voter who votes, with the max score of 5 and the min score of 0, A:5 B:0, is assumed to have no preference between B and C. This can be bridged between by allowing the voter to indicate independently how strong their preference is in each head-to-head matchup; see [[Order theory#Strength of preference]].
[[Category:Ballot
{{fromwikipedia}}
| |||