It's so that if your primary vote doesn't get in, the rest of your vote is included.
The US has a first past the post system, which means if you have 3 candidates, the third one can split the vote of one of the other two.
That's why when Ralph Nader entered the Presidential election, he took Democrat votes. When he didn't succeed the Democrat votes weren't distributed.
The same can happen with conservative votes. You can have an ultra conservative candidate, but he will split the Conservative votes away from a stronger candidate who has more votes, and the Democrat will win.
It's more complex in the US and UK because they don't have compulsory voting. This means surprise candidates who activate previously unengaged voters to enrol and vote, can have unexpected results.
Eg. Obama with the disengaged black voters, and Trump with disengaged white poorer voters.
Generally speaking not having preferential voting makes elections more of a 2 way contest (between the 2 major candidates) and it disadvantages voters who don't entirely agree with the most strong candidates but want to send a message to the candidate they finally vote for.
Although it's more complex and can result in deal making between micro parties and majors etc, I think preferential voting, with compulsory voting is the way to go. It gives greater transparency and empowers minority views to be heard.
- Forums
- Political Debate
- Voteing System must be changed
Voteing System must be changed, page-5
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
AGC
AUSTRALIAN GOLD AND COPPER LTD
Glen Diemar, MD
Glen Diemar
MD
SPONSORED BY The Market Online