bliss of the voter

[_Chap]

.... If that kind of thing is at all frequent, one might propose the use of a system that enables voters to indicate a second choice, to be used if their candidate withdraws after they have voted. ...

well, after reading this notion I can only conclude that indeed, you must be blissful.
In lieu of your mob rule approach here....Are "democratic elections" a mysterious and not-to-be-mentioned topic in the UK education system?

Weird.

I am sent a ballot paper, and told I can return it any time in the next 30 days.

It says:
The following candidates are standing for election: A, B, C, D
You have one vote,
Which one do you vote for?

So, choosing to send in my ballot paper early, I choose one: C

Later it is announced that C will in fact not be a candidate in the election. In fact the only candidates will be A, B, D. Had I known that, I would have chosen A, but there is nothing to be done: I have in fact been deprived of a meaningful vote.

That risk is built into the system: the only way I can avoid it is to wait until the last minute before sending in my paper (which makes the 30-day voting window utterly pointless). If, on the hand, every voter had the choice of expressing a second preference, in the form 'C if he is still standing by the time the votes are counted, but if he drops out, then A', I would still have had a meaningful chance to choose between the candidates who actually stood for the count.

For some reason, subgenius characterises this as 'mob rule', and (he implies) not 'democratic'. Can anyone explain why?

[_canpakes]

Chap, it’s really a shame that more places stateside don’t use second choice/ranked choice voting. Your post highlights one of its advantages.

[_DarkHelmet]

well, after reading this notion I can only conclude that indeed, you must be blissful.
In lieu of your mob rule approach here....Are "democratic elections" a mysterious and not-to-be-mentioned topic in the UK education system?

Weird.

I am sent a ballot paper, and told I can return it any time in the next 30 days.

It says:
The following candidates are standing for election: A, B, C, D
You have one vote,
Which one do you vote for?

So, choosing to send in my ballot paper early, I choose one: C

Later it is announced that C will in fact not be a candidate in the election. In fact the only candidates will be A, B, D. Had I known that, I would have chosen A, but there is nothing to be done: I have in fact been deprived of a meaningful vote.

That risk is built into the system: the only way I can avoid it is to wait until the last minute before sending in my paper (which makes the 30-day voting window utterly pointless). If, on the hand, every voter had the choice of expressing a second preference, in the form 'C if he is still standing by the time the votes are counted, but if he drops out, then A', I would still have had a meaningful chance to choose between the candidates who actually stood for the count.

For some reason, subgenius characterises this as 'mob rule', and (he implies) not 'democratic'. Can anyone explain why?

Why? That's easy. Subgenius is ignorant of voting theory and the many alternatives to plurality voting that are all compatible with "democratic elections". Your example of using a ranked system with an instant runoff is far superior to our archaic one-vote plurality wins method.

[_Chap]

Just to make myself clear: my post was not intended to be about the full application of the single transferable vote system, but had the much more limited aim of finding a fair way to handle a situation like a recent Democrat primary whose ballot papers were sent out to voters with a list of candidates on them, and a fairly lengthy window for returning completed voting papers.

When a lot of voters had already voted, one of the candidates dropped out. Those who voted later were able to cast an effective vote for any of the remaining candidates, but those who voted for a candidate who did not in fact stand for the vote had in effect had their votes dumped in the trash. That is the situation I was addressing.

If you want to know about the fully worked out single transferable vote system, see below.

But that is not what my post was about.

Single Transferable Vote

With the Single Transferable Vote, the strength of the parties matches the strength of their support in the country, and representatives - for example, Members of Parliament - have a strong local link.

What is a Single Transferable Vote system?

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a form of proportional representation created in Britain. Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Malta, Scotland and Australia use this system for some or all of their elections. In America, it is often referred to as ‘ranked choice voting in multi-member seats’, in Australia they call it ‘Hare-Clark’.

How does the single transferable vote system work?

Rather than one person representing everyone in a small area, bigger areas elect a small team of representatives. These representatives reflect the diversity of opinions in the area.

On election day, voters number a list of candidates. Their favourite as number one, their second favourite number two, and so on. Voters can put numbers next to as many or as few candidates as they like. Parties will often stand more than one candidate in each area.

The numbers tell the people counting to move your vote if your favourite candidate has enough votes already or stands no chance of winning.

Voters don't have to worry about 'vote splitting' or tactical voting with STV – they just put the candidates in order

How it’s counted

To get elected, a candidate needs a set amount of votes, known as the quota. The people counting the votes work out the quota based on the number of vacancies and the number of votes cast.

Each voter has one vote. Once the counting has finished, any candidate who has more number ones than the quota is elected. But, rather than ignore extra votes a candidate received after the amount they need to win, these votes move to each voter’s second favourite candidate.

If no one reaches the quota, then the people counting the vote remove the least popular candidate. People who voted for them have their votes moved to their second favourite candidate. This process continues until every vacancy is filled.

Effects and Features

The Single Transferable Vote is an electoral system that puts the power in the hands of the public. Evidence from Scotland and Ireland suggests voters use it in quite sophisticated ways.

Voters can also choose between candidates from the same party or different parties. This means voters can elect all MPs based on their individual abilities.

With the Single Transferable Vote, voters can also choose candidates from the same party, different parties or independents. All MPs are elected on their individual merit.

Voters can also vote for independent candidates without worrying about wasting their vote. Ireland has many independent MPs as do some Scottish councils.

Constituencies are more natural, covering a whole town or a county. This creates a recognisable local link, and gives voters a choice of representatives to talk to.