tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post6587371691745456864..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Not-A-Poll: Best State Premier/Chief Minister Of The Last 40 Years: Final Round 1Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-70295403526391357742019-07-06T19:26:24.245+10:002019-07-06T19:26:24.245+10:00What I mean is that a candidate will be eliminated...What I mean is that a candidate will be eliminated if they could not win from that position if they got every preference from every other candidate below them or who they might overtake (party status is ignored). For example suppose it is down to four candidates who poll 42%, 30%, 18% and 10%. Obviously the candidate on 10% is eliminated because they are last. But if it was a preferential election and all the fourth candidate's voters preferred the third candidate, then the third candidate would still not get into second place. So the third candidate is eliminated too and only the first two continue to the next round.<br /><br />On the other hand suppose four remaining candidates have 39%, 30%, 21% and 10%. The fourth candidate is eliminated. But it would be mathematically possible for the candidate on 21% to win a preferential election from this position (though highly unlikely in practice) so they go through to the next round. <br /><br />As things currently stand nobody would be eliminated by this rule because everyone above the 8% threshhold could in theory get to 50% based on voters for other candidates switching to them. The rule is mostly useful for quickly culling uncompetitive candidates if two leading candidates have over two-thirds of the vote between them.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-69639807834050338442019-07-06T18:39:31.325+10:002019-07-06T18:39:31.325+10:00"Any candidate who could not mathematically w..."Any candidate who could not mathematically win or tie from their position in a preferential election is eliminated." - doesn't this leave your poll vulnerable to challengable assumptions about voter flow? For example, if I assume that all the votes from those eliminated go to the next challenger in popularity of like party affiliation, we end up with a two-horse race as the polls stand after my vote - the third place candidate vaulting over the top of the second-placed candidate to take a narrow win off the current runaway leader. Thus, everyone below third would be excluded. But, if a spread the preferences more evenly, or even proportionately amongst the other candidates, including the current front-runner, he quickly reaches a position in which he is unbeatable, capturing more than 50% of the vote. Thus, the even-distribution model calls (in this case) for a single winner and for everyone else to be excluded. The first is more likely to result in a head-to-head or 3-way runoff, with a clear favorite emerging; the second is more likely to produce an instant clear winner. Or have I misunderstood your planned approach completely?Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09569372868831612962noreply@blogger.com