• DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Thank you. 🙂

      1st count

      Bamboot got 39.

      Floundra got 35.

      Aggy-Waggy got 20.

      Gort got 6.

      But why did Bamboot get 4 of Gort’s votes while Aggy-Waggy got only 1, even though the latter got over half the number of the former?

      Shouldn’t it be 3+2+1 instead of 4+1+1?

      and why in the 3rd count did Floundra get 16 of Aggy-Waggy votes, while Bamboot got only 5 or less than 1/3rd?

      Presumably in a run-off, it would be Bamboot versus Floundra;

      while in proportional representation, the Complete Scumbag Party, Discreet Scumbag Party, the [Gort Butterson Party], and the Nice Party, in a parliament of 100 might get 39, 35, 6, and 20 seats respectively, with probably the Nice Party being in a coalition.

      Even if it was 1/2 PR and 1/2 FPP, each system electing 100 candidates (hence a parliament of 200), and in the FPP vote, the Complete Scumbag Party won 51 of the FFP seats, the Discreet Scumbad Party won 38 seats (i.e. less than 75% of the former’s number of seats, or conversely the former got over less than 35% the latter’s number of seats), the Nice Party won only 8 (2/5ths of what they won in the PR count) seats, and Gort won 3 seats it would still be:

      name PR FPP %
      Complete Scumbag Party 39 51 45
      Discreet Scumbag Party 35 38 36.5
      [Gort Butterson Party] 6 3 4.5
      Nice Party 20 8 14

      We could have 3 possible coalitions:

      Complete Scumbag Party & Discreet Scumbag Party most powerful but least probable
      Complete Scumbag Party & Nice Party most probable
      Discreet Scumbag Party & Gort Butterson Party & Nice Party possible, but probably most unstable
      • sys110x@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        But why did Bamboot get 4 of Gort’s votes while Aggy-Waggy got only 1, even though the latter got over half the number of the former?

        Because Bamboot isn’t getting Gort’s votes. Now that Gort is eliminated, all of the voters that voted Gort #1 now have their #2 vote counted as if it’s their #1 vote.

        • 4 people that voted Gort #1 voted Bamboot #2.
        • 1 person that voted Gort #1 voted Floundra #2.
        • 1 person that voted Gort #1 voted Aggy-Waggy #2.

        This keeps happening down the choices until someone has a majority. People that voted Floundra #1 don’t end up having their #2 vote counted because their candidate wasn’t eliminated in the end. This is why it’s not possible to throw your vote away have your vote taken away - if your favourite candidate is eliminated, your vote goes to your second favourite, then your third favourite, etc until someone has the majority.

        Not sure what it looks like in the US, but Australian ballot slips have all the candidates and you number them 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.