On 14-Mar-14 10:41, David Cake wrote:
To be predictably Australian for a moment, for multiple candidate elections I find a preferential ballot (also called a single transferrable vote - i.e. the system we use to elect politicians in Australia) to be a better system for multiple candidate elections than systems will multiple voting rounds etc, And it is one of the suggestions made by Beth's strategy panel that we consider that form of voting. I know it is probably far too radical a suggestion for the non-antipodeans at this late stage, but I just thought I'd throw the suggestion out there.
i am willing to see anything tried. But I don not understand this well enough to know why it is more democratic. Can you explain? also i assume the method relies on free voters, or does it work in the context of party/constituency/SG discipline as well. Which brings up another questions When some speak of binding the council voters, it that according to Constituency or according to SG? And do we believe we could make a decision that related to all of these or is this a local (C or SG) decision? I know the NCSG charter it is an SG function, and is very specific about the times it may bind the votes of council members. In the CSG, is it up to each Constituency to decide what it does in terms of binding its voters? avri