Rev 06 Dec 25
In the current First Past The Post system, the count, though requiring much manpower, is extremely simple:
- divide all valid ballot papers into separate piles with votes for the different candidates, plus a pile of invalid votes
- count the size of each pile of valid votes
- the candidate with the biggest pile is the winner
The envisaged Preferential Voting system requires an extension of that, but remains simple enough to be performed by manpower alone:
- divide all valid ballot papers into separate piles for different first choice votes, plus a pile of invalid votes
- (B) count the size of each pile of valid votes
- a candidate whose pile has more than 50% of the votes in those piles is the winner
- if there is no winner, split the smallest pile according to the next choice of those voters, if one has been specified, plus a pile of expired votes, and eliminate that candidate
- append those piles to the piles for the surviving candidates
- repeat from (B) until a winner emerges
The reason for advocating the simplistic elimination rule proposed, despite its clear weaknesses, is that it is the only option which does not require difficult supplementary calculations and therefore the only one which can feasibly be exercised in a large scale and purely manual count.
——————————————————————————-
ChatGPT version of that:
How the count works (in brief)
- All first preferences are counted.
- If a candidate has more than 50% of the active ballots, they win.
- If not, the candidate in last place is eliminated.
- Their ballots are transferred to each voter’s next preferred remaining candidate.
- Steps 2–4 repeat until someone has a majority of the continuing ballots.
This is exactly what a series of run-off elections would do, but carried out in a single round using ranked ballots. It is already used for national lower-house elections in countries such as Australia, as well as a growing number of cities and local elections around the world.