Wikipedia

Draft:Instant run-off voting (Resources)

One of the oversights in the comparison of voting systems is the amount of resources, time or space, needed to implement each system. In this article the case of IRV and FPTP, which are at the extremes, will be considered.

Assume that there are 1067 ballots cast and 5 candidates.

FPTP (First Past The Post)

edit

You need to have 5 memories each capable of counting to a maximum of 1067.

Counting can start as soon as the first ballot is cast.

The software to do this is very short and simple.

FPTP can be paper based.

FPTP at large

edit

The results of the individual "booths" need to be transmitted to the central booth where the numbers are added to form a grand total for each candidate. This takes a very short time.

IRV (Instant Runoff Voting)

edit

You need to have 5 x 1067 memories each capable of handling the preferences of each ballot.

Counting cannot start until all ballots are received

You need to sort the ballots in reverse number of numbers before you can eliminate the candidate with the fewest number, and so on until one candidate achieves 50% + 1.

In Australia, since the political parties like this, counting is continued until only two candidates remain. This is called the "Two Party Preferred" count, or "Two Candidate Preferred" if one of the candidates is from a non-major party or independent.

In Australia, the right is formed by two right-of-entre parties in more-or-less permanent coalition. It would be pedantic to call "Two Party Preferred" as "One Party and One Coalition Preferred".

IRV at large

edit

The complete results of the individual "booths" need to be transmitted to the central booth where the numbers are added, and the candidate with the least number oof votes is limited, and so on until one candidate achieves 50% + 1.

Counting IRV takes orders of magnitude more time than FPTP.

Tablecloth sized ballots

edit

The Senate in Australia has 12 senators per state elected "at large"; originally it was paper based. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is gradually automating the process using large computers. Personel currently read each ballot into the computer, and then that computer distributes.

Other countries

edit

Great Britain

edit

A referendum to change from FPTP to IRV was held in the UK as one part of a coalition deal. Some opponents of the change argued that IRV gave some voters more than one vote which fouled the "one man one vote" principle and the change was defeated. [1]

New Zealand

edit

Changed from FPTP to mixed member proportional.

Ancient Elections

edit

In olden days where news and produce travelled at slow speed on knapsack or pack horses, FPTP was better than nothing as far as elections were concerned.

Clearly with modern transport and communications (Paved roads, railways, canals, airplace and telegraph, etc. we can do better.

FPTP, IRV, Concorcent, Electoral College

edit

This link explores the difference between the above systems but does not say what resources are need to implement them [2].

Acclamation

edit

The pope, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, can be elected by acclamation instead of its normal election system.

In 1940 Winston Churchill was "elected" prime minister by acclamation without a formal vote of parliament.

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ UK referendum
  2. ^ Systems Compared
This page will be placed in the following categories if it is moved to the article namespace.
Categories:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Instant_run-off_voting_(Resources)&oldid=1241628962"