On Sep 7, 10:08 am, "Sam R."
wrote:
> Each booth counts separately, tallies centrally. If booths are
> working on an expectation that Sue will be eliminated first, but Jane
> is eliminated first, then all counts prior to that elimination will
> have to be recounted in the booth. As the count was based on booth
> preferences flowing from Sue to Jane, but in reality they flow from
> Jane to Sue...
What a Rube Goldberg mess!
No wonder the count is taking a month.
ISTM that attempting to process vote
transfers anywhere but at a single location
per electoral division is asking for trouble,
and that counting at a single site would
go _much_ faster.
Also, no count is possible until all votable
ballots have been returned. I note that
Corangamite is still undecided because
several hundred mail ballots haven't
come in. The deadline for that should
have been a week after the election.
What would happen if there were three
parties A/B/C/D, and the vote was
distributed like this?
35 A/D/B/C
30 B/D/C/A
25 C/D/A/B
10 D/C/B/A
First round: A 35, B 30, C 25, D 10. D drops
Second round: A 35, B 30, C 35. B drops.
Third round: A 35, C 65. C wins.
Except: when B drops, shouldn't those 30
votes go to D, which is ahead of C on them?
In which case D reappears in the third round,
which is A 35, C 25, D 40 and C drops.
The fourth round is A 35, D 65, and D wins.
Since D was the first or second choice of
all voters, that seems a better result than
C winning - D was preferred to C 75/25,
to B 70/30, and to A 65/35. |
