I still don’t get it. Can you please elaborate on that? If you put the Lib candidates on top, doesn’t that mean they’re more likely to get a seat at the table?
Hi Giusotto,
I was involved in a team effort to construct the chart and will attempt to explain.
In a perfect world all Lib/Lab/Green candidates would be listed last and all minor parties at the top.
However in some historically strong lib/lab seats there are virtually no legitimate options.
We directly interviewed many of the candidates and ranked them according to merit and their commitment to democracy.
If you take a different view and look down the column of 4th preference for e.g. you will see that it is dominated by Lib/Lab/Green. IE they are NOT ranked highly in the voting.
Hope that helps.
0 Responses
Sorry but I don’t understand this how-to-vote table. If the idea is to put the majors last, why are there so many Libs in the number 1 or 2 spots?
Because 3 and 4 are already taken
I still don’t get it. Can you please elaborate on that? If you put the Lib candidates on top, doesn’t that mean they’re more likely to get a seat at the table?
Sounds a lot like misinformation from the Lib-Lab Duopoly (aka Uniparty) to me. 2/3 of their candidates in the number 1 and 2 spots???
Hi Giusotto,
I was involved in a team effort to construct the chart and will attempt to explain.
In a perfect world all Lib/Lab/Green candidates would be listed last and all minor parties at the top.
However in some historically strong lib/lab seats there are virtually no legitimate options.
We directly interviewed many of the candidates and ranked them according to merit and their commitment to democracy.
If you take a different view and look down the column of 4th preference for e.g. you will see that it is dominated by Lib/Lab/Green. IE they are NOT ranked highly in the voting.
Hope that helps.