From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk
In message <1o22rkq.b3eksc1ylct2sN%nemo@erewhon.invalid>, John Hill
writes:
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> How about a three-way referendum, allowing second choices?
>
>I rather like this idea - No deal exit/Deal/No exit - mark 1,2,3 to show
>preference.
Yes; rather than any possible two-choice re-referendum (especially a
repeat of the first one), it _wouldn't_ leave approximately half the
population very unhappy. (Though people wouldn't need to mark their
third choice. Although that might be simplest to explain.)
>
>Though just how you would weight the scores is a bit of a problem :-(
Standard STV methodology: see which of the three has _fewest_ first
choices, and distribute those votes between the other two based on the
second choices shown.
>
>And there would probably be a lot of spoilt papers.
>
Yes. STV seems to be hated by lots of people - I'm not _convinced_ it's
the electorate in general that hate it, but most of those who are where
they are by the present method (I won't give its usual name as *there is
no post*) campaigned hard against it last time we got a chance to think
about it.
But regardless of whether STV is a good thing in general, I see it as
the only way - if we were to have a second referendum at all, anyway -
of not having lots of furious people.
>J.
>
JPG [If you liked that idea, have a look at my page about petitions!]
---
How about a three-way referendum, allowing second choices?
--
Ever been frustrated that you can't disagree with a petition? See 255soft.uk
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
All I ask is to _prove_ that money can't make me happy.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
