Q. Here (NZ), local body elections are usually STV for both mayor and councillors. It was seen as a way to get around vote-splitting leading to an unfavoured winner largely. There is always idle tea-time discussions about strategic voting without anyone getting sufficient interested to really analyse it. Your comment about it strategic voting in preference system revived my curiousity. How do you game an STV system? The best we could manage is that it seem best to rank all the candidates, rather than just ranking the ones you want to win.
And comment on how to get away from FPTP. NZ moved to MMP in mid 90s. It happened via two referenda. The first was simple question about retain FPTP or change system, and a second question asking for preference among various proportial systems. There was overwhelming support for change and MMP won the preference. A second referendum was stark choice between MMP (with all the parameters defined) and FPTP.
Doing the move this way, allowed for a vote for change away from FPTP BEFORE having to make decision on what to change to, with option of changing your mind at second referendum if you hated the proposed replacement. Those fighting for reform are not splitting their vote around different systems until a decision to ditch FPTP is made. It should be said that public had appetite for change but neither major party did.
I think MMP won the proportional preference because people wanted local representation. I believe the change achieved it’s goal but strategic voting in almost the norm and we occasionally have the tail wagging the dog (which usually results in electoral punishment for offender but some parties are slow learners—well one in particular). With no upper house and only the Queen’s representative with reserve powers, MMP has worked a brake on parlimentary power.
Just found this and I have question and comment.
Q. Here (NZ), local body elections are usually STV for both mayor and councillors. It was seen as a way to get around vote-splitting leading to an unfavoured winner largely. There is always idle tea-time discussions about strategic voting without anyone getting sufficient interested to really analyse it. Your comment about it strategic voting in preference system revived my curiousity. How do you game an STV system? The best we could manage is that it seem best to rank all the candidates, rather than just ranking the ones you want to win.
And comment on how to get away from FPTP. NZ moved to MMP in mid 90s. It happened via two referenda. The first was simple question about retain FPTP or change system, and a second question asking for preference among various proportial systems. There was overwhelming support for change and MMP won the preference. A second referendum was stark choice between MMP (with all the parameters defined) and FPTP.
Doing the move this way, allowed for a vote for change away from FPTP BEFORE having to make decision on what to change to, with option of changing your mind at second referendum if you hated the proposed replacement. Those fighting for reform are not splitting their vote around different systems until a decision to ditch FPTP is made. It should be said that public had appetite for change but neither major party did.
I think MMP won the proportional preference because people wanted local representation. I believe the change achieved it’s goal but strategic voting in almost the norm and we occasionally have the tail wagging the dog (which usually results in electoral punishment for offender but some parties are slow learners—well one in particular). With no upper house and only the Queen’s representative with reserve powers, MMP has worked a brake on parlimentary power.