Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua
As the article states It was not the basics of STV that were at fault it was as highlighted above. In a fair and transparent system it is perfectly comprehensible. Were this not the case, Germany, Greece, Ireland and all the others would now have FPTP. It is very unfair to insult the intelligence of the voters by claiming any thing but FPTP is incomprehensible.
|
Indeed.
Although the method for counting in an STV election is more complicated than counting in an FPTP election, the actual voting itself is fairly simple:
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/d...20is%20stv.pdf
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Electoral Reform leaflet on STV
How does STV work?
1 The ballot paper lists the names of the candidates from each party. Voters vote by putting a ‘1’ next to the name of their favoured candidate, a ‘2’ next to the name of their next favoured candidate and so on. They stop allocating
preferences when they cannot decide between the candidates – they do not
need to vote for them all.
(snip)
Although the counting process is more complex than with FPTP, it can be done by, or with the help of, a computer and it is a small price to pay for improving the voting power of every single elector.
|
Marking the candidates in preference using a "1", "2", "3" etc. seems fairly simply to me, even if it isn't as simple as a single "X".
The Republic of Ireland & other countries seem to manage with STV. We could have actually had STV & AV in the UK nearly a hundred years ago if it hadn't been blocked by the House of Lords.
Any change in the voting system would also (should also) surely be accompanied by voter education on how the new system would work: leaflets in the post, stuff on TV/newspapers/etc., clear instructions in polling stations & on ballot papers.