Play online chess!

From

Message

bobspringett 08-Sep-24, 17:22

Local politics - Oz style I just went down to the shops to put in a pre-poll vote for local City elections next Saturday. There are four tickets; one from each major party and two from local groups. One of the local groups and both majors have an incumbent (Labor has two, I think), because there are four to be elected on Proportional Representation from my area. It was a quiet day; no line and the pamphlet-handers were standing around chatting as if friends (typical of Australian elections except for the extremist nut-cases). One had as a point on her pamphlet that they had 'opposed the waste of ratepayers' money sponsoring the Eels' (the professional Rugby League team based in the city). I said I thought that was a good idea. Everywhere else in the world, professional football teams have to own their own grounds, build their own stadiums and maintain their own property. Why should Australia be different? "They can pay their players millions of dollars every year, so why should we top up their salaries?" That prompted the Labor guy to point out that the Eels don't get exclusive use of the facilities. The same ground is also used as a home ground by the Wanderers (the city's soccer team) and other sports on a booking basis. It's community infrastructure. Then the other local group handler said that the money in this case wasn't directed to the Eels professionals; it was part of a deal to get the women's semi-professional competition up and running, and to promote the sport among women at the amateur, recreational level. All good points! You don't get that in a solidly two-party system! Also, I like the way the current city council does its job anyway; it's not controlled by one group and it seems to work very well by compromise. So I voted '1" for the top candidate from one local group, "2" for the other local group, "3" for Labor and "4" for the conservative. Then "5,6,7 & 8" for their respective second candidates, and again 9 to 12 for their third stringers (who have no realistic chance anyway). Under the quota-preferential system we use, that means my vote is effectively going to the first choice; but if she gets more than a 'quota' (i.e., 20% plus one needed to be elected), then the excess value of my vote flows to my number 2 choice (unless she is also elected on primaries), and then to my number 3 choice (unless...). So for example, if my first choice gets 40% primary, then 20% worth is 'retained' by her and the other 20% (half the value of every vote in her favour) flows to whomever is marked by each ballot as second preference. In my case, that goes to the other local candidate. But if she is already elected on primaries, that spare half of my vote goes to the Labor top candidate (who most certainly would have been elected on primaries), so it skips over him to the Conservative (who would almost certainly also have been elected already), and then to the number 5 preference, who was the running mate of my first choice. And so on. This means that my vote goes to my first preference in so far as she needs it to get elected; but any left-over value effectively goes to whichever team DOESN'T get elected on primaries. It is a way of using a single ballot to show a preference, but to also spread the 'excess value' to whomever most needs it. A strategic vote for whomever is doing worst, to prevent one party from having control and to maintain the current balance in what I consider a good Council. One of the great benefits of the quota-proportional system. On the other hand, if I thought the city council was doing a poor job, I would have voted a solid block in favour of a group that WASN'T on the current council.

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, chess clubs, Internet chess league, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.