Power And Dollar

Obama’s Caucuses, Clinton’s Primaries, their biases and the middle ground

Obama wins caucuses.  Clinton won primaries.  What do they tell us?

Caucuses take time. They are less attended. Candidate who motivated more orators wins. Labour intentsive battlefields, personal combats. Voters can convert to another candidate after the least voted candidate drops out from the list of that caucus.

Primaries focus on GOTV campaigns, more capital intensive.

Caucuses are less attended and that could translate into less representative. Primaries require contacts and could translate into less conviction and committement.

Do we have something in between?

Yes. It’s called preferential ballot.

Rank your candidates on the ballot. Once your first choice is found to have the least votes, then the station takes your ballot and find your second choice. Count that ballot toward the second choice candidate. This process will stop once we have 2 candidates left. And the winner always has >50% of the valid votes.

Who has been practising it? The Green Parties in Canada.

GP of Ontario now has 8% of the popular votes in Ontario. GP of Canada is expected to have 10% of the popular votes in the next general election.


February 16, 2008 - Posted by | Current Affairs | , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: