browser icon
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.

First preference poll

The results are in!

I have tabulated the ballots that you marked in class on Tuesday, February 21.

The table below lists the parties in increasing order of their totals. The Classic Party is at the top of the list. Does that mean its platform is most popular? Or the least offensive?

Each #1 vote was worth 1 point. Each #2 vote was worth 2 points. Each #3 vote was worth three points. The lowest point total was the winner.

This page also practices the unit of discourse I keep emphasizing. The main assertion or claim is in boldfaced text in the previous paragraph. The table below is the evidence that supports that assertion. Below the table is the explanation, a discussion of how the evidence relates to the main assertion.

Now that you know about the unit of discourse, you’ll begin seeing it everywhere.


Party123total
Classic77227
E76328
Equitable76328
LEAP100628
Chance59229
Justice For People74530
People74530
Realitic57431
Public Health64632
Rainbow56532
Free Robin55633
Say No More39433
Social Justice55633
Cashonomic38534
Freedom Ringers54734
Independence46634
Lefty43937
United Voice of the People27737
Human Issues34938
Prosperità Umana26838
Parry331039
Future First241040
People Over Everything321140
Right16940
Freedom151041
Unnamed 1121344
Unnamed 2111445
Unnamed 3111445
Unnamed 4101546

The voters marked the ballots either with a 1, 2, 3, or with a system that I could convert to 1, 2, 3. There were 16 valid ballots and 6 ballots that were cast but were blank or incomplete. Of the eligible voters, 7 did not cast votes all. That makes a voter turnout of 55%, which is close to the U.S. average but well under that of other countries, including all of the full democracies on the Economist’s Democracy Index.

I asked for a roughly equal portioning. Sixteen valid ballots times 25 parties is 400 votes, about 132 each. However, 40% of the votes were #3, not counting the 4 unnamed parties.

  • 112 votes for #1
  • 130 votes for #2
  • 158 votes for #3

The lowest score possible would be 16, which would occur if everyone marked that party a 1.

The highest possible score would be 48, which would occur if everyone marked that party a 3.

Using the system of 1 point for a #1 vote, etc., the scores of the 25 named parties range from 27 to 41.

Of special importance is how many 2’s a party got. They are the persuadable voters who should be the primary audience for that party’s position papers. The parties who got the most 3’s should also look carefully at their positions to see what might have been so many voters’ deal breaker.

The difference between the Classic, E, and Equitable is fewer #3 voters. What about the difference between Classic and LEAP, which got three more #1 votes that Classic? Ah, LEAP’s six #3 voters. Assuming that the problem wasn’t LEAP’s anti-pet abuse position, then something about climate change and environment are turning off voters. Classic’s positions on minimum wage, education, and women’s rights are popular, especially when the female voters outnumber the male voters by a ratio of 2 to 1. It seems that Classic’s success was due both to the positions it takes as well as avoiding LEAP’s climate/environment turn-off.

To what extent is your party willing to adapt its positions to try to appeal to the party’s 2 and 3 voters?