I was very struck by the figures presented by Will Straw predicting the outcome of the interminable Labour leadership contest. Not that I give a fig who leads the Labour Party.
What interested me was the manner in which a big lead for one Milibore could evaporate leading to a narrow victory for the other Milibore under the ‘alternative vote’ system loved by Labour (as an aside I’m sure this is a legacy of all those 1970s and 1980s student union sabbatical elections that used this system).
Much discussion is taking place as to how the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th) preferences of those voting for Balls, Burnham and Abbot will divide between the Brothers Milipede. With pundits suggesting that Ed will pip Dave at the post.
So here’s a question for advocates of AV. What about the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th) preferences of those who opted for a Militwit? Why don’t they get counted? (Note dear reader that this is a rhetorical question – I do actually know why). Surely that’s not fair as those choosing a Miliboob get less of a say that those voting Balls?
Seems to me that Labour will get the bloke who’s the second choice of those who voted for losers. Now that’s system!
Or maybe Scott Adams was right and the tall one with good hair wins?
Hair and height are great predictors of future careers. If you’re a guy with a good head of hair, and you’re over 6’4”, you’ll probably have a career in upper management
There’s some real evidencial support (as my skeptic pals like to call it) for this:
In this article, the authors propose a theoretical model of the relationship between physical height and career success. We then test several linkages in the model based on a meta-analysis of the literature, with results indicating that physical height is significantly related to measures of social esteem (p = .41), leader emergence (p = .24), and performance (p = .18).
And of course they have to be white men!