That makes less sense if your goal is to win seats. Despite this particular outcome, the current model is probably one of the better compromises.All I found was a CBC website with an interactive map with results of round 3. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-pc-leadership-results-1.4571699
It looks like each riding was worth 100 points, and the candidates percentage of the vote was their score in the riding. The exception was the ridings with fewer than 100 votes (i.e. some of the northern ones), then the actual number of votes was the score. I think phrasing it that "all ridings had the same weight" is more correct.
In future, I think ridings should be weighted.
I can see 2 options:
- Ridings that are currently PC should be weighted the most. These ridings are your core supporters, likely key donors and volunteers. They are the base from which party support can extend.
- Ridings that could become PC should also be weighted more. In the ridings you must pick up, its important that the leader is palatable to the members in those ridings.
- The Ridings that you have no hope of winning should be weighted less. These ridings will not be won so it is not that important that the leader be popular to these supporters. Also, presumably, there are fewer party members in these ridings so weighting it lower is not out of place.
I can understand not going with one person one vote, as a few ridings with local issues could dominate the process and have undue weight across the provinces.
- Ridings that are PC, weight as 125 points. Ridings that have been PC in the last 10 or 15 years are worth 100 points. Ridings that have not been "PC in last 10 or 15 years are worth 75 points. Of course, if riding boundaries change, it may lead to some confusion that must be thought through.
- Ridings with more members are worth more points. Come up with some type of interpolation, where heaviest voted riding is worth 150 points and lowest is worth 50 points - with some type of interpolation between.