SINCE VOTING THEORISTS FEEL THAT THE PLURALITY SYSTEM IN THE USA IS THE WORST SYSTEM AROUND, WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS?
SINCE VOTING THEORISTS FEEL THAT THE PLURALITY SYSTEM IN THE USA IS THE WORST SYSTEM AROUND, WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS?
By Kevin Stoda
Some years ago, I came across an article that discussed a list of options to the status quo available for electing democratically our leaders in the USA.
The article, entitled “ELECTION SELECTION: Are we Using the Worst Voting Procedure?”, was written by Erica Klarreich, and it was published in SCIENCE NEWS magazine.
As Americans are currently (1) concerned about the lack of good representation in governance, and more Americans than ever are (2) interested in electoral reform, I have been advocating or lobbying for some constitutional amendment(s) to eradicate business-as-usual-in-Washington and to transform our country into a better, more vibrant, and more just (or more fair) democracy.
In order to better discuss this topic of representation in governance, I have looked again at Klarreich’s article. In it, the author makes it very clear that most every single voting theorist in both the USA and abroad believes that “plurality voting is one of the worst of all possible choices.”
Plurality voting is the system used almost universally in the USA. It’s logic is defined by the phrase “one man, one vote”.
“ONE MAN, ONE VOTE” IN AMERICA
Having been raised in the American public school system, I had been raised to assume that one-man-one-vote defined democracy.
I was so led or misled (brainwashed?) in this direction that I even ignored the fact that my own mother and father actually split their votes as a team in some elections.
For example, my dad voted fore the American Progressive Party of George Wallace in the 1968 election while my mom voted for Hubert Humphrey, a democrat. My dad voted for Eugene McCarthy for president in 1976 and my mother again voted Democratic, i.e. for Jimmy Carter. Finally, in 1980 my dad voted for John Anderson, the independent candidate, while my mom voted for Carter, again.
At the time, my dad was ahead of the game; now many other Americans consider themselves to be independents.
These Americans provide the swing votes every single election.
However, like my father, who oversaw splitting of the 2 votes of the 2 adults of my family’s household, most Americans are dissatisfied by the results of the current election system, in terms of its inability to leave the voting public with a sense that their vote count--or that their voice is being heard.
Americans are so frustrated with the faults of the plurality system—the “one-man, one-vote” system so beloved back in the 18th century era of our founding fathers--that tens of millions of them refuse to even vote in national elections every 4-years.
These non-voting American are obviously not feeling represented and certainly are lacking much voice in government. Nonetheless, most of these non-voters are, indeed, still among the losing voters in whatever election they refuse to vote in.
For all these reasons, no presidential candidate in recent American history has come close to getting 50% of the votes from the 18+ year-old age group (since America’s voting age was lowered through constitutional amendment to 18 years).
This was over 3 ½ decades ago! Because of this low turnout rate, usually only about 30% of the total adult population in the USA is sufficient to become elected the President of the United States every four years
Among the western democratic world, the U.S. has maintained the lead in absenteeism at election-time for many decades.
So, what can be done in the way of election and constitutional reform? What other models are out there?
“ONE MAN, TWO VOTES” IN GERMANY: A Mixed System
I first lived in Germany in 1984, returning again to live and work there in late 1986. As a social scientists, I was most amazed and inspired by the way national elections proceed in that Central European land.
Essentially, in Germany each voting age adult is provided two votes. The first vote goes for an individual candidate; the second vote goes either towards a political party or to a coalition running together on the same ticket.
In this way, each voter is voting for representation in government two times.
That is, Germany and a few other democracies, use a “one-man, two vote system”. With the first vote the German voter chooses a single candidate, as we do in the USA, to try and through the plurality system within the voting district.
The winning candidate of this vote will subsequently go to the nation’s capital and serve in two capacities. This winning candidate from the district will serve at the national level as both (1) the voter’s regional representative in parliament and serve as (2) elector in an electoral college for the prime minister--known as the German Chancellor.
This means that the parliamentary representative lends his or her voice to either the approval or disapproval of the cabinet of ministers as well as the entire leadership of the government.
Meanwhile, the voter casts his or her second vote at the very same time they cast their first vote. What does the German voter do with the second vote?
With this second vote, the German voter contributes to the proportional representation of parties or coalitions for the national parliament.
For example, in this way, any German state that—let us say for illustration purposes—is allocated 30 such parliamentarian seats will divvy up these 30 seats proportionately according to the total percentage “second votes” received by each party or coalition. In this way, all the parties or coalitions who receive a minimum of 5% of the total vote in that state will receive at least one seat in the national parliament.
Further, let us say, the Turquoise Party gets 40% of the vote. The Turquoise Party is thus guaranteed 12 of the 30 seats set aside under the second vote.
Likewise, a party, named the Pink Party. has only received 10% of the vote. The Pink Party, nonetheless, would still receive 3 representatives out of these 30 seats in the national parliament.
In short, with this second vote, Germans are usually voting on platforms and parties, not necessarily on the popularity of individual politicians.
I personally enjoy and appreciate this mixed “one-man, two vote” system because it allows voters in Germany to act very strategically when they choose to split their votes among different parties and candidates. Further, husbands and wives who find both of their candidates losing on their first vote, may still find their party (or their coalition of choice) representing them in the national parliament after receiving more than 5% of the vote in the state-wide election.
INSTANT RUN-OFF ELECTIONS & RANKING CANDIDATES
The bottom line, according to Klarreich, is that concerning “races with a large slate of candidates, plurality voting dilutes voter preferences, creating the possibility of electing leaders that a vast majority of voters despise.”
This simple fact has led many locales around the globe to prefer run-off elections in multi-party or multi-candidate elections. This run-off is required if the top-voter getter fails to receive 50% or more of the vote cast.
However, other models are still available. The main one is known as the instant run-off election. This instant run-off procedure enables voters to choose (at the time they actually vote) which candidate they rank higher than the others.
This means, one candidate will be ranked number 1 by each voter. Then the next most favorite candidate is marked as number 2 choice. The third in rankings is ranked number 3, etc. Each ranking is considered (and possibly) actually assigned or given for every single candidate on the ballot list.
If no single candidate has the clear majority, immediately the candidate with the least number 1 votes is dropped again and the totals are recalculated. Then the process is repeated—again dropping out the one who in this second calculation received the least number of combined second and first place votes.
In Takoma Park, Maryland, Klarreich explains that the followed variation is used. When one candidate has been found to have had the least first-place votes, “[t]hat candidate is erased from the voters’ preference lists, and ballots of voters who had placed him [the absolute loser] first are converted into votes for their second choice. From the remaining candidates, once again the one with the fewest first-place votes is dropped. When only two candidates remain, the one with the more top votes wins.”
BORDA COUNT & NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP VOTING
One other popular system around the world is the Borda Count.
However, it is actually used only in Australia and Ireland today in case of national elections. The system was devised by an 18th Century French mathematician, Jean Charles Borda, and it is generally used in the USA primarily “to rank college football and basketball teams.”
The Borda Count is a point system. The highest ranked candidate of each voter is valued at double the point-count of the other candidates selected as alternative choice. Likewise, the second place (alternate choice) is valued at more than the third place choice of the voter. The third place rank is valued at higher than the later ranked candidates, etc.
According to researchers, no other system works better for multiparty or multi-candidate elections in terms of providing the government with an understanding of what issues concern voters most.
On the other hand, as is the case in all close elections, any possible combination of rankings (as provided by a few swing voters) can ultimately give these swing voters undue influence on the final outcome of the election.
AMERICA’S TIME TO CHOOSE
Obviously, different voting and different rating systems can mean different results in tight elections. However, as Hannu Nurmi, one important European political scientist has pointed out, “All methods that allow voters to express their views fully rather than to single out one candidate convey a much more nuanced message to the political machine.”
With the statistical information provided by such “nuanced” election alternatives (as presented above), in America it would be less likely that any administration, e.g. the Bush-Cheney one, would be allowed by the press, the people, or the people’s representatives to run as amok, i.e. against the peoples wishes, as the current administration has.
Another reason why Americans should embrace this call for change is sanguinely stated by the voting theorist, Alexander Tabarrok of George Mason University, “We [Americans and founding fathers] chose our voting system before voting theory existed . . . .I don’t think any voting theorist would choose plurality rule today.”
The bottom line is that even if the U.S. system has traditionally been one of plurality votes, currently there “is no reason to resist change.”
The warning from Klarreich is simply that “citizens should think carefully not just about how well the election machinery counts up the votes but also about how they want the votes to count.”
NOTES
Klarreich, Erica, “ELECTION SELECTION: Are we Using the Worst Voting
Procedure?”, Science News, Vol. 162, Nov. 2, 2002, pp. 280-282.
By Kevin Stoda
Some years ago, I came across an article that discussed a list of options to the status quo available for electing democratically our leaders in the USA.
The article, entitled “ELECTION SELECTION: Are we Using the Worst Voting Procedure?”, was written by Erica Klarreich, and it was published in SCIENCE NEWS magazine.
As Americans are currently (1) concerned about the lack of good representation in governance, and more Americans than ever are (2) interested in electoral reform, I have been advocating or lobbying for some constitutional amendment(s) to eradicate business-as-usual-in-Washington and to transform our country into a better, more vibrant, and more just (or more fair) democracy.
In order to better discuss this topic of representation in governance, I have looked again at Klarreich’s article. In it, the author makes it very clear that most every single voting theorist in both the USA and abroad believes that “plurality voting is one of the worst of all possible choices.”
Plurality voting is the system used almost universally in the USA. It’s logic is defined by the phrase “one man, one vote”.
“ONE MAN, ONE VOTE” IN AMERICA
Having been raised in the American public school system, I had been raised to assume that one-man-one-vote defined democracy.
I was so led or misled (brainwashed?) in this direction that I even ignored the fact that my own mother and father actually split their votes as a team in some elections.
For example, my dad voted fore the American Progressive Party of George Wallace in the 1968 election while my mom voted for Hubert Humphrey, a democrat. My dad voted for Eugene McCarthy for president in 1976 and my mother again voted Democratic, i.e. for Jimmy Carter. Finally, in 1980 my dad voted for John Anderson, the independent candidate, while my mom voted for Carter, again.
At the time, my dad was ahead of the game; now many other Americans consider themselves to be independents.
These Americans provide the swing votes every single election.
However, like my father, who oversaw splitting of the 2 votes of the 2 adults of my family’s household, most Americans are dissatisfied by the results of the current election system, in terms of its inability to leave the voting public with a sense that their vote count--or that their voice is being heard.
Americans are so frustrated with the faults of the plurality system—the “one-man, one-vote” system so beloved back in the 18th century era of our founding fathers--that tens of millions of them refuse to even vote in national elections every 4-years.
These non-voting American are obviously not feeling represented and certainly are lacking much voice in government. Nonetheless, most of these non-voters are, indeed, still among the losing voters in whatever election they refuse to vote in.
For all these reasons, no presidential candidate in recent American history has come close to getting 50% of the votes from the 18+ year-old age group (since America’s voting age was lowered through constitutional amendment to 18 years).
This was over 3 ½ decades ago! Because of this low turnout rate, usually only about 30% of the total adult population in the USA is sufficient to become elected the President of the United States every four years
Among the western democratic world, the U.S. has maintained the lead in absenteeism at election-time for many decades.
So, what can be done in the way of election and constitutional reform? What other models are out there?
“ONE MAN, TWO VOTES” IN GERMANY: A Mixed System
I first lived in Germany in 1984, returning again to live and work there in late 1986. As a social scientists, I was most amazed and inspired by the way national elections proceed in that Central European land.
Essentially, in Germany each voting age adult is provided two votes. The first vote goes for an individual candidate; the second vote goes either towards a political party or to a coalition running together on the same ticket.
In this way, each voter is voting for representation in government two times.
That is, Germany and a few other democracies, use a “one-man, two vote system”. With the first vote the German voter chooses a single candidate, as we do in the USA, to try and through the plurality system within the voting district.
The winning candidate of this vote will subsequently go to the nation’s capital and serve in two capacities. This winning candidate from the district will serve at the national level as both (1) the voter’s regional representative in parliament and serve as (2) elector in an electoral college for the prime minister--known as the German Chancellor.
This means that the parliamentary representative lends his or her voice to either the approval or disapproval of the cabinet of ministers as well as the entire leadership of the government.
Meanwhile, the voter casts his or her second vote at the very same time they cast their first vote. What does the German voter do with the second vote?
With this second vote, the German voter contributes to the proportional representation of parties or coalitions for the national parliament.
For example, in this way, any German state that—let us say for illustration purposes—is allocated 30 such parliamentarian seats will divvy up these 30 seats proportionately according to the total percentage “second votes” received by each party or coalition. In this way, all the parties or coalitions who receive a minimum of 5% of the total vote in that state will receive at least one seat in the national parliament.
Further, let us say, the Turquoise Party gets 40% of the vote. The Turquoise Party is thus guaranteed 12 of the 30 seats set aside under the second vote.
Likewise, a party, named the Pink Party. has only received 10% of the vote. The Pink Party, nonetheless, would still receive 3 representatives out of these 30 seats in the national parliament.
In short, with this second vote, Germans are usually voting on platforms and parties, not necessarily on the popularity of individual politicians.
I personally enjoy and appreciate this mixed “one-man, two vote” system because it allows voters in Germany to act very strategically when they choose to split their votes among different parties and candidates. Further, husbands and wives who find both of their candidates losing on their first vote, may still find their party (or their coalition of choice) representing them in the national parliament after receiving more than 5% of the vote in the state-wide election.
INSTANT RUN-OFF ELECTIONS & RANKING CANDIDATES
The bottom line, according to Klarreich, is that concerning “races with a large slate of candidates, plurality voting dilutes voter preferences, creating the possibility of electing leaders that a vast majority of voters despise.”
This simple fact has led many locales around the globe to prefer run-off elections in multi-party or multi-candidate elections. This run-off is required if the top-voter getter fails to receive 50% or more of the vote cast.
However, other models are still available. The main one is known as the instant run-off election. This instant run-off procedure enables voters to choose (at the time they actually vote) which candidate they rank higher than the others.
This means, one candidate will be ranked number 1 by each voter. Then the next most favorite candidate is marked as number 2 choice. The third in rankings is ranked number 3, etc. Each ranking is considered (and possibly) actually assigned or given for every single candidate on the ballot list.
If no single candidate has the clear majority, immediately the candidate with the least number 1 votes is dropped again and the totals are recalculated. Then the process is repeated—again dropping out the one who in this second calculation received the least number of combined second and first place votes.
In Takoma Park, Maryland, Klarreich explains that the followed variation is used. When one candidate has been found to have had the least first-place votes, “[t]hat candidate is erased from the voters’ preference lists, and ballots of voters who had placed him [the absolute loser] first are converted into votes for their second choice. From the remaining candidates, once again the one with the fewest first-place votes is dropped. When only two candidates remain, the one with the more top votes wins.”
BORDA COUNT & NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP VOTING
One other popular system around the world is the Borda Count.
However, it is actually used only in Australia and Ireland today in case of national elections. The system was devised by an 18th Century French mathematician, Jean Charles Borda, and it is generally used in the USA primarily “to rank college football and basketball teams.”
The Borda Count is a point system. The highest ranked candidate of each voter is valued at double the point-count of the other candidates selected as alternative choice. Likewise, the second place (alternate choice) is valued at more than the third place choice of the voter. The third place rank is valued at higher than the later ranked candidates, etc.
According to researchers, no other system works better for multiparty or multi-candidate elections in terms of providing the government with an understanding of what issues concern voters most.
On the other hand, as is the case in all close elections, any possible combination of rankings (as provided by a few swing voters) can ultimately give these swing voters undue influence on the final outcome of the election.
AMERICA’S TIME TO CHOOSE
Obviously, different voting and different rating systems can mean different results in tight elections. However, as Hannu Nurmi, one important European political scientist has pointed out, “All methods that allow voters to express their views fully rather than to single out one candidate convey a much more nuanced message to the political machine.”
With the statistical information provided by such “nuanced” election alternatives (as presented above), in America it would be less likely that any administration, e.g. the Bush-Cheney one, would be allowed by the press, the people, or the people’s representatives to run as amok, i.e. against the peoples wishes, as the current administration has.
Another reason why Americans should embrace this call for change is sanguinely stated by the voting theorist, Alexander Tabarrok of George Mason University, “We [Americans and founding fathers] chose our voting system before voting theory existed . . . .I don’t think any voting theorist would choose plurality rule today.”
The bottom line is that even if the U.S. system has traditionally been one of plurality votes, currently there “is no reason to resist change.”
The warning from Klarreich is simply that “citizens should think carefully not just about how well the election machinery counts up the votes but also about how they want the votes to count.”
NOTES
Klarreich, Erica, “ELECTION SELECTION: Are we Using the Worst Voting
Procedure?”, Science News, Vol. 162, Nov. 2, 2002, pp. 280-282.
posted by Kevin Anthony Stoda at 7:38 PM
2 Comments:
Different voting systems are appropriate for different purposes.
Instant Runoff Voting is a good way to choose a unitary office such as a mayor, governor or president, where all choices must be reduced to one.
But when choosing a member of a representative assembly, such as a city councillor or a congressman, the aim is not to reduce all choices to one, but rather to ensure that everyone is represented.
For this, you need a proportional voting system such as the Mixed Member Proportional system used in Germany, or the "Choice Voting" system used in Ireland.
For more information:
www.fairvote.org
www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
www.aceproject.org
www.FairVote.Ca
The sad thing is that my homeland assumes that the one-man-one-vote being enshrined in the constitution makes it untouchable--like divine scripture.
Therefore, for 220 years no one has made an attempt to add either an instant run-off nor proportional representation.
Americans are told one-man-one vote is sufficient for democracy. The way modern democracy needs to be more representative and nuanced, CHANGE NOW is not too much to ask--as many pundits are claiming.
Post a Comment
<< Home