Election procedures

At the last election we could have seen three of the cabinet positions undecided at the first pass has one candidate not withdrawn. As it was, two positions needed a runoff election.

Now I want to see lots of people run for election, and i was glad to see more contested posts this time than in the past, but we seem to have the odd situation that where three or more people contest a post we are almost guaranteed to need a runoff election.

Perhaps it is my British experience coming through here, but why do we not move to a "first past the post" system? The candidate who gets the most votes wins - on one ballot. Simple and swift.

Even if a candidate gets less than 50% of the vote, they still would get more votes than anyone else.

What do others think?

It would make things quite easy, but I do not see a problem with the current system.
Let's assume we have two left wing and one right wing candidates (don't ask me what the right wing is in TNP, I don't know and I don't care, it is just anexample!).

Lefty 1 gets 10 votes
Lefty 2 gets 5 votes
Righty gets 11 votes

The majority voted left wing, but the right wing candidate got most of the votes. Probably Lefty 1 gets all the votes during run off because the majority is left wing.
The result IMHO is more representative, that's why I prefer the current system.

What was surprisiing abour the results in the initial round of voting was that in all three races (before the one candidate withdrew prior to the runoff voting), the leading candidate had exactly 50 per cent of the vote.

I fully expected races with three or more candidate to often lead into runoffs, but the odds for three of eight offices to end up that way, was a bit unusual.

And who says one vote doesn't matter? It might have completely avoided runoff elections altogether!

flemingovia:

Perhaps it is my British experience coming through here, but why do we not move to a "first past the post" system? The candidate who gets the most votes wins - on one ballot. Simple and swift.

Click to expand...

I would be averse to something like this.

Mr Gaunt's example is a good one in terms of illustrating why I continue to favor the majority system to be in place for elections. After all, the fortunate thing (in my mind) is that democracies are neither simple nor swift. A plurality vote may be easier, but that in itself presents its own challenges (people not viewing the winner as legitimate, a majority actually opposed to his/her policies, etc).

I also want to expand a bit on Grosse's point -- I believe the fact we had runoffs will encourage more people to participate, because they do see that one vote can make a very large difference. Switching to a plurality vote would negate some of that.

The person with the most votes should be declared the winner.

Complicating the election process will not encourage participation. A simple, less intimidating system that everyone can understand without a legal consultation is more likely to promote participation.

Additionally, elected officials can get down to business immediately after elections without the region being put on hold waiting for the run-offs to be held. Inactivity and delays kills whatever excitement and energy elections might bring to the region.

Every vote will actually count just as much in the "first-past-the-post" scenario because as a single vote can be the difference between winning and losing.

A simple "who gets the most votes" would be the simplest solution. Continuing to a run-off election tends to have people vote with a 'lesser of two evils' attitude if their candidate didn't make it to the run-off election.

With a run-off elections system like we have now, you could end up with a solid block of 'abstainers' who could totally paralyse an election. The problem is that majority rule could end up as mob rule. If a simple plurality is used, then you are actually closer to a 'consensus'.

Mr. Gaunt has a good point in his lefty-righty issue, but the logic is partially flawed. If you have two 'lefties' running and one 'righty' running you essentially have a lack of consensus in the 'lefty camp'. Also, voting for a candidate in a run off because he is the only 'lefty' (and because your 'lefty' didn't win outright) is potentially irresponsible at least and a vote for the 'lesser of two evils' at best.

If you have 10 candidates running - Candidate "A" getting 5 votes and other 9 getting one single vote each, and you hold a run off, if candidate "A" loses, it is hardly a sign of a real consensus. In fact, it would be a bunch of people angry that their little candidate didn't win and simply want anyone other than candidate "A" to win just because their candidate didn't win the first go around.

I support the idea that the candidate with the most votes should win outright. The current system essentially turns a run-off into a potential political tool of convenience.

Sirixis:

The person with the most votes should be declared the winner.

Complicating the election process will not encourage participation. A simple, less intimidating system that everyone can understand without a legal consultation is more likely to promote participation.

Additionally, elected officials can get down to business immediately after elections without the region being put on hold waiting for the run-offs to be held. Inactivity and delays kills whatever excitement and energy elections might bring to the region.

Every vote will actually count just as much in the "first-past-the-post" scenario because  as a single vote can be the difference between winning and losing.

Click to expand...

I could not disagree more.

Firstly, on how much "meaning" a vote has. In the last election cycle, one additional vote for certain candidates would essentially place them in office. Under a plurality system, an additional vote for those candidates would NOT change the outcome.

Secondly, I find it incredulous that a majority system is too complicated for people to understand, as was implied. I believe everyone in this forum lives in a country where a majority system is in force one way or another (even in countries with a Prime Minister-system; after all, legislation cannot get past the legislature/Parliament without a majority). The "legal action" mentioned is actually a POSITIVE sign. It means that this is the first time we've had runoffs (aka more voter participation). Obviously the first time something happens, one would like to have clear designations on what should happen. Again, I don't think the concept of a majority is inherently hard to understand.

Why not resort to the simplest solution of all -- simply having those in power designate who they want to succeed them? That's simplicity -- and even if that is a flippant example, the fact is that government is sometimes complex. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to simplify, but it DOES mean we should not simplify if it results in discarding an important benchmark (that of a majority).

I believe that we can't have things both ways -- we can't call for more voter participation and then balk when that produces runoffs.

Personally I think that if we start having multiple candiates for a larger number of positions we might want to consider moving to a "first past the post" type system. Simply because once you start having three or more candidates for a positions then run-off elections are very likely.

I believe that we can't have things both ways -- we can't call for more voter participation and then balk when that produces runoffs.

Click to expand...

The thing is, it isn't voter participation which produces runoffs but increased number of people running for elected positions. Which, don't get me wrong, is great and something I hope will continue to rise. However IMO the fact that elections work the way they do may well turn people off of standing for election (and even voting) in the future if things get too bogged down. At the moment we haven't reached that stage which is why I'm more in the middle on this. But I think we have to consider in perhaps two or three terms time if we keep having to have run-off elections everytime that it may have a negative effect on involvement in the electoral process.

Also, on a slightly different note- regarding elections. I don't know whether we want to look at the way the MoD is elected. I have no problem with the requirement that they are already in the NPA but I don't think the NPA endorsement system works. Mainly because (like the election before this one) it can essentially descide who will be elected if only one candiate gets sufficient endorsements which makes the following vote somewhat pointless. But that may warrant a seperate discussion.

Can someone who gets 34% of the vote in a three way race be said to have a mandate? Can someone who gets 26% of the vote in a four way race likewise be said to have a mandate?

I think not.

The only sure way for elected officials to have a mandate to govern is with a majority (50% plus one) of the vote.

This is just an idea, I haven't mental followed it through to see the pitfalls, but could a system of multiple votes be used?

For example, in an race in which three or more candidates run, each voter would have a first and second choice. Then, if no-one manages to get more than 50% of the vote, the second choices of people who voted for any candidate knocked out are used to calculate who wins. Yeah its basically the same system as now, but at least it should compact votes down to one run through, and only take an extra couple of minutes to work out. It should reduce the annoyance of having to vote repeatedly, while maintaining the mandate of the victor.

I think.

Nam's proposal may have some merit, but I doubt it would appeal to the people advocating for a plurality system -- after all, it's even more complicated.

I'm steadfastly against any plurality system, living under the British system in Canada has its merits because it gives regions a voice but the first past the post system is a horrible system that props up minority voices as majority winners!

I'd favour a preferential system, ranking candidates by order that you like the most. Fantastically complicated with no hope of catching on.

Now I digress, are we seeing any sort of movement on this?

mr_sniffles:

I'm steadfastly against any plurality system, living under the British system in Canada has its merits because it gives regions a voice but the first past the post system is a horrible system that props up minority voices as majority winners!

Click to expand...

Yes, but that is totally negated by the fact that in the Westminster Parliamentary system by the general neccessity of creating a 'coalition' government from time to time.

Historial lecture time as per Canadian History - Canada's government of 1867 was designed specifically with the US Civil War in mind and what was viewed (and correctly so) as the structural reasons why the US had a civil war to begin with. And it has a bit to do with a plurality system and 'electoral' system in the US.

The framers of the system in place in Canada viewed that the US Civil War was the result of a weak federal government and strong state governments. This is essentially correct, but not for any obvious reasons and would take an entire book to explain in detail. That aside, it was decided that Canada should have a strong federal goverment and weak provincial governments. In reality, the exact opposite thing happened - Canada ended up with strong provincial governments and a weak federal government. In the US we had intended to have a weak federal government and strong state governments and we ended up with exactly the opposite (which happens to be what Canada was trying for). The moral of the story is that you tend to end up with exactly the opposite of what you intend to establish.

Never the less, any screwed up plurality issues in the US (and I agree that there are, of course) is due to the fact that plurality has essentially been killed off by legislating around the Constitution in the first place.

IOW, just because you play a game of elimination in order to reduce the field of candidates down to two, doesn't mean you have any more of a representative system in which you have run-offs or straight plurality. Run offs just give you a little bit more plurality for people to decide the lesser of any number of evils (in their diverse opinions).

In the US Constitution (as intended in theory, but the politicians here regularly rape the Constitution at every opportunity ) the individual states are represented by the Senate, and the population is represented by the House of Representatives. Senate/Parliament - Lords/Commons - all the same. It's just a difference in how the representatives are elected.

What I'm driving at is that we could probably experiment with a number of schemes because with the small number of people that choose to be RA members would essentially be a direct democracy regardless of the plurality scheme or not.

And, sometimes I'm fairly game for experimentation if it isn't likely to result in a train wreck, which this issue would probably not.

Romanoffia:

The framers of the system in place in Canada viewed that the US Civil War was the result of a weak federal government and strong state governments. This is essentially correct, but not for any obvious reasons and would take an entire book to explain in detail. That aside, it was decided that Canada should have a strong federal goverment and weak provincial governments. In reality, the exact opposite thing happened - Canada ended up with strong provincial governments and a weak federal government. In the US we had intended to have a weak federal government and strong state governments and we ended up with exactly the opposite (which happens to be what Canada was trying for). The moral of the story is that you tend to end up with exactly the opposite of what you intend to establish.

Never the less, any screwed up plurality issues in the US (and I agree that there are, of course) is due to the fact that plurality has essentially been killed off by legislating around the Constitution in the first place.

In the US Constitution (as intended in theory, but the politicians here regularly rape the Constitution at every opportunity ) the individual states are represented by the Senate, and the population is represented by the House of Representatives. Senate/Parliament - Lords/Commons - all the same. It's just a difference in how the representatives are elected.

Click to expand...

HELLO! A Canadian and a Poli Sci major!!

Historial lecture time as per Canadian History - Canada's government of 1867 was designed specifically with the US Civil War in mind and what was viewed (and correctly so) as the structural reasons why the US had a civil war to begin with. And it has a bit to do with a plurality system and 'electoral' system in the US.

Click to expand...

Hahahaha, let me guess... Are you American? The only role the American Civil War had on Canada was for confederation to take place to protect against Fenians and aggressive Americans who didn't like that we didn't take sides in their wars (just like in contemporary times, Soviet Canukistan mumble, mumble...) Fear of American invasion was the greatest motivator to the creation of Canada, as for the politics of it... read up on William Lyon Mackenzie, anyone (no matter how well-intentioned) who even sounded "American" at the time was ostracized to say the least.

The strong Federal system was put in place without any thought whatsoever to American politics. To truly understand Canada and everything with it, from history to politics; you have to understand QUEBEC!!!! Just like everything else in Canadian History, Confederation and everything with it is about 1) Keeping the Americans out 2) Keeping the French in 3) Trying to make the Natives somehow dissapear w/o American-style bloodshed.

A strong federal system was the only way to counter-balance the power of Ontario (think All the blue states combined into one massive province, excluding California). This way the rest of Canada: Quebec and Atlantic provinces could stop anything being seen as too liberal in a Parliament and Senate stacked against Ontario. However, as you can already see the provinces only joined to keep their own interests thus the factioning and weak federal system.

As for the American system, the problem is the electoral college and the winner take all, the same issues which would allow a first past the post to be completely unequal. The idea that a candidate with 35%, against 34% and 31% would win an election by having 65% of the vote thrown out is ludicrious! (More common in Canada but in the 92 American Election too!) Any system that throws out ballots is an example of convenience and simplicity over the rights of the people. Which leads us back to the Preferential system.

Rank your candidate by how much you like them:
1), 2), or 3) and so on.
We could dumb it down a bit and say, 1) = 10 points, 2)= 5 points, 3) = 3points, 4) = 0 points. Add up the points and we have a winner!

I still say majority works better. ^ is just too damn comfusing.

Well the North Pacific could insitute an electoral college type system.

GAH! NO! THAT'S WORSE!

How would we divide it into regions anyway? Not everyone's on the map.

Nations would be grouped by their starting letter. Thus letters A-D would be a group and so on and so fourth. Each group of letters would have X amount of members. That number would be divided by 10 and rounded down. That would be the number of electors and they would vote on who they want to win. In case no one gets a majority of electorals then it would go to the Regional Assembly to decide or something like that.

Just an idea.

Eh... then you get the chances of someone getting a majority of electorals, but not of actual votes. It's happened before in US elections.

To be precise, no US president has won a majority of the actual popular vote in a US election since 1988, although Bill Clinton came very close to doing so in 1996.

Nuclearweapons:

Nations would be grouped by their starting letter. Thus letters A-D would be a group and so on and so fourth. Each group of letters would have X amount of members. That number would be divided by 10 and rounded down. That would be the number of electors and they would vote on who they want to win. In case no one gets a majority of electorals then it would go to the Regional Assembly to decide or something like that.

Just an idea.

Click to expand...

Sounds even more complicated than my preferential system.

I'm sure an electoral system would drive everyone nuts.

Although I am anything but an electoral-college-basher, the US in real life is far different conceptually from the government we have here. We don't have states; we don't have two tiers of government. Therefore, any kind of "grouping" system is unfair.

We can't group nations together simply because of their starting letter - that's fairly arbitrary. It's not like saying winner-take-all in Georgia or New Hampshire, where at least residents share the same state law.

How about this solution just to float an idea -

Just because you eliminate the field of candidates for a particular office doesn't mean that you have a mandate for a candidate just because you institutionalize an elimination process. This is especially true since any of those candidates the first go around got less than 50% + 1 of the vote. IOW, just because only one person runs for an office doesn't mean that the person has a 'mandate' because all the votes cast were cast for him. See what I mean? Add abstentions into that mix and you have an even bigger problem, politically speaking. And than, with so few people voting in proportion to the total number of people in the region, then even hinting at a 'mandate' is absurd. But, then again, it's a matter of choosing to participate or not. If someone doesn't participate, then they, IMHO, have no right to complain about an election result.

So, if we want to base an election proceedure on a 50% + 1 bar, and there will inevitably be more than two candidates for a given office from time to time, then why not create some kind of 'primary election' process? Allow candidates to announce their candidacy and if there are more than two people running, you hold a vote and the top two candidates then go on to the actual election. It is essentially just changing the run off process by calling it something else.

The other alternative is a potentially scarey one. That is, if three or more candidates run for an office and no one gets the 50% + 1 requirement, you permit the candidate(s) who is(are) not in the top two chose to whom their votes will be given. I don't like this idea at all because it essentially permits the losing candidate to chose who wins the election essentially causing a coalition system with political parties to develope in order to prevent this from happening.

So, logically speaking, it comes down to having the candidate who simply gets the most votes win, or to continue with the current run off system.

If someone can come up with a better set of choices, it would have to be something radically new and equitable.