Given the furore over mps' expenses, many people are calling for changes to our system of governance: inter alia, some want a referendum on electoral reform. The question, then, is what is the question? pr-stv? av+? pr-list? Or should the question be, first and foremost, what sort of referendum should we have? A majority vote with just two options? Or should we allow for some pluralism?
In 1992, New Zealand set up a commission which, having taken submissions, drew up a short list of five electoral systems. They then held a multi-option ballot, with ams, av, fpp, mmp and pr-stv on the ballot paper. The votes were counted in a variation of a two-round system, with the second round a majority vote between the winner of the first round and the status quo, mmp and fpp; some would say the ‘final' should have been between the winner and the runner-up, mmp and pr-stv.
What is true, however, is this. In an obviously multi-option setting, any use of a two-option ballot is almost bound to be inaccurate. It is as if the waiter in a restaurant asks me, "Do you want beef or cod?" when in fact I want an omelette. Obviously, such a ‘beef-or-cod?' question is valid only for those who favour either one or the other, while those who fancy chicken, nut roast, or anything else, the question partially dis-empowers.
That or people might vote tactically. If the referendum is to be, let us say, av+ versus fpp, what is she who prefers the (German) system of mmp meant to do? Or he who wants (the Irish) pr-stv, or a (Danish) pr-list system? Do we vote for av+ because it is better than fpp? Or do we vote for fpp in the hope that we might have a better ballot some time in the future? Or do we abstain? The very fact that some people might be tempted to vote tactically means that the outcome will not and cannot accurately reflect the will of the people.
So let us have a multi-option ballot. Set up a commission; take submissions, deadline, 30th June; draw up and publish a short list by 31st July; and hold a multi-option ballot on 31st August. And let us please replace any Orwellian single preference voting procedure - this option ‘good', those options ‘bad' - by something a little more sophisticated in which each person shall be allowed to cast his/her preferences on (one, some or) all the options listed. In such a vote on n options where a voter casts m preferences (and where 0 < m < n), a jth preference shall be awarded (m - j + 1) points, and the winner will be the option with the most points.
This voting procedure, the Modified Borda Count or mbc, encourages everyone to cast a full ballot. Each states their 1st preference, but each also states their compromise options; and if everyone does that, we can then identify that which has the most points, i.e., the widest possible support. At the very least, this will be society's best possible compromise; at best, it will reflect our collective wisdom.
Comments
My worry is the time-scale of having a ballot within a few months, does that give enough time for the respective camps to run voter education campaigns on it?
Assuming the election itself is June next year, why not run a little closer to the wire and hold the first ballot a few months before? Or (although I can see the downsides in this) make the referendum that accompanies the election a general yes/no vote on replacing the current system, and that leads into further actions (a convention perhaps) to determine what that replacement should be followed a second ballot at some point in the future on it's implimentation.
I suppose I see having a referendum at the next election as a foot in the door in terms of starting the process, not a date that we try to wrap it all up on. But that could be the wrong tact to take.
rcshreeyan Why should people cast their votes first and political parties select the candidates to elected by people's vote. Some thing has gone wrong when this type of democracy had been presenting to the world community assumping to solve people's problems and providing good services to people by the party led leaders.
seriously we all should think the democracy provides equal right to common people but why certain people become so strong that sits outside of the constituion and democracy and then also hold the society and nation with their planns to make people believe that they are the one who could better provide the community good governnence. The world people related problems are growing, unemployment, cultural disputes, recist attacks firmly putting their foot on ground, women's dignity is being selling in open market, vertually everything is on sale if you have the money then the market is yours,
We must look the democracy who hve been controlling it and how they are presenting themselves to fool world people. The party rules are projecting as a people's rule. The capitalist who are earning huge profits from the market remaining in the society and ignoring the society and merely escape the responsibility towards society pointing out their contribution to taxes are hitting the world community hard on their belly & making them very week to survive in the world.
The need of the hour is that we should correct the democracy and connect the democracy to people. This could only happen when we should free the world constitution from any partiallity it shows to capitalist led parties and include the PEOPLE'S COMMISSION PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTIONS SO THAT COMMON PEOPLE CAN ABLE TO USE THEIR DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE RIGHT DIRECTLY FROM THE CONSTITUION AND ENTER IN THE POLITICAL INSTITUIONS TO WORK FOR COMMON PEOPLE.
The people socially only unite when social system is being generated and give people social services free of costs and able to support the political system well then in no time world people able to protect the peace, humanity and the maintain the dignity of mankind.
Borda is the most gameable of all the electoral systems. You gain a veneer of representativeness but you also gain the ability to bury options you don't like, to clone ones you do, all the rest.
STV is fine for this, stop overthinking the plate of beans before you.
The problem with having a referendum on whether or not to replace the current electoral system and then letting some select committee or other decide what to replace it with, is that some of the options (I'm looking at *you*, party list system) are in many ways /worse/ than the existing one
Post new comment