Peter Emerson's blog

When do we want it? Now - The Guardian - 18th June, 2009

Dear Mr. Wills,

You say, "Plebiscites... offer the wealthy and powerful an opportunity to manipulate outcomes" and, if the vote is a straight yes-or-no, then that is indeed the case.  You continue, "That is what 20^th-century Europe teaches us."  I'm not sure if by this you mean the plebiscites of Hitler and Mussolini, the majority votes of Lenin and Stalin, or the referendums which the EU's Badinter Commission recommended for the former Yugoslavia; but I think it applies to all three categories.

The two-option majority vote has long been regarded as manipulable.  After all, in many instances, the question is the answer, and it's a pity that the 20^th century did not learn the lessons of the 19^th, when Napoleon started the rut.  In 1800, he re-imposed majority voting in the French Academy of Sciences, where they had been using a Borda Count.  The latter "is a unique method... to minimise the likelihood that a small group can successfully manipulate the outcome," (Professor Donald Saari).  Furthermore, it "is the best protection ever devised from the tyranny of the majority," (Professor Sir Michael Dummett).  In the same year, Napoleon held his first of three two-option referendums.

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.

The role of the consensors in consensus decision-making is a fairly new one, so a word or two on that.

They are independent and neutral, as would be a referee, and their role is three-fold. They therefore shouldn’t really participate in the debate, (and I apologise for the
fact that I did actually make one suggestion, just to help things get going).

It’s a funny old world.
Politicians sometimes regard the political process as consensual, as when they all go off to Lisbon or Bali, there to talk and talk and talk until, at last, (normally at about 5 o’clock in the morning), they reach an agreement. On other occasions, in stark contrast, the process is not consensual at all: instead, it’s a straight majority vote, the winner takes all and the loser gets nought.
So sometimes, the political process is one of give-and-take, a win-win procedure. On other occasions, it is the very opposite: no give-and-take at all and instead, a majority vote, straight win-or-lose.

Unfortunately, very few politicians are aware of the fact that other forms of voting can be used in decision -making. To put it simply, in both our domestic lives and our politics, we do not have to put everything into a yes-or-no, for-or-against format. In other words, the question does not have to be closed: “Shall we go to Bangor for our holidays, dear, yes or no?” “Resolution 1441 (on Iraq), yes-or-no? (In other words, Are you with me or against me?)” “Windmills on the Isle of Lewis, yes or no?” “Are you Hutu or Tutsi?”
Instead, we could use open questions. “Where shall we go for our holidays?” “What shall we do about Iraq?” “How can we generate power on Lewis and how much should we create?” “Hallo, who are you? And what sort of rule shall we have here in Rwanda?”
Now in theory, no matter what procedure people use, just the one basic democratic principle should apply: democracy is for everybody (not just a majority), and policies should be based on either a unanimous opinion, or a common consensus, or at the very least, the best possible compromise. The democratic process should therefore involve an accommodation, a confluence of ideas, the summation of our collective wisdom. This can either be effected by talking and talking, or by talking and then voting, but only if the vote is a multi-option preference vote in which every voter casts high or middle or low preferences ‘for’ (and where no-one votes ‘against’). Thus we can find that option which has the highest average preference. Simple. Preferences mean points, and the option with the most points is the winner.
This voting procedure, the Modified Borda Count (mbc), asks everyone to rank their preferences. It can be used to identify either that option which is the most popular, or the electorate’s collective ranking. In other words, the mbc can be used in parliaments to establish its priorities, to choose an agenda, or even to allocate a budget.
Sadly, in many parliaments, they still rely on the 2,500-year-old majority vote. We think the application of a more modern methodology may actually be more democratic, not to also say more practical and more inclusive… and hence our experiment on consensus voting.

Political parties would not need as many funds as they currently do, if certain political activites were disallowed.  I would therefore like to suggest we should ban all advertisements, be they on posters, lamp-posts or billboards, or be they in newspapers, magazines and/or other publications.  Other forms of political activity - canvassing, public meetings, rallies etc, along with the publication of leaflets,  policy documents, reports and books, as well as discussions and interviews on the media - would be allowed, as usual.  But posters and ads, (few of which say very much, anyway), would simply be banned.