OOO ranked ballot voting... shiny!
With all the talk of voting lately, I learned something new for the first time. Some states in the US have a ranked approach to casting ballots.
Voters can choose a 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on choice. If no party wins by at least 50%, then the person currently in last is effectively struck from the ballot for the purpose of counting, and their votes then go to their next pick. And this continues until someone has 50% or more of the votes.
Frankly, I think it is smart. It moves the needle in the right direction at least. My only real qualm is that is legitimizes and encourages voting AGAINST someone, rather than voting FOR someone. I've always felt that votes in elections should be more about who you would rather represent you, rather than who you don't want to represent you.
This way, if you hate the party currently in power, you can simply assign your votes randomly to the other parties with the current party in last. Or whoever the target of your rage is.
But, in another way it is actually quite graceful and elegant.
As I've said in the past, North American elections are being gamed by large political parties. And I'm sure that if we change the rules, they will, over time, find a new way to game the rules. But, for the moment at least, the stakes are high and the party system in many regions makes voting against someone not such a terrible move.
But, the problem with voting against someone is the risk of burning your ballot. Basically, in a 3 (or more) party race, especially against an incumbent, voting someone out requires a coordinated effort. If all or most like minded people don't vote for the same "other" party, the incumbent may simply win again. It is pretty widely speculated in fact that Stephen Harper's last two terms as PM were pretty much won by virtue of vote splitting. In 2011 his party received less than 40% of the popular vote. In fact, in the last handful of elections, no party has had a majority of the popular vote.
The other thing ranked ballots can resolve, is that they can actually HELP you vote FOR a party. In the past, when I'd ask people who they were voting for, a common response would be along the lines of "I want to vote for Green Party or NDP, but, they're not going to win, so I'll just vote for X".
In short, even if a majority of Canadians WANTED to elect a Green or NDP MP or MPP they likely wouldn't simply because they don't believe they would win, and they still wanted to cast their vote for a party which they actually felt had a chance. This is why the US is often considered a 2 party system even though there is nothing technically blocking more parties or independent from being involved.
A ranked ballot would allow those that wanted to vote for parties like the Greens or NDPs to do so without worrying about their ballot being effectively trash if they really didn't have a chance. And, winning with more than 50% of the vote, even if indirectly through rounds of elimination does a lot to legitimize the party that ultimately wins.
Voters can choose a 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on choice. If no party wins by at least 50%, then the person currently in last is effectively struck from the ballot for the purpose of counting, and their votes then go to their next pick. And this continues until someone has 50% or more of the votes.
Frankly, I think it is smart. It moves the needle in the right direction at least. My only real qualm is that is legitimizes and encourages voting AGAINST someone, rather than voting FOR someone. I've always felt that votes in elections should be more about who you would rather represent you, rather than who you don't want to represent you.
This way, if you hate the party currently in power, you can simply assign your votes randomly to the other parties with the current party in last. Or whoever the target of your rage is.
But, in another way it is actually quite graceful and elegant.
As I've said in the past, North American elections are being gamed by large political parties. And I'm sure that if we change the rules, they will, over time, find a new way to game the rules. But, for the moment at least, the stakes are high and the party system in many regions makes voting against someone not such a terrible move.
But, the problem with voting against someone is the risk of burning your ballot. Basically, in a 3 (or more) party race, especially against an incumbent, voting someone out requires a coordinated effort. If all or most like minded people don't vote for the same "other" party, the incumbent may simply win again. It is pretty widely speculated in fact that Stephen Harper's last two terms as PM were pretty much won by virtue of vote splitting. In 2011 his party received less than 40% of the popular vote. In fact, in the last handful of elections, no party has had a majority of the popular vote.
The other thing ranked ballots can resolve, is that they can actually HELP you vote FOR a party. In the past, when I'd ask people who they were voting for, a common response would be along the lines of "I want to vote for Green Party or NDP, but, they're not going to win, so I'll just vote for X".
In short, even if a majority of Canadians WANTED to elect a Green or NDP MP or MPP they likely wouldn't simply because they don't believe they would win, and they still wanted to cast their vote for a party which they actually felt had a chance. This is why the US is often considered a 2 party system even though there is nothing technically blocking more parties or independent from being involved.
A ranked ballot would allow those that wanted to vote for parties like the Greens or NDPs to do so without worrying about their ballot being effectively trash if they really didn't have a chance. And, winning with more than 50% of the vote, even if indirectly through rounds of elimination does a lot to legitimize the party that ultimately wins.
Comments
Post a Comment