Monday, February 24, 2014

On Voter Engagement



One of the purported panaceas for electoral disaffection, subscribed to by many, is some form of proportional representation, a subject upon which I admit to being poorly-schooled. Beyond some of the basic arguments both for and against PR, I know little. However, one of the most frequently-stated reasons for embracing it is that it would do much to remediate people's oft-stated reason for not turning out at the polls: the belief that their vote doesn't matter, certainly a perception that has been, I believe, promoted and exploited by the Harper regime to its advantage.

Although not considered a version of it, ranked balloting, also sometimes called instant runoff voting, seems to me a first good step toward electoral reform. Essentially, it involves the following, as described by Ranked Ballot Initiative of Toronto:

Instant runoff voting ensures that no one can win with less than 50% of the vote. It eliminates the risk of 'vote splitting', where two or more candidates ‘split’ the votes of a certain group. It also means that no one has to vote strategically – you can vote with your heart each time.

Ranked Ballots allow voters to choose multiple candidates, ranked in order of preference. It’s easy as 1,2,3. On election day all of the first choice votes are added up (just like we do with our current system). If someone wins 50% or more of the vote, they are declared the winner and the election is over. However, if no one receives more than 50% the candidate with the least votes is eliminated from the race.

With ranked ballots, there is no need for costly multi-round voting because voters have already marked their second choice. If your preferred candidate is eliminated from the race, your vote is automatically transferred to your second choice. Again, the votes are counted and if someone has a majority, they are declared the winner. If not, another candidate eliminated and it repeats until there is a majority winner.

However, while advocates of ranked balloting do not necessarily think it would be the best reform for provincial or federal elections because it wouldn’t fully address the problem of distorted results in a multi-party system, many are enthusiastic about its potential in municipal elections.

A report in today's Globe and Mail says that Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is considering giving municipalities the option of adopting a ranked-balloting system, a reform that would take effect at the earliest in 2018. What I find interesting about this possibility is the fact that even though municipal government has the most immediate impact on our lives and our communities, it traditionally has low rates of voter participation. Changing the format would offer a good test of the belief that making people's votes count would encourage greater rates of participation.

Should that thesis prove true, we would then have a solid statistical basis for more significant reform at the provincial and federal level.


2 comments:

  1. .. in regard to resolving complex issues such as voter disengagement, vote suppression/moving, electoral reform or investigating electoral fraud..
    I am hardly optimistic...

    We currently have a government struggling under its leader Stephen Harper
    and his appointed Ministers of Environment - past and present
    and Ministers of Department of Fisheries and Oceans - past and present ..
    whining.. as a Federal Judge decrees they are breaking the law..
    They believe they are above the law.. and Her Honor states they did not even bother to deny this..

    All, including Stephen Harper, plead unable to grasp over the last 5 or 6 years, the relationship of Species At Risk Canada (SARA) to 'Critical Habitat' .. That's fish to water, caribou to boreal graze, seabird to shoreline, orca to inlet, polar bear to ice .. things that Canadian schoolchildren 'get' without trying very hard.. whether by parental osmosis.. cereal boxes or picture books when they were two years old...

    You think these elected failures can hyperjump past their mental shortfalls to concepts of 'fairness' .. or deep concepts of their constituents? They probably can't spell 'constituent' .. 'poll' is more their level .. or 'robo' ...
    Democracy is deep space to them .. a quantum leap over their fatuous heads

    We won't need to kick these scumbag loser asshats out of Parliament ..
    No .. we will will need to lead or herd them out like sadly inbred sheep ..
    or dull cattle that have brains like tiny walnuts ..

    Forget the Sergeant At Arms
    We need a shepherd with dogs to git them dogies moving ASAP
    And disinfect afterwards.. they may even be rabid ..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Salamander. As usual, your facility with language, your capacity for lacerating metaphor and simile in assessing the morass we currently find ourselves in, deserves a wider audience. I am reposting your commentary as another guess post. Thanks again for your always welcome contributions to the political discussion.

      Delete