A primer on choosing a voting model

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 12/09/2023 (752 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Few ideas for reforming Manitoba’s democratic institutions have emerged in the current election.

Kudos, therefore, to Liberal Leader Dougald Lamont for proposing the adoption of an alternative vote (AV) model (also called ranked balloting) for casting and counting votes as one component of a promised broader agenda to strengthen democracy in Manitoba.

This article offers a primer on choosing a voting model. That process involves balancing a wide range of considerations and aims which means there is bound to be controversy.

Also, it is difficult to predict with certainty the real-world impacts, as opposed to the theoretical potential, of different models.

Before replacing the familiar first-past-the-post (FPTP) model, we need to understand its presumed advantages and disadvantages.

Defenders of FTTP argue that in an era of political fragmentation it creates majority governments when they would otherwise not exist.

Under majority rule, decision-making authority is concentrated in and around the premier and to a lesser extent the cabinet. This creates the potential for decisive and speedy action, especially in response to emergencies.

Centralization of power also means there is less opportunity to escape blame and accountability when things go wrong or there is inaction.

The act of voting is simple, consisting of placing an X opposite a candidate’s name.

Critics of FPTP claim that it promotes winning at all cost, often based on narrow ideological or geographical appeals to a segment of all voters. It depresses engagement and turnout in elections because some voters perceive their votes are wasted.

It leads to “ artificial majorities” when the winning party routinely captures more than half the seats in the legislature based on less than 50 percent of the popular vote.

Other complaints are that FPTP encourages political polarization, discourages compromises on contentious issues, leads to domination of the governing process by the premier, and diminishes responsiveness to public opinion outside of election periods.

Among the many alternatives to FPTP, AV represents the least drastic change. It involves voters ranking candidates from the most to the least preferred. Ranking can be either compulsory or optional.

In Australian national elections to the House of Representatives ballots which fail to rank all the candidates are rejected. The Australian state of Queensland allows voters to rank as many candidates they wish.

In order to win, a candidate must have 50 per cent of everyone’s votes. This means that if no candidate achieves 50 per cent on the first-place votes, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated.

Their votes are not wasted. Instead the second-place votes of the eliminated candidate are added to the totals of the remaining candidates. This process of elimination and reassignment of votes continues until one of the candidates receives 50 per cent of the total vote.

AV is said to have the following advantages:

• voters can vote for their first choice without fear of wasting their vote;
• all elected representatives achieve majority support in their home constituencies;
• by encouraging candidates to seek second-place votes, it discourages negativity in campaigns; and
• there is less incentive for voters to engage in strategic voting intended to remove or block a party regarded as extreme.

AV is criticized for several reasons.

It counts second-place preferences as first-place votes. The candidate with the most first-place votes initially can lose in subsequent rounds to a less polarizing candidate. The claim that all winners will have majority support is only valid if ranking is compulsory.

Casting a ballot is somewhat complicated and voters can make mistakes leading to spoiled ballots.

All voting models create incentives for partisan gamesmanship.

In Australia AV for the House of Representatives has led to electoral alliances in which two parties co-operate by encouraging their supporters to vote first for their own candidate and then to cast their second vote for the other party in the alliance. Called “exchanging preferences” this process is encouraged by the parties issuing “how to vote” cards to supporters.

No doubt the Liberals believe in the merits of AV, while also expecting it would improve their prospects of gaining more seats in future elections based on their second place finishes…

Because the NDP and the PCs take turns winning under FPTP, and perhaps for other reasons, those parties are unlikely to support a change.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Tuesdays

A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.

Sign up for Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

Much more could be said on the issue of electoral reform, but two brief concluding points will have to suffice.

Changing the voting system is not a panacea. Disillusionment with politics and low voter turnout is a problem in many countries regardless of which voting model is used.

Ideally, electoral reform should be based on public consultation and as much consensus as possible so that outcomes of elections are seen as fair and legitimate.

Experience elsewhere indicates that this is difficult to accomplish, which is not a compelling reason for not debating AV as one component of democratic reform agenda.

Paul G. Thomas is Professor Emeritus of Political Studies at the university of Manitoba.