There are various things we use to judge election methods. They are often mutually
exclusive or at least pull in different ways. A system that picks the most popular
candidate and a system that excludes the most unpopular candidate will give very different answers.
Much of our disagreement comes from not agreeing on what we are trying to achieve.
This suggests a meta election in which various system goals are voted on and ranked. Ideally the meta election would be a web site and voted on by more than the people in our group.
Once we know what we are trying to achieve and in what order of priority these discussions will make more sense.
I will start with the goals I think are important and brief explanations I hope the list will be added to.
Honesty.
Some things are fraud magnets like slow counts, assisted votes, absentee votes and written votes, they should be excluded where possible.
Secrecy.
People are entitled to secret ballot. You can't stop people from buying votes but you can prevent them from knowing if they got what they paid for. Further communities may be similarly entitled. Communities losing garbage pickup because they voted the wrong way in a mayoral election is far too common. Written ballots violate secrecy because people have distinctive handwriting even for numbers.
Simplicity.
People have difficulty understanding even the simplest systems. There are genuine language barriers in most communities. This is another reason to object to written votes. There are people who have difficulty operating even the simplest devices either from lack of mechanical aptitude or physical handicap.Openness.
Small parties and independents need easy access to the system. This includes complete reporting of how well they did no matter how badly that is.Convenience.
People should be able to get in and out quickly. Not only should it be possible for people to vote straight tickets but organizations like the League of Women Voters should be able to offer slates that are simply selections of candidates. Votes for these slates should be tabulated and reported on giving such organizations a power base based on something other than their own posturing.Pervasiveness.
In England people vote for parliament and city elections. In America typical ballots may be for twenty offices. The more elective offices the more democratic the system. The problem is that people will often vote without knowing a thing about candidates other than their names which promotes ethnic voting. We have candidates changing their names to something Irish for this reason. Slates allow lots of educated choices.
Decisiveness.
Situations where nobody wins and elections must be held again or run off elections must be held should be avoided. The system has to work. The system can't just break down and refuse to chose or to delay that choice arbitrarily. If the vote counts aren't in by midnight something is badly wrong and an investigation should be mandatory.
Participation.
People should be encouraged to vote but never at gun point. One way to do this is by having approval elections where non voters are counted as voting for everyone. Voting against everyone is as easy as handing in a blank ballot.
Accuracy.
Elections are often won by a single vote. Procedures must be accurate and books must balance several ways.The most unpopular candidates lose.
As was pointed out most people vote against someone rather than for someone. Preference should be given to systems that make hated candidates lose over systems that make loved candidates win.The most acceptable candidates win.
Candidates who are acceptable to majorities can actually run things.
Charles Fiterman Geodesic Systems
414 North Orleans Suite 410 Phone 312 832 1221 x223
Chicago IL 60610-4418 FAX 312 832 1230
http://www.geodesic.com
As the complexity of a system increases our ability to make
precise and yet significant statements about its behavior
diminishes until a threshold is reached beyond which precision
and significance or relevance become almost mutually exclusive
characteristics. -- Lofti Zadeh
