At 08:07 AM 12/29/2005, PROUT - Progressive Utilisation wrote: >Can uncontested elections, eg 3 candidates for 3 positions, be considered >real elections. What is the theory. Are they valid. > >It appears that an uncontested election can still be a valid election. On a >quick look around there are numerous instances of this and it is the norm. >Here are a few examples.
The provision for write-in candidates is, in my view, an essential safeguard against coercion and intimidation. It could be that nobody else is willing to declare a candidacy because of serious personal danger from doing so; in this context, the electorate may still elect an alternative through write-in vote. Indeed, to my mind, "running for election" has always had a bad taste to it. Kind of like lawyers who solicit business, "Trust Me, I can get you lots of money for your injuries." Obviously, there are jurisdictions where write-in candidacies are not allowed (or are not considered important enough to merit holding a poll), but even where there is no write-in, or no successful write-in, the vote for a candidate is an indication of support. It is one thing, for example, where a sole candidate, on 10,000 ballots, with votes cast for other offices, has few marked ballots for his or her election, and quite another if most of the ballots contain a vote for that sole candidate. In my view, elections are really a poor substitute for direct deliberative democratic process, where, even if there were no more than one candidate for an office, would require a motion, due process, and a vote before the sole candidate is considered elected. It is a peculiarity of some statutory jurisdictions, such as generally in the U.S., that an election can take place without the approval of a majority of those voting. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
