At 12:46 PM 12/26/2008, Dave Ketchum wrote:
We have a nominee list with much of the formality you describe.
Then we have write-ins, with very little formality.
Too little, probably. I know of a case where a write-in should have
won the election, by law, but the clerk didn't count the votes. I've
described it before, here. The problem has to do with recognizing and
identifying the write-in. "Write-in" doesn't necessarily mean
"unregistered." It is legal to prohibit votes for candidates who
haven't registered. Registration requirements are different than
ballot position requirements.
Ballot position often requires fairly long notice, petitions, or the
formal recognition of a candidate as the candidate of a recognized
political party. Write-ins recognize the fact that this process
sometimes fails us.
The two-party system, plus Plurality elections, is *like* top-two
runoff, when the parties are roughly balanced. But sometimes they
name candidates who are too far from the center, where both
candidates are too extreme for most voters. When the extreme faction
within a party, motivated by high preference strength, can overwhelm
the centrists within the party, which doesn't take a lot, this can
happen. If it happens with both parties at once, it's like TTR
failing to find the compromise candidate. The *system* experiences
center-squeeze.
Sometimes in that case, there is an independent candidacy or a third
party steps in. These occasionally win elections. Write-ins
occasionally win elections. I've never seen serious harm from
write-in votes, though theoretically they can cause a spoiler effect.
That effect is *worse* when the candidates are on the ballot.
Write-ins screw up the nice neat calculations of voting systems
experts. What's a "sincere" vote if voters can write in their true
favorite? Voters, by not doing that, are *already* being strategic in
voting for their Favorite among those on the ballot. A good system
will allow them to write in the favorite and still participate fully
-- or *almost* fully -- in the rest of the election.
But it can be proper to require registration of write-in candidates
-- which should be easy, it is just to identify them and to confirm
that they accept the responsibility if elected.
Asset Voting, I expect, will lead to a veritable explosion of
candidates, ultimately. And registration would, then, be even more
important. Counting of write-ins could be automated if candidates
have numbers, possibly even with an error-correcting code
incorporated, while still allowing a hand-filled ballot. This would
have the additional advantage that writing in identifiable
information, other than a legitimate code, could void the ballot (as
it is supposed to, but write-in votes currently don't void a ballot,
even if the voter writes in the voter's name, in some places. Other
races might be on the same ballot....)
James frowns on such, saying that the UK properly demands more
formality in dealing with the needed exceptions to normal nomination.
I agree that present write-ins are too informal, nominations are too
formal to cover all needs, and UK thoughts might help us with doing
something to fill the gap.
As I mentioned, San Francisco, I know, requires registration of
write-ins. I don't know the exact requirements, I should look them up.
They used to allow write-ins on runoffs as well, the California
default. But the last runoff election they held was in 2004. I think
it was only for that election, write-ins were prohibited, and it went
to the California Supreme Court, there was a write-in candidate,
registered, who might well have won -- possibly. The Court ruled that
the constitutional provision requiring write-ins in all elections
didn't apply to a runoff, except by default. Runoffs, they reasoned,
were part of the same "election," and, since the voters could have
voted for this candidate in the first election, they had their
opportunity. Considering parliamentary precedent, it was poor
reasoning. Runoffs are a new election with special rules for ballot
access, intended to make the finding of a majority likely. The
original election failed for lack of a majority, but was used to
select the top two to be featured on the ballot.
If the first and second election are considered one election, then
why not consider the total vote important? (It is then like every
eligible voter having a half-vote in each election. It becomes a bit
like runoff Bucklin, then.)
The voters, as a result of the first ballot, may recognize the value
of a write-in that they did not see before. To prohibit write-ins,
then, reduces the flexibility of voters in dealing with unusual but
important situations. It institutionalizes center-squeeze, thus
making it impossible to fix the most common, and known, failure of
top two runoff. I rather doubt that much of this was considered by
the California court, usually the level of expertise shown in court
records misses the most cogent arguments when it comes to voting systems.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
