[To see the submission in its original format, see the linked
webpage below]
Fundamental Principles of Democratic
Government
by Craig Carmichael - Victoria BC
Canada
Original draft: April 2nd to May 2nd 2003
Minor revision: Aug 26th, 2003
CONTENTS
1. Freedom and Responsibility: Dangers of Democracy
2. Government Represents the Governed
3. The Three Branches of Government and Separation of Powers
The Executive Branch
The Legislative Branch
The Judicial Branch
4. Jurisdictional Divisions: World, Continents, Nations and
States
5. Electoral Practices and Voting Techniques
Qualifying to Vote - Qualifying to Run
For Office
Simple "X" Ballot and Vote Splitting
Multiple Ballots and Instant Runoff (or
"Majority Preference") Voting
Proportional Representation
6. Petitions and Initiatives
Appendix: Supplemental Notes and Case Studies
Notes on the instant runoff Vote
Proportional Representation Systems: Party
List System and Mixed Member Systems
Proportional Representation Systems:
Multi-Member Constituency Systems
Proportional Voting Systems for
Multi-Member Constituencies
Canada - Combining the Legislative and
Executive Branches of Government
France - Separation of Powers
British Columbia - Petitions
FOREWORD
Here are just a few pages of basic outlines for building better
governing institutions, better nations, and a better world,
compiled from more advanced political thought from various
sources. In the interest of brevity, some subsidiary
ideas are presented without explanation in an idealized form rather
than as commonly practiced today, and the words "he", "him" and
"his" are intended to apply to both sexes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Freedom and Responsibility: Dangers of
Democracy
With freedom comes responsibility to choose constructively rather
than destructively. Liberty used foolishly can be worse than no
liberty, but to educated, discerning and moral persons --
responsible persons -- liberty is a great blessing of constructive
opportunities. Our spirit Father has given us freedom of individual
will to act as brothers and sisters in the family of heaven or as
wayward children pursuing our own ends.
In an authoritarian regime, one has very limited political
freedom: Political rules and decisions are imposed by the ruler and
his supporters. As he chooses, for good or for ill, so the nation
must follow. When everyone's political and national freedom is
enhanced by the ability to choose a government which represents
them and acts on their behalf, and even to act directly by
petition, everyone has responsibility to make political decisions,
when they are called for, that will help promote the progress and
stability of one's society.
Whenever there is a betrayal of the public trust by anyone
entrusted with public affairs from the leader to the least civil
servants, for example by acceptance of bribes, or by using a
position of power for personal gain at the expense of the public
good, society takes a step backwards towards anarchy and the need
for dictatorship. Betrayal of public trust weakens and destroys
progressive society, and should be looked upon in the same manner
as murder or treason, and those guilty of it sternly punished.
As decisions and actions are continually taken for the public
good by those upon whom power has been conferred, society forges
ahead bit by bit towards accomplishment and prosperity, towards
"light and life".
Once a society has become free from dictatorial oppression and
men and women have control of their nation's political affairs,
they must interpret their charter of liberty wisely, intelligently
and fearlessly in order that there may be prevented:
1. Usurpation of
unwarranted power by either the executive or legislative
branches.
2. Machinations of
ignorant and superstitious agitators.
3. Retardation of
scientific and technical progress.
4. The dominance of
mediocrity.
5. Domination by
vicious minorities (eg: Ku Klux Klan, "religious" extremists).
6. Loss of control
to ambitious and clever would-be dictators.
7. Disastrous
disruption of panics.
8. Exploitation by
the unscrupulous.
9. Taxation
enslavement of the citizenry by the state: The citizenry must have
some control over taxation.
10. Failure of
social and economic fairness.
11. Union of church
and state: No human government may claim its actions are divinely
sanctioned, and personal religious faith must not -- can not -- be
legislated.
12. Loss of
personal liberty, or slavery to public opinion: the majority is not
always right.
A specific danger to democracy that has been seen in many lands
is seizure of governmental control by the military. If all military
training were combined with specific trade, scientific discipline
or professional education, it could: let young people support
themselves while gaining an education, provide a reserve of trained
soldiers in case of war, and help avoid the creation of a
self-absorbed professional military class. Four years of military
training might provide two years of transferable trade, technical
college or university credits.
Some benefits of a free society with a representative government
include:
1. Freedom to hold
and to express personal ideas and opinions, including religious
ideas, and even ideas contrary to public opinion or to government
decisions, without fear for one's position or personal and family
safety.
2. Equality of
opportunity: talented and industrious men and women are free to
better themselves and their position or status regardless of their
social, racial or religious background.
3. More freedom to
make one's own choices in travel, education, career, and
society.
4. Redress through
the courts for injustices, even injustices by the government
5. Citizen concerns
are usually eventually addressed by government in legislation,
rather than ignored or even deliberately suppressed.
II. Government Represents the Governed
In ancient Athens, the entire citizenry banded together to
discuss issues, vote, and make decisions. Attendance was mandatory.
This was commendable in an independent town, but it is hopelessly
impractical and unwieldy in a nation-state.
Instead, the citizenry must periodically select people it trusts
to form a legislature or parliament, a discussion and decision
making group of legislators that represents their interests, makes
decisions, and writes social rules, laws, to provide for equality
of opportunity, provide for the unfortunate and for old age
pensions, prevent unfair exploitation of people by other people,
and create and further projects of general public interest. As
society grows and changes, new decisions and laws - legislation -
must frequently be made, and so the legislature has regular
sessions, meetings for bringing up and passing or enacting new
legislation.
And the citizenry must also periodically choose a wise and
capable executive leader to whom they may safely confide the
administration of the nation's affairs.
Lastly, by some practical process, judges must be found to
adjudicate the inevitable disputes that spring up in all human
affairs, in accordance with the laws made by the legislature
representing the public will.
The process by which legislators and-or leaders are chosen by
people is called an election. Every person entitled to vote in an
election is a voter or elector and all the electors together are
the voters or the electorate. Those who wish to be elected "run"
for election, they become candidates for the office (position) to
be filled. Those chosen in the election by the most voters become
the elected. After a fixed, or at least maximum, time period called
a term of office (often four or five years), new elections are held
and the voters choose new representatives and a new leader, or may
re-elect the same person. Often the role of executive leader, and
sometimes of legislators, is restricted to a certain number of
terms of office, promoting fresh blood and new ideas in
government.
Traditional alternatives to electing leaders include such
techniques as the powerful and their supporters warring with each
other, the eldest son of the old ruler inheriting the position, and
revolution. Such methods are not likely to bring experienced
statesmen in their political prime to society's service. Such
rulers wield great personal power at the expense of civil freedoms,
and a change of power is generally accomplished only by the death
of the previous ruler. Hence social progress under such governments
tends to be very slow at best.
But democracy is more than just elections. To elect someone
without knowing where they stand, and-or to know not what they do
or how they vote once elected, is only a democratic shell. The
voter and his interests are not truly represented and the elected
person isn't accountable to the voters. The electorate must be
educated and knowledgable. The voters must know the candidates, and
the elected must report to the electorate and be responsible to
them: they must represent the electorate. The closer the
relationship is between the electorate and the elected, the greater
is the potential for best results, for electing the best persons
and for having them act in the best way.
It is vital that elected leaders, even the president, be made to
work within the constitution and laws. sometimes someone is elected
who proves unworthy of the trust placed in him, or who becomes
permanently unfit to continue in his duties. There should be a
recall or impeachment proceedure in place for removing an unfit or
unworthy leader or representative. Prominent examples: A president
was discovered to have secretly used unethical and illegal means to
gain advantages over the other candidates before and during the
election. Facing impeachment, he resigned from office. Another
became senile and unfit to govern following his second election.
His aides kept this quiet until the end of his appointed term of
office.
III. The Three Branches of Government and Separation of
Powers
There is a natural division of governmental organization into
three branches. Attempting to organize it differently inherently
builds conflicts of interest and confusion of function into the
system of governance.
One branch makes the rules, laws, by which society governs
itself. This is the Legislative Branch of government. Its head(s)
may perhaps be titled speaker, house leader or senate leader. It
decides when it is to convene to formulate and vote on new laws and
plans, or amend and refine existing ones.
Running the country, administration, is the purpose of the
Executive Branch of government. The executive is obliged to
administrate in accordance with the laws made by the legislature,
which always grant a certain amount of freedom of administrative
action. The leader chosen to head this branch, the chief executive,
often has a title such as president (at the national level) or
governor (at a subsidiary level). The national chief executive is
the country's head of state.
It is inevitable in human affairs that disagreements will arise,
even in the absence of crime or evil intent, and the Judicial
Branch of government exists to interpret the rules created by the
legislature to each individual dispute. Verdict rendering is always
a group function, and generally panels of several judges will sit
to hear and adjudicate in any dispute. Generally there are courts
at state and national level, sometimes specialized (family,
industrial, and criminal courts), depending on the nature and scope
of the case.
There are organizational ramifications to mixing any of the
three branches of government: When a legislature
attempts to administrate a nation's affairs, as it does in some
lands today, it compromises both the freedom and independence of
the legislature (distorting the focus and quality of legislation)
and the freedom of administrative action (often causing weak
governments). Or, an executive administration responsible for
taking laws might be apt to enact dictatorial laws to suit its own
administrative convenience rather than laws in the best interests
of society.
If those who make laws sit in judgement they may not render a
fair verdict if it might show the law itself to be faulty, nor can
those who run the country pass impartial judgements in disputes
involving the governing of the land itself. The judicial branch
must not be involved in legislative or executive affairs which
might require adjudication.
Also, where the legislative branch assumes the executive
functions, the voting public must cast one "schizophrenic" vote to
decide two unrelated and often conflicting issues: (a) who they
wish to have represent them in the legislature and, oh by the way -
indirectly - (b) who is to become the national chief executive.
Repercussions include a strong party-based system where legislative
candidates are elected or rejected mainly based on their party and
who its leader is rather than their personal talents and
experience, and where legislators are not usually free to legislate
according to their individual best judgement but must support their
party leader.
Thus, the three branches of government are so natural they may
virtually be said to be divinely ordained. To call this triple
division "the American system" is simply to acknowledge that
America's founders figured it out and implemented it first, and it
probably plays a major role in America's political and social
strength.
Because of the separation of powers -- lawmaking, executive
administration, and judgement -- no one person is able to make
far-reaching plans and carry them out without having them examined
and approved by an independent party. Reasonable ideas are acted on
but one person, even holding the highest office, cannot impose his
personal agenda on an unwilling country.
Still less may anyone seize complete control of the country and
become its dictator unless the nation permits him to overstep the
authority of the office he holds. All citizens including civil
servants and the military must understand that their allegiance
lies with the nation as a whole and not with any one person: they
must know when to draw the line, disobey illegal orders, and help
cast from office anyone who would wield unwarranted power, no
matter how charismatic, popular, forceful or brilliant.
The best government is one which co-ordinates most while
governing least, and a government of three co-ordinate branches is
a fundamental means for facilitating this.
The Executive Branch
Usually the executive branch of a government centers around one
person, usually titled president and head of state (at the national
level) or governor (at a smaller level). Once elected, this leader
is often free to choose his administrative staff or "cabinet" at
will. An executive advisory panel consisting of all living past
presidents can add much wisdom of experience to an administration's
cabinet.
The separate executive branch permits strong central government
to maintain law, order and national security even in the face of
divided opinions and inaction of the legislature, permitting free
experimentation with various advanced and refined forms of
legislative representation without courting national danger or
governmental paralysis.
The chief executive is head of the civil service and the
military. He may negotiate agreements and treaties with other
countries, which must afterwards be approved by the legislature. He
is permitted to position military forces and employ them in limited
roles, but waging war unless the nation is actually attacked
requires legislative approval.
Of course, in the process of governing, new ideas occur at
various levels, in executive departments and agencies, and these
are submitted, depending on the nature and import of the proposal,
to the department director or chief executive.
Sometimes such proposals necessitate new legislation or laws in
order to effect them. The executive branch must then submit the
ideas to the legislature in order to have them enacted. Often, of
course, there is considerable consultation before the formal
submission is made.
In some lands, the president must approve a bill passed by the
legislature, and may veto it if he really disagrees with it. The
legislature can re-vote on the vetoed bill and pass it against the
presidential veto only if a very large majority of the legislators
agree, such as 60% (three members for it per every two against) up
to an overwhelming 67% (twice as many for as against).
The chief executive is elected by the citizenry from the
candidates, perhaps by a nation-wide, one vote per person election
system such as majority preference balloting (see appendix).
There should be a hierarchy of emergency succession to prevent
any lapse in national leadership in the event that the president
becomes unable to function. This may include, for example, a vice
president, elected or chosen by the president, the most recent past
president, and the head of the legislature. An unscheduled election
of a successor is a possible option if the remaining duration of
the term is long, with the winner serving either for the remainder
of the fixed term, or for a new full term starting on the election
day.
The Legislative Branch
A legislature or parliament usually consists of tens or hundreds
of representatives, legislators who are chosen by groups of
citizens to represent a broad cross section of societal viewpoints.
Sometimes there are two legislative "houses", which must each
approve a bill before it may become law. Generally, the first house
initiates bills, while the second house examines them in an
independent "second look" before they are allowed to become
law.
When a bill is approved - passes - in the first house, the
second house (often called a senate) must also approve the bill
before it can become law. In some lands the chief executive must
also approve new laws, as mentioned above.
If the second house (or the chief executive) disagrees, it can
send the bill back to the first house, often with suggestions of
what would make it more acceptable. Sometimes the second house
plays a purely advisory role, but if it is properly independent,
its opinion will be publicly respected and will have great moral
authority.
The second house is often composed of experienced elder
statesmen who have held other public positions and rendered notable
public services in the past. Replacements may be nominated, for
example, by the chief executives (president, governors), the leader
of the first house, and the chief justice, and elected for life
from the nominees by the members themselves when a vacancy
occurs.
Legislators of the first house are elected by the citizenry,
often en mass in a general election, by a number of possible
techniques (see appendix) and groupings, and are responsible to
them.
Inevitably, a few legislative seats are vacated in mid-term by
resignation for personal or health reasons, or occasionally by
recall or impeachment. The process for choosing someone to fill a
vacant seat varies. A legislative seat may be left empty for a
certain period. If there is a considerable time left in the term of
office, a byelection, an election just for the one seat, may be
held.
In today's typical systems, legislators are usually elected
simply to represent different areas of the country, one person
being chosen from each riding or constituency. In a modified form
of constituency-based representation, multiple legislators may be
elected per constituency.
Such systems, though serviceable, do not necessarily bring the
best qualified people to represent public interests. They can set
up needless local-area-based conflicts, foster organized and
controlled political parties at the expense of independent
legislative opinion and action, and promote uniformity of
legislators instead of diversity of areas of expertise.
Electoral divisions with more meaning than place of residence
are possible. For example, in some countries, one can vote for a
political party, or for members of a political party, without
regard to geography, by party list voting (see appendix). This has
the drawback of the voter not voting directly for individuals, and
thus the elected are less accountable to the electorate.
A more targeted proposal is to elect some or all of the
legislative representatives based on socio-economic commonality of
interests instead of by geography. One might call this interest
group based voting, which would probably raise the quality of
legislative deliberations and legislation.
For example, those involved in industrial, professional,
agricultural and other fields of occupation could each elect their
own occupational representative(s). One would register in one of
these voter groups -- occupational constituencies rather than
residential area constituencies -- for a specified term (10
years?), depending on one's working occupation, then reselect if
necessary in accordance with changed status.
A separate category of representatives could be elected based on
social, political and philosophic lines, with voters registered to
vote in one interest group within each of the two categories.
Imagine specialist representatives for Fisheries and Oceans
elected by commercial fishermen, sports fishermen, fish farmers and
other oceanic stakeholders; for Agriculture by farmers, farm
workers and food distributors; for Parks, Wildlife and Recreation
by environmentalists, those in the tourism industry and
outdoorsmen, and so forth, again with each person being registered
to vote in particular interest groups.
Such a system would ensure that the legislature has respected
people covering different fields of expertise, elected by those who
know them best. They would thus have authority to choose
independently how they will vote in the legislature, and to sponsor
bills on matters related to their own fields.
In another untried idea, the first legislative house could be
split into two or more specialized "houses", with members elected
by society in different groupings such as those above, to deal with
legislation of differing natures. For example, there could be a
house formulating public safety and criminal laws, one for
industrial and trade legislation, and other possible
specializations.
The Judicial Branch
Adjudication is the highest function of any government, and
those who are entrusted with verdict rendering should be chosen
from the best of the most experienced and understanding
individuals. Judgement is a group function: No lone person should
ever be permitted to pass sentence or render a verdict because of
the limitations of any one person's viewpoint, since all of our
individual views at various times and on various matters may be
colored by inexperience, ignorance or even unfair or unconscious
discrimination.
Judgement must be as fair as possible; it must also be swift and
efficient. Decisions delayed too long can be themselves an
injustice.
There are many types of legal actions: family disputes,
industrial disputes, and criminal trials, and specialized types of
courts -- family courts, industrial and trade dispute courts and
criminal courts -- are best able to deal with such specialized
types of cases.
In criminal matters, is it society's stern duty to punish
evildoers and safeguard the public, but equally to acquit the
accused innocent. To that end, all persons must be presumed to be
innocent of a crime unless they can be proven guilty "beyond a
reasonable doubt". Justice must be applied impartially towards all
citizens regardless of wealth, race, sex or religion.
Occasional mistakes are inevitable, and another duty of the
justice system besides minimizing their number is to promptly free
and clear, and even to generously make whatever amends are
reasonable and possible for someone if it is discovered he has been
wrongfully punished.
Sometimes judges are elected by the citizens, but since they
generally operate away from public scrutiny, it is probably better
to have them nominated by other elected leaders and representatives
or respected public bodies, and perhaps confirmed or voted in by
the legislature, federal or state depending upon the court's
jurisdiction. Some criminal trial systems employ a primitive
practice for selecting judges: a jury of citizens is impressed
involuntarily into verdict rendering service, usually having little
knowledge, experience or interest in criminal trials or criminals.
Juries are easily fooled by clever lawyers, clever criminals and
inept innocent people, and too frequently render wrong verdicts -
both convictions and acquittals. And often the judge alone passes
sentence, according to his own individual convictions. This is
wrong. It would seem more reasonable that a panel of experienced,
professional judges take the place of the amateur jury both for the
verdict and the sentencing.
IV. Jurisdictional Divisions: World, Continents, Nations
and States
There are two absolute levels of human rights or "sovereignty":
the sovereignty of each individual and the sovereignty of all
mankind. All intervening jurisdictional divisions such as nations
and states are of relative value just insofar as they promote human
comfort, happiness and social progress.
Today nations are the top well-organized political division, and
national governments are responsible for keeping the peace of the
realm and defending it from foreign aggression.
Larger nations subdivide themselves into smaller jurisdictions
of varying land sizes with names such as states (USA, Australia,
etc), provinces (Canada) or departments (France). Governments of
the states manage issues which are specific to that geographic
area. The national government does not permit these smaller units
to raise armies and wage war with each other.
Someday the sovereignty of all mankind will be vested in a
democratic, representative world government of some sort which will
likewise enforce peace, security and justice between nations, as
well as regulate international corporations and global trade. The
need for and the feasibility of world government are growing by the
decade. Nothing less than world government can bring lasting peace
on Earth and goodwill towards all men.
Winston S. Churchill suggested in 1944 that each continent
should have its own congress handling continental affairs, and that
a world congress for managing world affairs would have
representatives chosen equally from each continent. This rather
simple idea for division of world organization has much to commend
itself. "Mother Asia" probably merits representation in about five
sub-continental regions including Europe and India.
At each level - state, nation and someday continent and world -
there should be a representative government based on the principles
outlined herein.
It is also possible to combine states (or small nations) into
larger administrative regions with common economic interests, or to
subdivide large ones into smaller administrative units, thus
interposing another level of government, one which may perhaps be
solely an administrative (executive) level as to governmental
functions, without separate legislatures and courts.
Legislative representation may be based on areas of equal
populations, by specific regional areas regardless of their
population or size, or by societal divisions which are independent
of geography.
Land-based constituency divisions based on equal populations can
be fair in a homogenous society without significant regional
issues. However, when there are regional issues, regions with
smaller populations are under-represented while the more populous
regions are over-represented. This works to the detriment of
regions with smaller populations: those with larger are continually
favored in legislative decisions, and political parties elected by
such systems commit political suicide in trying to rectify or
overcome this disparity: in doing so, they lose popularity in the
populous regions with the most seats.
There can also be problems with representation by specific
regional divisions such as by country. In North America over 60
state jurisdictions are merged into just three large nations, while
Africa remains fragmented into almost as many small unaffiliated
countries. In the "United Nations" general assembly, North America
is practically unrepresented with only three votes while Africa has
about four dozen.If there are two legislative houses elected by
area-based constituencies, they may be constituted differently,
balancing representation by population with representation by
region. And this is the chief distinction between the two otherwise
rather similar legislative houses of the USA: the house of
representatives is based on constituencies of equal population,
while the senate has two representatives from each state regardless
of its size or population. Reducing or eliminating
area-based representation in favor of interest group based could
assist with attaining balanced regional equality and hence
reduction of regional antagonisms.
V. Electoral Practices: Voting
There must be some body or agency in charge of running elections
themselves. Obviously, no political party or government alone can
be trusted to count votes involving itself or its interests. In
Canada, there is an independent department called Elections Canada
consisting of civil servants pledged to impartiality and led by the
Chief Electoral Officer, which conducts the elections and counts
the votes. This agency hires many temporary employees in the times
leading up to and during an election to ensure that voter
registration is up to date and to tally the votes. The Governor
General, an appointed position with no limit on his term of office,
actually calls the election, usually at the behest of the Prime
Minister, but always within five years of the previous
election.
In the USA with its two-party system, there is no independent
agency like Elections Canada, but representatives of both parties
are on hand when the votes are counted.
Qualifying to Vote - Qualifying to Run For
Office
Traditionally, all citizens over a certain age such as 21 years
except convicted criminals, the mentally unfit, and sometimes
government workers, are entitled to cast one vote in the selection
of representatives and leaders.But every voter should also be
literate, and should understand the basic principles of democracy,
just such as are outlined in this booklet. A written test to gain a
voting certificate would disqualify only the illiterate, the
indolent, and those incapable of understanding this fairly simple
material. Should such people choose leaders and legislators?
Wishing to be able to vote is an inducement to study and become
literate.
It is also possible to confer extra voting power upon persons of
accomplishment who are worthy of respect, giving their
demonstratedly capable or wise viewpoints more weight. For example,
those rendering exceptional service to society, and those
demonstrating extraordinary wisdom in governmental service might be
nominated, as well as scientists, inventors, teachers, philosophers
and spiritual leaders. Such honors would be proudly attached to
one's name along with educational degrees and other personal
achievements.
Heavy taxpayers might also be rewarded with extra voting
credits. Additional voting power generally extends only to the
selection of legislative representatives, not to executive
leaders.
Each voter must be registered in a particular voting
jurisdiction prior to election time in order to cast a ballot
there. They may be registered by constituency, or, in the case of
voting by economic and-or other group divisions, in one voting
group from each of the group categories.
Prospective politicians, too, should be required to know at
least as much about democracy and its institutions as the educated
electorate. Ideally to qualify for holding public office, they
should be certified graduates of a training course in
statesmanship, including not only political theory but also, for
example, the nation's own political structure, legislative
proceedures and administrative traditions and techniques.
Often, someone who wishes to run for office must be nominated by
others. Sometimes even dozens of nominee signatures are required,
to discourage unstable people and those who are not really serious,
for example humorists, from putting their names on the ballot as a
publicity stunt. Diplomas of political qualification would weed out
most of these.
By all these means, a society could hope to have a more
knowledgable electorate and avoid having base and ignorant
politicians, which would help prevent choosing rulers and
legislators whose acts would have a negative impact on society
instead of a positive one.
Simple "X" Ballot and Vote Splitting
In this simplest form of voting ballot, a voter marks an "X" or
other convenient mark for the candidate of his choice, or for the
specified number of candidates if more than one position is to be
filled. This system works fine for selecting one candidate out of
two, and not badly for selecting multiple candidates from one
list.
But if there are three or more candidates for one office, often
the result of an "X" vote is not what the majority of the voters
actually wanted on account of a phenomenon called "vote splitting".
The candidate most different from the others has an unfair
advantage because the majority vote is split between two or more
similar candidates while the minority are all voting for just one
person, who is thus likely to win even when more than half the
voters would have preferred any one of the other two or more
similar candidates. (See example in Appendix.)
Single "X" balloting has often been called "first past the post"
voting, but it might better be described as "nearest to the post on
the first toss" voting, since it is not required that a candidate
actually reach the 50% "post", merely that he have any slight lead
over his nearest rival on the first (and only) count.
Multiple Ballots and Instant Runoff (or "Majority
Preference") Voting
One solution where the leading candidate claims less than 50% of
the votes is to eliminate the least popular candidate(s) and vote
again with fewer choices in a runoff election, two or more times
until one person does have 50%. This process is often used at
political party conventions for selecting a party leader, but in a
public election where the votes are not counted until the end of
the day, this solution is impractical: Many voters would have to
return to the polls and vote twice, or perhaps even three or more
times, over a period of days or weeks.
The simple solution to achieve the very same result is to have
the voters rank the candidates in their order of preference on the
ballot instead of just putting an X on their first choice and
leaving the rest blank. A "1" is marked for first choice, a "2" for
second choice, and so on, depending on the number of candidates
running for the office. In the first count, all the ballots are
counted for each voter's first choice of candidate. If the most
popular candidate has less than 50% of the votes, the votes for the
least popular candidate(s) are redistributed to their second
choices. If that still hasn't given one candidate 50%, the process
is repeated until one candidate has a clear majority. This is
called instant runoff or majority preference voting. Most often one
or two counts are sufficient, and so it has sometimes also been
called the one-two ballot.
This is certainly the simplest fair means of voting for
executive leaders, where only one person can win the election.
Proportional Representation
If each election for each legislator is viewed by itself and by
individual candidates and if there were no political parties, then
the instant runoff vote would make for fair elections. But when the
legislature and the population is viewed as a whole and by
political party, the overall result is not fair. If 15% of the
voters voted for "Blue" party candidates, it would be logical to
expect that the Blue party should have 15% of the seats. But
probably the Blue party didn't manage to get 50% of the vote in any
one of the 100 ridings and thus, it has no seats at all! The views
of the 15% of the electorate who voted for Blue party candidates
and philosophy are completely unrepresented in the legislature
while the views of the largest voting groups are disproportionately
over-represented, and sometimes, after stunning defeats, or
repeated failures to gain any seats at all, losing parties collapse
with their ideas and ideals in spite of the support of a
substantial percentage of the population.
Proportional Representation allocates 15% of the seats to the
most popular Blue party candidates so that the overall portion of
seats follows the overall pattern of voting and all voters are thus
proportionately represented by the parties of their choice.
The more different points of view that are electable to a
legislature, the less chance there is that any one party voting
block will predominate and be able to dictate the course of
legislative events, ignoring other considered opinions and
alternative ideas.
In countries which have so far failed to separate the executive
and legislative branches of their governments, legislative
minorities result in weak executive governments which have trouble
running the country, and so such countries fear proportional
representation. It is, in fact, another reason the executive branch
of government must be independent of the legislative.
Although it is more fair to voters overall and tends to prevent
polarization in politics, proportional representation requires more
complex systems of voting, or for allocating the seats after
voting, and the relationship between the voters and the candidates
is often less direct, and so it has been implemented in different
forms in different lands. Major forms of full or quasi-proportional
representation are discussed in the appendix.
VI. Petitions and Initiatives: Direct
Democracy
Sometimes, it is not enough to be represented by others.
Sometimes there are political "hot potatos" that politicians do not
wish to deal with. Sometimes, politicians as a class can have a
conflict of interest with the rest of their society. Sometimes,
someone will have a good idea without being able to get politicians
to take any notice of it.
Citizens must have some means of presenting good ideas to their
fellow citizens without having to get the approval of, or even in
spite of the opinions of, their chosen representatives and leaders.
And not only must they be able to present petitions, but they must
carry weight: the citizens' voice, the explicit voice of public
opinion, must prevail even over the views of the leader and the
legislature, and extend to the operation of the government.
One of the newest forms of petition is the American state
"initiative". When any US citizen makes up a petition and gets
enough people to sign it (several thousand?), it is presented as a
choice, an "initiative", on a ballot at the next state-wide
election: The entire population of the state votes "yes" or "no" to
the idea. In this way, Americans have recently sometimes been able
to pass progressive laws which sometimes their leaders and
representatives do not approve of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix: Supplemental Notes and Case
Studies
Notes on the Instant Runoff Vote
Suppose there are two rather similar candidates, for example two
conservatives. The third candidate is a lone socialist. (It can
just as easily be two socialists and one conservative, or any two
dissimilar philosophies.) The voting ratio on a simple "X" ballot
turns out as:
* Conservative
A
25%,
* Conservative B
36%
* Socialist 39%.
61% of the voters chose a conservative candidate, and yet the
socialist candidate is elected with 39% of the vote.
Ironically, Conservative B, during the election, often tells
Conservative A that he is doing society a disservice by running for
office(!), because now probably neither of them will win.
Conservative A may feel the same about Conservative B.
This situation arises routinely in Canada, often deciding which
party forms the government and helping to grant a disproportionate
number of legislative seats to the beneficiary party. The current
British Columbia provincial (state) governing party has 77 of 79
legislative seats with just over 50% of the voters choosing it, but
with most of the remaining vote "split" between two parties with
somewhat similar appeal.
With the instant runoff vote, Conservative A, with the least
votes, would be dropped after the first count. The ballots cast for
him - 25% of the ballots - are re-counted according to the voters'
second choices, after which we might find a much different end
result, with Conservative B being proven strongly favored over the
Socialist:
* Conservative
B
58%
* Socialist 42%
Proportional Representation Systems: Party List System
and Mixed Member Systems
In the Party List System, voters vote for a party rather than
for individual candidates. The parties list the persons they would
like to have in the legislature in order of preference. The seats
are allocated to each party in accordance with their percentage of
the popular vote. This is perhaps an advance on purely
constituency-based systems in that there can be societal
considerations independent of geography in the selection of some of
the representatives, and these representatives are free of dealing
with specific geographical constituency issues. On the other hand,
these "members at large" are not closely tied to the electorate:
they are selected by the political party. If one of them is
disliked by the public, there is no specific group to whom he is
responsible which could demand he step down or refuse to vote for
him in the next election, specifically, except by the entire
populace refusing to vote for the party he is in. And, this system
does not permit independent candidates, those unaffiliated with
some political party. It is the most popular form of proportional
representation, but it is often mixed with constituency voting.
In a Mixed Member system, the voter casts one vote (hopefully by
instant runoff) for his constituency representative and another for
his favored party, and a portion of the legislative seats are
allocated by each method.
In some such systems, a given number of seats are won directly
by constituency and a second block of seats by the party list
system. In others, the constituency seats are also won directly,
and additional seats are allocated to each party's list until each
is proportionately represented in accordance with the percentage of
the party vote.
Often there is a minimum threshold of 5% to 10% of the
party-list vote before a party is considered eligible to be
represented in the legislature.
Proportional Representation Systems: Multi-Member
Constituency Systems
If a given constituency has multiple members instead of a single
member, several forms of intra-constituency quasi-proportional
representation are possible. If a constituency - presumably one
five times larger - had five seats instead of one, parties or
individuals obtaining around 15% to 25% of the votes would be
likely to win one seat (20% of the seats) under any of the several
possible systems. They eliminate most of the "pot luck" of "closest
to the post" voting for a single candidate, while also giving
reasonably strong minorities and popular independent candidates a
voice in the legislature.
Multi-member constituencies can thus eliminate the need for
national-scale proportional representation voting, bringing it down
to a local level where individual candidates are better known by
reputation and more directly accountable to the electorate.
In an interest-based representation system, a multi-member
constituency could consist of the several seats available in each
voting category rather than each geographic area. The systems could
also be mixed, with interest-based voting localized within larger,
more geographically significant constituencies.
Proportional Voting Systems for Multi-Member
Constituencies
One intra-constituency proportional representation election
system is party list voting as above. The party lists would only
include candidates within the constituency, for example there would
be up to five names on each party's list in a five member
constituency. Again, the element of directly electing individuals
is missing.
Another quasi-proportional method is called cumulative voting.
The voters are permitted the number of "X" votes that there are
seats to be filled, for example, five in a five seat constituency,
to be allocated in any desired manner. Major parties will have up
to five candidates running; smaller parties might have just one.
Thus, the larger number of votes cast for the major parties may be
split between the five, whereas the fewer voters for a small party,
or for a talented individual not in any party, may cast up to all
five "X"es for the same candidate, giving him a much better chance
of winning one of the five seats. This method is simple for the
voter and easy to count. It has the advantages of being direct,
individual candidate oriented rather than party based, and of the
voter having refined power of choice, able to cast additional votes
for someone he strongly prefers or to spread his votes among
several whom he knows and likes more or less equally well. It also
lends itself easily to worthy citizens being granted additional
voting power, taking the form of extra permitted "X"es for those
voters.
Limited voting systems are similar, but one is only permitted
half the number of "X" votes as there are seats to be elected, eg,
two in the five member constituency. This may be intended to limit
the voter's ability to push too strongly for one minority
candidate.
Perhaps a better way to "fine-tune" the system to remove an
unfair bias towards minority candidates (if any is shown to exist)
is to place a limit on the number of "X"es allowed for any one
candidate - perhaps 4, 3 or 2. One could then even go the opposite
direction and permit more "X"es than there are seats, say seven or
eight, so voters could select up to five candidates but still cast
(1 to 3) extra votes for their favorite(s). This would give voters
the most refined power of choice, to support each desired candidate
more or less strongly according to preference.
The cumulative voting system is used in Canada for selecting
several members from a list of candidates in local school board
trustee and civic aldermanic elections, with the number of "X"es
being equal to the number of seats to be won, and with a strict
limit of one "X" per candidate. Here, owing to this voting system,
individual candidate qualifications are usually dominant over party
politics.
A third basic system is to have voting by instant runoff
balloting with the voters ranking all the candidates, the top five
winning after whatever number of counts has granted them a
threshold somewhere below 20% of the vote (100% / 5 seats = 20%)
after eliminating the least chosen one by one in each count. As
applied to multiple winner ridings, this is also called the single
transferable vote system. However, the voters might be faced with a
difficult task: if there were six parties each running five
candidates in a five member riding, they would have to rank all 30
candidates by number from first choice to 29th. It must be
difficult for all the voters to make themselves familiar with so
many people, and even to fill out the ballot without making
accidental mistakes! It's probably better to use a system like
cumulative voting where people can just pick their favorite(s), and
which will probably provide quite similar end results.
Nevertheless, several countries currently use this system.
*
*
*
* *
Canada - Combining the Legislative and Executive
Branches of Government
Society carries on under any type of government, but it may be
instructive to examine how the organizational forms or the
governing techniques of a country may sometimes be an unrecognized
factor causing ongoing political and social problems.
Canada and other countries using the British Parliamentary
System effectively combine the executive and legislative branches
of their governments. The leader of the largest legislative
political party becomes executive head of the government, the
"prime minister" or premier. He chooses his cabinet of other
"ministers" from the elected members of parliament as a president
would select his staff and is free to replace them
at any time, so they rarely risk serious dispute with him.
Likewise, the members of his party, almost always well over half of
the parliament owing to the non-proportional, single X-ballot
election system, risk their political careers to vote against their
leader. Thus, the prime minister controls both the executive and
the legislature, and so can almost automatically count on the
support of all those he needs agreement from to effect any
legislation or action, giving him almost dictatorial powers. Only
when his plans and ideas are so repugnant that he risks a voting
revolt by his own party is his power limit reached.
And his combined power interferes further with the legislative
body: First, parliament is convened in accordance with the Prime
Minister's own, usually executive, agenda. Then, all proposals for
bills not originating from the governing executive cabinet,
so-called "private member's bills", require unanimous consent by
parliament to even be discussed, so they almost never are. This is
necessary to effectively expedite executive business and prevent
paralysis of action. By combining legislative and executive
functions, the executive branch has usurped the independent power
of the legislative branch to legislate. Or is it the other way
around?: The "executive branch" members were elected as
legislators: Canadians as a whole do not choose the prime minister,
except by electing members of his party as their representatives,
regardless of their fitness as legislators.
Canadians accept this unsatisfactory but familiar state of
affairs as normal, as do most citizens living under most
governmental systems. But in countries where the executive and
legislative branches are properly separated, the president has no
power or right to tell the legislature when they may meet and what
they may talk about and vote on, and there would be outrage if he
tried.
France - Separation of Powers
France also had a mixed legislative and executive government
branch. And owing to a fairer voting system, there are many parties
in the French parliament and no single party can gain a clear
majority of the seats. This creates a very different situation: the
Prime Minister could never be sure of gaining enough voting support
in the legislature for anything he tried to do. An endless
succession of weak French governments were formed and then resigned
after their bills failed to pass.
In a confusing governmental crisis in the 1950's that could
easily have resulted in a military government, people turned to
Charles de Gaulle for direction. He surprised everyone by creating
a new separate elected position, President of France. Now there is
someone who can act as necessary, independently of the
deliberations of the French legislature. It took many decades of
democratic political turmoil before someone finally grasped this
essential solution, and it has been slow to spread to other
"parliamentary" countries.
British Columbia - Petitions
In Canada's province of British Columbia, a system for
petitioning was instituted by the legislature about ten years ago.
If a petition meets the conditions and has enough signatures, it
will be presented for a public vote at the next provincial
election, and if it passes, the legislature is obligated to pass
laws to give it effect.
But owing to the strict terms and short time period within which
an immense number of signatures must be collected from all across
the province (which is 360,000 square miles), all efforts to bring
a petition even close to the voting stage have proven doomed to
failure - even a major petition by an important, organized
political party to initiate a proportional representation voting
system. It would seem the petitioner must essentially prove that
the petition would easily win if voted on, without any resources to
conduct such an unofficial election, instead of simply having to
show that there are enough people interested to make the issue
worthy of bringing to a public vote when a regular election is
taking place.
Though unusable in its current form, this endorsement of the
fundamental right to petition could easily become a real democratic
asset if the terms for petitioning were made reasonable.
levelCMS