Contact UsSearch
Click for Search Instructions
Home > Get Involved

Submission STIRLING-0048 (Online)

Submission By Ian W Stirling
AddressNorth Vancouver, BC,
Organization
Date20040108
CategoryDemocratic elections, Electoral system change, Other
Abstract
Many voters believe current voting systems fail to provide them with real control over elected officials & government policies.  This can be remedied by providing additional ways for voters to express dissatisfaction with candidates. [3 pages]

Submission Content
Many voters believe current voting systems fail to provide them with real control over elected officials and government policies.  There are a number of potential voting reforms that should be relatively simple to implement and would only require additional effort by the voters when they are dissatisfied with the way the voting process is currently working in their constituencies.

Problem:   All "one shot" voting systems attempt to combine two incompatible objectives:

1. Assessing the performance of the incumbent during their previous term of office.

2. Assessing the promises of the other candidates regarding the upcoming term of office. 
Solution: The first stage of the election process should be a single question referendum related to the suitability of the incumbent to stand for re-election, framed as follows: "The current incumbent should be denied the right to run in the upcoming election." If more that 50% of the total number of constituents who voted in the previous election turn out and vote to deny; then the incumbent would not be permitted to stand as a candidate in the upcoming election. This would eliminate any incumbent who had alienated a majority of his constituents badly enough that they would be prepared to turn out and vote to exclude the incumbent in the pre-election referendum.  

Problem:   None of the candidates running for election in the constituency is an acceptable choice.

Solution: At the bottom of the list of candidates on each ballot should be a choice for voters to elect "None of the Above". Whenever "None of the Above" wins the election, then another election would be scheduled in which all the failed candidates were excluded. This reform would allow voters to protest directly against manipulated, unrepresentative and biased candidate selection lists.  Voters selecting this option would automatically become members of a “Virtual Opposition Party” which would occupy no actual seats; but would be counted as voting against the governing party in every vote.   

Problem:   FPP elections produce unanticipated and unwanted results. For example, in a three way race where a candidate who is the last choice of 66% of voters still wins the election with 34% of the vote. 

Solution: Shortly after each election an automatic confirmation referendum would be held in every constituency with the following question: "Do you want another vote held in your constituency?" If more that 50% of the total number of constituents who voted in the election turn out to vote "YES"; then there would be another election in a fixed period (perhaps 4 weeks). Any voter who was satisfied that the results were the best that could be expected would not actually need to vote in this referendum - it would only be necessary to take part if you felt the outcome could be improved by another election. In effect, no candidate would be elected until they had won at least a plurality AND passed a no confidence vote.  

Problem:   Elected officials fail to perform satisfactorily. 

Solution: Each year on the anniversary of the previous election, an automatic referendum would be held in each constituency with the single following question: "Do you want a new election held in your constituency?" If more that 50% of the total number of constituents who voted in the previous election now voted "YES"; then there would be another election in a fixed period (perhaps 4 weeks). Again, any voter who was satisfied that the current officeholder was the best that could be expected would not need to vote in the referendum.  

Problem:   The legislative strength of elected officials does not reflect their level of voter support. For example, a legislator elected by 50,000 voters and one elected by 5,000 voters both have a single vote in the legislature. 

Solution: Graduated voting by legislators to allow each legislator one vote for each vote that they received in the election. Electronic voting in legislatures now makes managing a variable numbers of votes per legislator feasible. 

Problem:   Voters who support unsuccessful candidates have 'wasted' their votes and will have no influence in the legislature. 

Solution: All votes cast for unsuccessful candidates would be assigned to a pool for the unsuccessful candidate's party. The votes in the pool would then be distributed to the party's successful candidates in proportion to the successful candidate's share of the total party vote. For example, if a successful candidate received 8% of the votes cast for his party's successful candidates; then that candidate would be assigned 8% of the votes in their party's unsuccessful voter pool. This reform will give candidates an incentive to consider the broader interests of their party and its supporters outside their own constituency.   Whenever the electoral process succeeds in electing an adequate person from an acceptable list of candidates; then these reforms would require no additional effort on the part of voters. Non-participation in the pre or post election referendums is the equivalent of accepting the status quo. Only when a majority of voters is dissatisfied to the point of turning out to vote in the referendums would additional elections be invoked.  

© 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral ReformSite powered by levelCMSSite Map | Privacy Policy