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.