Should there always be a winner in a political election?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Personally, I think that it were well if some elections had rules so that some electoral outcomes would end with none of the contestants winning, and the slot going empty until next election. I believe that this would be an antidote to excessive mudslinging, and force politicians to adopt electoral strategies other than "get a plurality, and forget about the rest". I also think that electoral ballots with an option "none of the above" would get up voting percentages, and make the voting public think more about their true preferences.

For example, one could have a rule set for the congressional election stating that a winner must a) garner more votes than all other canidates, including the "none of the above" alternative, and b) garner enough votes to represent some reasonable percentage of those eligble for voting in that particular election (Personally, I think " reasonable percentage would be at least 25%.) Should no canidate fulfill both criteria, then the seat will go empty untill next election - no byelection. Presidential elections with those rules would be quite a thing - imagine Karl Rove and his dem counterparts figuring out how to actually *win* such an election!

After all, epee has for a long time had a double defeat as a possible outcome, so it is not the end of the world.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[veeco]

Perhaps, but how do you do without a president until the next election comes around?

Also, I don't know if that's possible in other countries, but in France we do have a "none of the above" type of system, where you can go and vote, but put nothing in the envelope. It means that you couldn't find a candidate that suits your opinion, but still went ahead and did your civic duty. Those "blank bulletins" are counted and are shown in the results. Most of the time those blank votes don't really achieve such a high percentage.

In some cases (city council elections, in cities that are smaller than a fixed number of inhabitants) you can also vote for someone who didn't present themselves to the election. I actually remember one time in my village where someone got elected without being on the official lists. People just wrote his name on the paper and he got elected.

[D'Artag-NOT]

Peter,

I don't know anything about Sweden's governmental system, but in the United States you can't just let the Presidency go vacant for four years. The whole idea of holding an election is to determine who will hold a particular office, so yes, someone has to win, a decision must be made. It's not like a chess game where you can just stalemate.

[Monkeyboy]

Veeco, the method you describe is not the same as NONE of the above. Heres my idea: if NOTA wins the election then all parties involved must choose another candidate from within their ranks, but absulutely no one who ran before. I think with this scenareo, Ross Perot (sp?) would have had a great shot at winning, while neither Reb or Dem candidates were worth my time. I voted for Perot as a protest, as I'm sure many Americans did, and we ended up with a draft-dodger for comander in chief. How utterly tragic for a country this great.

[D'Artag-NOT]

Originally Posted by Monkeyboy

I voted for Perot as a protest, as I'm sure many Americans did, and we ended up with a draft-dodger for comander in chief. How utterly tragic for a country this great.

And think of the people who voted for Nader for President, and who we wound up getting as a Commander-in-Chief this time around.

[Soldier]

Sounds like a decent idea, we just kind of happen to need a president.

[MikeHarm]

I think you'd have a bigger turnout if you allowed people to vote against a canidate, and negate one of their votes instead of just voting for someone.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Soldier

Sounds like a decent idea, we just kind of happen to need a president.

There is something to that, but does the USA need 100 - and not 99 - senators?
My distinct impression is that Inq (for example) would rather not have Kerry for president, and epeemike (for example) would rather not have Bush as president after the upcoming election. With my suggestion, both could get their wish fulfilled. ;-)

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

There is something to that, but does the USA need 100 - and not 99 - senators?

Every state needs two. It was fundamental in the drafting of the constitution. If we only had 99, that would mean that some state would be under-represented. It might not make a huge difference to the big states like Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York, however to the states such as New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Delaware, this equal representation was crucial in their agreement to give up their sovreignty and become part of a larger nation.

The difference between 99 and 100 senators may not seem like much, but it is enough to dissolve the union.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by veeco

Perhaps, but how do you do without a president until the next election comes around?

Yes, that is the tricky part - maintaining a stable power vacuum for an extended period of time. I have thought a bit about this for some time, but have not come up with an answer covering everything. The question seems to be intrinsically hard. Anyone who can help me out here?

One dewatered solution would be that a politician who gets a plurality, but does not fullfill the criteria in my first post, would have somehow less powers one seated. Examples of this could be a president without veto powers (in most democratic countries there is no one with a personal veto, so it would work just fine.), congressmen who can not be elected to boards, congressmen who can not vote for veto overrules, there are many possibilities once you start thinking about it.

Originally Posted by veeco

Also, I don't know if that's possible in other countries, but in France we do have a "none of the above" type of system, where you can go and vote, but put nothing in the envelope. It means that you couldn't find a candidate that suits your opinion, but still went ahead and did your civic duty. Those "blank bulletins" are counted and are shown in the results. Most of the time those blank votes don't really achieve such a high percentage.

In Sweden, we also have a "blank vote" option. We do put a bill marked "blank vote" in the envelope, though. Problem is that they are of no consequence - they do not result in any seats. I think that if someone has gone to the trouble to vote in such a way, then those votes should be represented by seats held empty in the parliament. It is the minimum of fairness in my opinion, but alas, the constitution does not make it so. If those votes would be represented, they would get a few of the 349 seats in the Swedish parliament.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by D'Artag-NOT

Peter,
I don't know anything about Sweden's governmental system, but in the United States you can't just let the Presidency go vacant for four years.

First of all: In my original post I did refer to USA elections, since that is what most readers know about in reasonable detail. I did not, however, intend my suggestion to be for USA only - I think that it can be considered for any politican body.

Well, to give an idea on where I am coming from, a short rundown of the Swedish governmental system:

Sweden has a proportionally elected unicameral parliament. The multiseat constitucencies are of quite varying size (like the USA states), and the number of seats for each of them is in direct proportion to the population, adding up to 310 of the 349 seats in parliament. More on that later. We do not have anything similar to the senate in our system, only a HofRep.

The jobs of "cheif of state" and "chief of government" are held by the same person - the president - in the USA. This is quite unusual - in Sweden, as in the big majority of other democratic countries, they are separated to two different people - in our case the King and the Prime Minister.

As in many other European countries, the prime minister is not elected by the people. He is instead elected by the newly convening parliament, which also can fire him. This system prohibits legal gridlock.

The judicial branch is much weaker in Sweden than in USA. Only the top judges can declare a law unconstitutional, and even then their decision can be overturned by the other branches. Surprisingly, this has not lead to rampant misuses by the other other branches - only a few, and quite far between.

The parliament has an anti-gerrymandering rule that I think that we were first with, and is quite good IMO. Once all the constituciences have allotted the 310 seats, the 39 remaining are alloted to make the final allottment as fair is is mathematically possible.
This is done about like this: (been some time since I read up on it, so the details may be off, but the gist is right.)
1. All parties with more than 4% of the total vote get seats in direct proportion to the number of votes cast for all parties with more than 4%. Those with less than 4% get nothing.
2. The results in step #1 are rounded so that the grand total is 349. For each party the difference between the final number and the number of seats won in the 310 first is calculated, and this number is their "evening-out seat number".
3. No matter how the first 310 seats are allotted among the constituencies, there will always be one which has the lowest relative representation - seat/voter quota. The constituencies are ranked by this quota.
4. The constituency with the lowest quota gets to appoint the 1st "evening out seat", and it goes to the party which in that constituency had the lowest (won seat/votes) quota.
5. One seat is deducted from the partys "evening-out seat number", and the ranking in step #3 is redone.
6. Steps #3-5 are redone until all 349 parliamentary seats have been filled.

What is the point of this? Simple: it makes gerrymandering impossible. If the border between two constituences were changed, their relative seat number would change, and the compensation mechanism outline above would assure that the seat allotment to each party does not change with changing borders. No Texas spectacle!

When voting for parliament, each party has their own list which is then put into an envelope, no punching of holes or writing necessary. This stops Florida messes. Each list contains a party name and an ordered list of canidates, which get their seats one by one. The top ones therefore have quite safe seats, and those lower down increasing less so.

It is possible by the voter to mark an individual canidate as a personal favorite. Those canidates which get more than some %age (I forget which) of the total number of votes cast for that party in that constituency are ranked by their number of favorite markings, those who have less are ranked by their list placement. In this way, a popular canidate can bypass the listing and get voted from a low position, but the percentage is set high, so only a handful did this in the last election.

The internal ranking on a party list is something for the party to deal with, it is not regulated by any laws. We do not have primaries. In some places, there are internal guiding votes among party members, but in most places placement is a matter of seniority, preferences by local party leadership, and intraparty haggling.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[veeco]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!
In Sweden, we also have a "blank vote" option. We do put a bill marked "blank vote" in the envelope, though. Problem is that they are of no consequence - they do not result in any seats. I think that if someone has gone to the trouble to vote in such a way, then those votes should be represented by seats held empty in the parliament. It is the minimum of fairness in my opinion, but alas, the constitution does not make it so. If those votes would be represented, they would get a few of the 349 seats in the Swedish parliament.

I agree with you on the fact that blank votes do not have enough power. Even if the level of blank votes was a majority I don't think that it would affect an election's outcome.
However I disagree on your proposition that blank votes should be materialized by empty seats until next election. I don't really think it would be fair to those who vote blank that they have no one to represent them, where as those who vote for a candidate have someone. In effect, keeping blank seats means that there wouldn't be any consequences to the blank vote either, if you think about it.

A better solution, IMO, would be to void the results of the election if a certain percentage of blank votes has been achieved (i.e. more than 25%, or more than half the scores of the best 2 candidates/lists combined). When the results of the election are voided in this way, one would have to find a way to either force the current candidates to find a way to satisfy the blank voters to gain their vote next time around, or allow other candidates to join the race with another different program.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Monkeyboy

Veeco, the method you describe is not the same as NONE of the above. Heres my idea: if NOTA wins the election then all parties involved must choose another candidate from within their ranks, but absulutely no one who ran before.

One possible, but not appealing, outcome of this idea:

Both major parties field their best shot first time around, and both canidates are sent home by the voters. Then the parties field their 2nd choices, who have less crossover appeal -> NOTA gets even more votes. Repeat as many times as you want, with increasingly impossible canidates.

However, canidates have been forbidden to run, even in democratic countries, so there is precedent for your idea. Recent examples are the Lithuanian presidential byelection (previous precident forced to step down due to connections to organized crime) and the Californian governor replacement vote.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by prototoast

Every state needs two. It was fundamental in the drafting of the constitution. If we only had 99, that would mean that some state would be under-represented. It might not make a huge difference to the big states like Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York, however to the states such as New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Delaware, this equal representation was crucial in their agreement to give up their sovreignty and become part of a larger nation.

The difference between 99 and 100 senators may not seem like much, but it is enough to dissolve the union.

Well, if they get one senator less due to their own voting I don´t think that they have a leg to stand on claiming that they are underrepresented - it is of their own making. Furthermore, it is something that they can fix next election time. (Civil war II - Delaware wants to secede! )

BTW: I have read the constitution. In Sweden, all schoolchildren of foreign extraction (including me) can have lessons in the native tounge of their foreign parent (in my case: mom, she comes from California) and my parents opted for this. Mom made me read the constitution at age 10 - every word of it - and take a test. I remember being absolutely fascinated - the thought of 65 people gathering to make as fair and workable set of rules for a nation and its laws! All those people, and the focus being on fairness, not how to stick it to someone not present! (Many other constitutions have too much of that) Ever since, I have found the putting together of a fair constitution, and electoral laws, more interesting than any other political issue - and that says something, considering my political interest.

Yeah, I am strange. 10-year old fascinated by constitutional law. And I make no apologies for it.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

H

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

My distinct impression is that Inq (for example) would rather not have Kerry for president, and epeemike (for example) would rather not have Bush as president after the upcoming election. With my suggestion, both could get their wish fulfilled. ;-)

Yes, but I'm not sure we ought to be institutionalizing a system based on negative opinions, rather than positive ones---that is, voting on the basis not of which candidate you prefer but which one you want to blackball. We're close enough to that sort of thing as it is.

If only we could devise a truly incorruptible system for doing a Cincinnatus-like "draft" for our leadership...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by veeco

I agree with you on the fact that blank votes do not have enough power. Even if the level of blank votes was a majority I don't think that it would affect an election's outcome.
However I disagree on your proposition that blank votes should be materialized by empty seats until next election. I don't really think it would be fair to those who vote blank that they have no one to represent them, where as those who vote for a candidate have someone..

If those voters know the outcome of a blank vote, and chose to vote so, then I personally think that it fair that their voting wish is materialized.

Originally Posted by veeco

In effect, keeping blank seats means that there wouldn't be any consequences to the blank vote either, if you think about it..

I disagree. Empty seats in the political body would mean fewer safe seats for the canidates, which should affect their behavior during election time - more risks with mudslinging - and during the seated period - they know that angry voters have another, meybe more palatable, choice than switching to the opposition come next election.

Originally Posted by veeco

A better solution, IMO, would be to void the results of the election if a certain percentage of blank votes has been achieved (i.e. more than 25%, or more than half the scores of the best 2 candidates/lists combined). When the results of the election are voided in this way, one would have to find a way to either force the current candidates to find a way to satisfy the blank voters to gain their vote next time around, or allow other candidates to join the race with another different program.

Your solution has been implemented in several deomcratic or semi-democratic electoral laws, for example Russia and I beleive a few other east-European states. Risk is that canidates only do cosmetic changes to their programs between rounds, and voter fatigue sets in if many rounds are needed. Also, that solution would place an even larger premium on getting a lot of money, since it would be possible to win simply by attrition of one has a large enough war chest. I, for one, think that that is a bad thing.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[D'Artag-NOT]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!

does the USA need 100 - and not 99 - senators?

Peter,

Yes, we do. Our Constitution prescribes a two-house legislature--the Senate having 2 seats per State, and the House of Representatives having a number of seats determined by the population of each State. 50 States = 100 Senators. It was a compromise worked out by our country's Founders to ensure that small States have a place where they would have an equal say with the large ones.