Choosing Between Voting Systems
Factors to Consider:
An electoral system to choose party candidates must satisfy some of the following requirements. Some of these criteria are contradictory, requiring trade-offs between a number of competing desires.
a) Allow for party member choice from a field candidates;
b) Provide fair and equal opportunity for all nominees to communicate with party members, so that the competitive process can sort out the best nominees;
c) Facilitate adequate scrutiny of nominees to ensure the selection of candidates whose personal qualities best fit them for legislative responsibilities and for representing constituents;
d) Be easily understood by party members;
e) Allow party members to cast a secret vote, to safeguard against improper influence;
f) Be seen as legitimate – both within the party and throughout the wider public;
g) Produce a quick and conclusive result;
h) Result in electable candidates with the strongest powers of persuasion, who are attuned to the views of both party supporters and swinging voters;
i) Ensure stable and skilled party leadership, by the retention of experienced candidates or parliamentarians.
Proponents of particular voting systems argue that their preferred model is the best and all others fail to measure up. But of course there is no such thing as the “best” electoral system. No single system satisfies all possible requirements. Within a political party, one primary consideration may be the balance of power between the competing factions. In some cases Proportional systems may be chosen to share power among factions and thereby ensure party unity. In other cases Majoritarian systems may be used to ensure that selected candidates are all singing from the same songbook. In other cases, a large party membership may require a counting system which can produce a quick vote – for instance First-Past-the-Post, or Preferential, or a Points System. Sometimes geography may be influential – requiring a Proportional system to ensure balance between regions of the country. The most appropriate system for each party depends upon the requirements that are considered to be the most important.
Each party must assess the merits and disadvantages of each variety of voting system in order to choose the one most likely to satisfy its particular needs.
One common practice is for party candidates to be selected using the same method under which they will then contest a seat in parliament. The advantage of this practice is that it provides party members will advance practice of how to scrutineer or count votes in the public system. However this is not a wise choice. A careful selection of candidate is more important than a mere practice-run for party scrutineers. Foremost thought should be given to the criteria listed above.
At a national level, First-Past-the-Post systems are the most popular. At the turn of the millenium it was used in 68 out of 211 nation-states and related territories - giving them 32 percent of the total. Proportion systems are next most common – found in 66 nation-states and territories (31 percent). But when it comes to people, First-Past-the-Post systems are used in countries which contain almost twice as many people as those in Proportional Representation countries. The 1.8 billion total for FPP is inflated by India (913 million) and the United States (263 million), but this system is also used by many tiny Caribbean and Oceanian islands as well. The largest country that uses Proportional Representation is Indonesia with 191 million people, but it is predominantly a system used by middle-sized Western European, Latin American and African countries.
Available Systems:
The menu of voting systems available includes the following. Click below to read about the advantages and disadvantages of each, and the mechanics of how they work. In each of these linked pages, there are constitutional templates - providing examples of how to express these systems in a party constitution.
First-Past-the-Post
Majoritarian
Preferential Voting (sometimes named “Alternative Voting”)
Run-off Voting (the “Second Ballot System”)
Proportional Voting
Single Transferable Vote system.
Points system.
Computerised Operations:
The complexity of proportional systems can be overcome by using computerised voting.
Over the last thirty years, various voting machines have been developed using the available technology. In the 1950s and 1960s, punch-card machine systems were developed. Voters punched cards (with a supplied punch device) opposite the candidates' names they selected. The cards were placed into a sealed ballot box and, after the polls closed, tabulated by card counters. In the 1970s, optical-scanners were developed to read the marked votes on ballot papers and calculates vote totals. These systems can count ballots as they are deposited, or after the polls close. More recently, a new type of system, called the Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system has been developed. This system records votes by means pushing buttons. Once the voter has made his ballot selections, the device processes the data and can produce a printout for the voter of their vote.
But, as with any vote counting process, it is crucial that checks and balances be built into any computerized counting system. Clear audit trails should be in place to track the progress of the count. Balancing figures should be used to check that output results are consistent with inputs. For example, it should not be possible to calculate a total vote figure for any level of counting that is higher than the number of ballot papers issued to voters at that level.
Data entered into a vote counting system should always be checked against the original input data. This can be done by checking figures after data entry against the input documents, or by entering each set of data twice, using different operators.
Contingency plans should also be built into any computerized vote counting system. Data should be regularly backed up (and stored off-site if the counting proceeds for some time). Spare hardware should be available in case of hardware failure. Where a network server is used, it is common to have a mirror server set up that can take over if the main server fails. Technicians should be on hand if problems arise. Back up power supplies should be available to guard against power failure, even in the most developed countries. Power supplies should be protected against power surges that can corrupt or destroy computer files. Even simple steps, such as regularly saving live data from RAM memory to hard disk, are sometimes overlooked, and can cause serious problems.
Due Process and Integrity
The following comments by a party volunteer are a good reminder that a party constitution is more than just the printed words on the page. This opinion piece illustrates why a living constitution requires extra ingredients: namely Party officials who administer the document must show respect for due process and must execute their roles with integrity. A constitution which is not fairly applied and consistently interpreted or upheld, is effectively dead. Without the rule-of-law within an organisation, it is easy for members to feel disgruntled and inclined to publicly complain, or to even defect from the party altogether.
"The Party Constitution, as we know, is a difficult document to understand. It is a difficult document in that, it contains so many things that are open to interpretation. It has many flaws – one of which is that it has a lot of provisions telling you what you can’t do, but it doesn’t say what happens if you do things you are not supposed to. If we are to operate effectively as an organisation, we need to have an effective set of guidelines.
However, the flaws of the Constitution not-with-standing, I can not subscribe to the point of view that is pervading the Party at the moment, that we must be “more outcome driven, not process driven.”
These words were first mentioned by the Federal Director. However, these words were mentioned in a particular context. The Director was talking about the fact that at the State Executive meeting following the release of his report, State Executive spent more time discussing an issue relating to a Local Council Preselection, and not enough time dealing with the real problems of the Party.
And he was quite right. This does not mean, however, that we throw out the rulebook, or use the Director’s comments as an excuse to disregard due process. It means that we, as branch members, must do our best to ensure that the rules are followed, so that State Executive never has to deal with issues relating to the Constitution.
I have heard too many people say recently that “well, the Party Director said this, so we don’t have to worry about the rules.”
That is, in my view, complete rubbish, and is merely an excuse used by those who wish to wilfully break the rules.
If you don't like the rules - then seek to change them - don't work outside of them. Those seeking to manipulate the results of pre-selections are very much 'outcome driven'. So much so that they can become liable for criminal charges - not to mention the very public embarrassment. When people take the rules into their own hands, the outcomes can be devastatingly damaging to the Party.
What we need to have is better education.
How many Party members actually understand the Constitution? How many have bothered to read it? The answer is not many. I believe that the Constitution Standing Committee needs to organise a series of workshops for Party members, particularly branch Presidents and Secretaries, to educate them on the basics of the Constitution.
A lot of this could be achieved by the production of simple ‘Guides to the Constitution’. People elected as preselectors should know exactly how the process works. Branch office-bearers need to know what they have to do in order to convene valid meetings. These guide documents are not difficult to produce. Plain English explanatory notes are easy to follow, and easy to understand.
Processes are important. Organisations become successful because of the importance they place on due process, and effective systems. The McDonalds production process is replicated in every store across the globe. It is a proven system which is consistently followed because it works.
Our party members should feel proud of our Party’s Constitution, but they can only have confidence in the document when those in positions of power understand it, respect it and enforce it.
The challenge awaits us."
The Power of One
Candidates can win or lose by one vote:
* 1653 one vote made Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of England;
* 1776 one vote gave America the English language instead of German;
* 1875 one vote changed France from a monarchy to a republic;
* 1923 one vote gave Hitler the leadership of the Nazi Party;
* 1971 one vote (his own) cost John Gorton the Prime Ministership of Australia.