|
Choice Voting
Choice voting is the fairest of
the three full representation systems described in this manual, but
also the most complicated to describe. The voters’Äô job at least is
easy ’Äì simply ranking candidates in order of choice: ’Äú1’Äù for their
first choice, ’Äú2’Äù for their second choice and so on until they have
no preference among the remaining candidates. That simple ranking of
candidates enables a ballot-counting process that makes choice
voting the only fully ’Äúproportional’Äù voting system used in the
United States. Being ’Äúproportional’Äù means that like-minded
groupings of voters are certain to win seats in close approximation
to their share of the vote ’Äì at least as long as enough candidates
run for office and as long as voters know to rank the candidates
they like in order of preference. When used in a partisan setting,
choice voting typically will result in parties winning seats in
direct proportion to their support among voters ’Äì 20% of the vote
will win 20% of seats, 40% of the vote will win 40% of seats and so
on. When used in a racially polarized community, choice voting
typically results in racial groupings winning seats in direct
relation to their support among voters ’Äì with that fair result of
course depending on equal rates of voter participation and cohesion.
By creating incentives for voters to consider and rank candidates
outside their race or their party, choice voting also encourages
more coalition-building than other full representation systems. How it works:
Choice voting is sometimes called the ’Äúsingle transferable
vote’Äù or ’Äúpreference voting,’Äù both of which help explain the system.
Voting is literally as easy as 1, 2, 3, but tabulating ballots is
more complicated. Each voter has a single vote (as with the one vote
system) but ranking candidates in order of preference gives voters
more chances to cast an ’Äúeffective vote’Äù (one that elects someone).
Your vote ’Äútransfers’Äù to your next choice ’Äì meaning that it counts
for that choice ’Äì if your vote for your first choice does not help
that candidate win. Choice voting eliminates wasted votes because
ballots are neither ’Äúwasted’Äù on ’Äúsure winners’Äù nor on ’Äúsure losers.’Äù
To determine winners, the minimum number of votes necessary for a
candidate to earn office is established ’Äì this "victory threshold"
is the same as the threshold of inclusion as provided by cumulative
voting and the one vote system. After tallying voters’Äô first
choices, candidates who have reached the victory threshold are
elected. Any votes beyond that threshold do not remain with that
candidate, however, as doing so would lead to votes being ’Äúwasted.’Äù
(For example, imagine a very popular candidate winning 51% of
first-choices votes in an election for five seats. If all those
votes remained with that one candidate, then a majority of voters
would have only elected one seat, and the remaining 49% of voters
would have elected the other four seats in violation of the
principle of majority rule.) Thus, ’Äúsurplus’Äù votes beyond the
winning threshold are allocated to second choice candidates as
indicated on each voter’Äôs ballot (there are different methods of
allocating these votes). If there are more seats to elect and all
remaining candidates are below the winning threshold, then the
candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. All of his/her
ballots are distributed among the remaining candidates according to
the voters’Äô preferences listed on those ballots. This process of
redistributing ballots and tallying votes continues until all seats
are filled. (See chart in appendix.) History of providing
strong representation:
The history of choice voting in the United States
and other nations provides clear evidence that it boosts minority
representation. When used to elect the New York city council in five
elections from 1937 to 1945, it elected the council’Äôs first black
member, Adam Clayton Powell. When used to elect Cincinnati’Äôs city
council from 1925 to 1955, the black community was very successful
in achieving a fair share of representation and ultimately being
wooed by both major parties despite being less than 20% of the adult
population at the time. Choice voting’Äôs success in providing
representation to racial and ethnic minorities in local school board
elections in New York City led to the Department of Justice in 1999
refusing to preclear a statute that would have replaced it with a
limited voting system because of choice voting’Äôs strong record of
providing strong representation to African Americans, Asian Pacific
Americans and Latinos. Choice voting is particularly good in complex
electorates like New York City because it creates incentives for all
significant racial groups to run candidates and for candidates to
reach out to voters from other racial groups. The major drawback for
choice voting is that jurisdictions can have difficulty in tallying
the ballots. After World War II, that difficulty, combined with the
hostility of some majority communities who were concerned about
representation of racial and political minorities, reversed what had
been a clear trend toward choice voting. Cambridge, Massachusetts is
the only holdover from nearly two-dozen cities that used choice
voting early in the 20th century, including Cleveland, Sacramento
(Calif.) and Worcester (Mass). Choice voting has provided steady
representation of racial minorities on the Cambridge city council
and school committee since the 1950's. With the rise of new
ballot-counting technologies that can eliminate the need for a
hand-count, choice voting has gained renewed attention. In 1997,
Cambridge converted to an electronic ballot count that makes the
ballot-count quick and easy. Charter commissions in the late 1990s
recommended choice voting in Kalamazoo (Mich.) and Pasadena (Calif.)
Ballot initiatives to adopt choice voting won overwhelming support
from black voters in Cincinnati and San Francisco in the 1990s, but
both efforts fell short, gaining 45% of the vote.
Addressing Common
Concerns about Full Representation Systems
Table of
Contents |
