|
Limited Voting
The most common full
representation system currently used in the United States is limited
voting. Although its name ��� ���limited voting��� ��� conveys that voters
receive less than they do under traditional systems, limited voting
in fact ensures that more voters have an opportunity to elect
candidates of choice. How it works: In
limited voting, voters cast fewer votes than the number of
representatives being elected in a constituency. The greater the
disparity between the number of seats and the number of votes to
which voters are limited, the greater is the access for those voters
in a minority. When voters are limited to one vote ��� termed the
one vote system
��� the threshold of
inclusion is as low as with cumulative voting and choice voting. As
the number of available votes available to voters increases, the
threshold of inclusion rises. In a seven-member school board elected
with limited voting, voters might be restricted to casting only four
votes. All candidates would run against one another, and the seven
candidates with the most votes would win. By limiting the number of
votes to less than seven, it is more difficult for the voting
majority to control the outcome of all seats up for election, even
if they vote cohesively. In this example, the threshold of inclusion
would be 36% ��� well below the 50.1% threshold it takes to be sure of
winning with traditional at-large system, but much higher than the
12.5% threshold of inclusion if cumulative voting, choice voting or
the one vote system were used. Note that when voters can cast more
than one vote, the threshold of inclusion is a guide to
opportunities to elect one seat rather than as many seats as there
are votes. Thus, in the example above in which voters have four
votes to elect seven seats, 36% of voters can be sure of electing
only one out of seven seats ��� it would take 50.1% of votes to be
sure of winning a majority of four seats. There is a complex formula
in the appendix to determine the share of votes necessary to elect
more than one seat under different limited voting
arrangements. Choosing the number of
available votes: Limited voting
is particularly easy for voters in a minority when the number of
seats they should win based on their numbers corresponds with the
number of votes. If the black share of the vote in a town would
warrant about three of seven seats, for example, then it would be
best for black voters if all voters were limited to three votes, and
three candidates with strong appeal in the black community ran. The
only strategic decision necessary in such a situation would come in
organizing a team of candidates that the black community would
support. In reality, however, it may not be so easy to know what
the realistic chances will be for black voters in a given community
over a given period of time. As with cumulative voting, ongoing
strategic decisions must be made in determining how many candidates
should run and how minority voters should be urged to cast their
votes. Decisions must also be weighed about joining forces with some
non-minority voters to work together to elect a slate of candidates
��� a development for which limited voting creates incentives, but one
that has some hazards in the minority community���s ability to hold
their representatives accountable. By keeping the threshold of
inclusion low, the one vote system provides the most flexibility,
but only if the black community can be disciplined in recruiting the
right number of candidates and organizing voters to spread their
votes among them. Typically, candidates are nominated with a strong
neighborhood base, so that if the black community were seeking to
elect more than one seat with the one vote system, most black voters
in one part of town would be urged to vote for a minority-backed
candidate from their neighborhood, while black voters in another
part of town would be asked to support a candidate from their
neighborhood. Sometimes in partisan elections
limited voting is combined with limited nomination ��� meaning that
political parties are limited to nominating fewer candidates than
representatives to be elected. Limited voting with limited
nomination
is required of
all at-large city council elections in Connecticut, including
Hartford, and is used for city council elections in Philadelphia and
many Pennsylvania counties. Limited nomination without limited
voting is used to elect four at-large seats to the Washington, D.C.
city council. Having limited nomination without limited voting is
not a system of full representation; it ensures that candidates from
more than one party will be elected, but does not prevent the
majority party from controlling which candidate from the minority
party is elected. One of limited voting's clear advantages is that
ballot-counting is very easy ��� all ballot equipment now in use can
handle limited voting. One obvious disadvantage is that people
initially can perceive that their franchise is being ���limited.��� Even
though people are limited to one vote in a single-member district
system, there is a different perception when they cannot vote for
all candidates who might end up directly representing them. Where
limited voting has been used over a long time, this perception does
not seem to be a problem ��� as in Japan, where the one vote system is
used for nearly all city elections, and in many Connecticut and
Pennsylvania localities��� but it requires development of a different
understanding of representation and legislative
accountability. Since 1987, limited voting has been adopted in more
than 20 localities in North Carolina and Alabama to settle voting
rights cases. In 1995, Texas passed a law allowing school districts
to convert to limited voting and cumulative voting. Limited voting
generally has been successful in electing minority-backed candidates. Choice
Voting
Table of
Contents |
