A significant
deficiency of
the current
Presidential
nomination
process is that
voters are only
permitted to
vote for one
candidate – the
candidate that
is their top
choice – without
regard for their
views regarding
any of the other
candidates. This
may create a
situation in
which the choice
of the nominee
does not take
full account of
voters’
preferences.
Consider a
situation where
six candidates
are running for
a party’s
nomination. Most
of the party’s
members think
that Candidate Q
would be a poor
choice, but Q
also has strong
support among
20% of the
voters in a
given primary.
The other 80% of
voters favor one
of the other
candidates just
slightly over
the remaining
four – but all
80% of them
would rather
have anyone
except Q get
the nomination.
On the day of
the primary, the
five other
candidates split
the 80% of
voters among
themselves
evenly – with
each candidate
getting 16% of
the vote – while
Q gets 20% of
the vote and
wins. Voting
limited to one’s
top choice can
result in the
least
favored
candidate
ultimately
winning the
nomination.
A similar
situation occurs
in the general
elections, when
some voters are
warned not to
support a third
party candidate
for fear of
“throwing their
votes away.” Let
us say that
there are three
candidates – X,
Y, and Z – and
60% of the
voters are
strongly opposed
to Candidate X –
a candidate from
one of the two
major parties.
But of those
60%, 35% favor
Candidate Y from
the rival major
party while 25%
favor Candidate
Z. In the
general
elections as
they are
(assuming that
the electoral
vote roughly
mirrors the
popular vote),
Candidate X
would win with
40% of the vote
– unless
supporters of Y
can persuade the
supporters of Z
to vote for Y
instead – even
though Y might
be far less
representative
of those voters’
principles and
interests. This
can often turn
into a case
where the best
becomes the
enemy of the
good (or the
enemy of a
moderate evil
that stands
opposed to a
greater evil).
Unnecessary
antagonisms
arise among
people who might
otherwise be
committed to the
same essential
political goals.
Fortunately, an
instrument
exists to
resolve these
difficulties –
the preferential
ballot. The
principle behind
preferential
voting is
simple: a voter
rank-orders his
preferences for
all the
candidates
running –
selecting his
first choice,
second choice,
third choice –
and so forth,
all the way to
his last choice.
Then, if there
are N candidates
running, he will
give (N-1) votes
to his first
choice, (N – 2)
votes to his
second choice,
(N – k) votes to
his kth choice,
and 0 votes to
his last choice.
This means that
each voter will
have a total of
N(N - 1)/2 votes
to allocate
among the N
candidates
running.
Alternatively,
voters might be
allowed to
choose to
allocate any
number of the
N(N - 1)/2 votes
they have to any
candidate on the
ballot, thereby
expressing the
strength of
their
preferences for
some candidates
over others. The
votes for each
candidate will
be added from
all the ballots
cast, and the
candidate with
the highest
number of votes
wins the
election.
The preferential
voting system
will enable
candidates of
like mindsets to
cooperate with
one another
instead of
trying to
undermine one
another. For
instance, if
candidate Y
wishes to
significantly
reduce
affirmative
action programs
while candidate
Z wishes to
abolish
affirmative
action programs
altogether, each
of these two
candidates can
advise the
voters to put
the other
candidate second
on their ballots
– while giving a
lower ranking to
candidate X, who
wishes to
expand
affirmative
action programs.
Both Y and Z
would still like
to
personally win
the nomination,
but they are far
likelier to
reduce their
rhetoric against
one another and
instead to focus
on defeating X.
But in a
single-vote
system, Y and Z
would have the
strongest
incentive to
demolish one
another
first, often to
X’s advantage.
Preferential
balloting will
also largely do
away with the
“wasted vote”
argument. If a
voter favors a
third-party
candidate but
still prefers
one of the major
party candidates
over the other,
he can
rank-order those
candidates
accordingly –
thereby not only
voting his
conscience but
also helping
prevent the
greater evil
from winning.
More people will
be inclined to
vote for
third-party
candidates under
this system,
leading to
increased
political
competition and
lowered barriers
to entry for
those wishing to
run for
political
office. Vigorous
competition will
render
politicians more
accountable to
the voters; they
will need to
work harder to
maintain their
offices – since
they will be
unable to rely
on the
designation of
“lesser evil” to
protect them
from losing the
election.
Furthermore,
the prevalence
of a status quo
in which the
major parties
are
near-replicas of
one another will
be impossible
under
preferential
balloting. More
intense
competition and
greater variety
in the political
principles of
candidates will
enable more
effective and
innovative ideas
to have their
day in the
voting booth.
Voters’
preferences are
more complicated
than just a
single choice
among several
options.
Economic theory
teaches us that
customers
rank-order their
preferences for
various goods
and services on
the market.
Similarly,
voters already
rank-order their
preferences for
various
political
candidates in
their minds. It
is only fair to
allow the full
extent of these
preferences to
have a bearing
on the outcome
of a
Presidential
nomination or a
general
election.
Improving
the Presidential Nomination Process: Voting by Preferential Ballot