July 7, 2000The Center for Voting and Democracy (www.fairvote.org) is the United
States’ leading non-partisan, non-profit organization that studies election systems
and their impact on participation, representation and governance. We have testified
on electoral system design before numerous legislative bodies and election commissions
and have assisted numerous non-government organizations with their internal elections.
We have also been monitoring closely these election issues and have participated
in forums organized by Common Cause and the Center for Democracy and Technology.
We
commend the committee’s work and applaud their efforts to solicit and consider public
comment.
We believe that the current recommendations create a framework for a successful
election process, and we offer the following comments and suggestions for further
refining the proposal for both this year’s elections and subsequent ones.
First,
if regional voting is used, we believe that THE ALTERNATIVE VOTE IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE
BALLOTING SYSTEM for selecting the winner in each district. Approval voting
has merits, and its simplicity is appealing, but it suffers from several flaws that
the alternative vote does not. It gives voters incentive to bullet vote, that
is, to vote for a single candidate rather than all candidates s/he approves of, and
it does not allow the voter to indicate intensity of support for each candidate.
Lastly, it can allow a well-organized minority to win a seat who otherwise couldn’t
manage a majority vote. This tactical consideration is counterintuitive in
light of approval voting’s obvious simplicity.
Second, the use of REGIONAL VOTING
WILL ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF FULL GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION in these 5 seats. However,
it will also lead to RESULTS THAT ARE HIGHLY DISPROPORTIONAL. The 1 in 5 voters
living outside Europe and North America will receive 3 of 5 seats, while the 4 of
5 voters living in Europe and North America will receive 2 of 5 seats.
In addition,
the use of single-member districts (one representative per district) means that up
to 49% of the voters in a district could end up being represented by someone they
strongly dislike. Combining these observations, one sees that as few as 10%
of the voters could determine the composition of 60% of the at-large seats.
The
SOLUTION TO THESE PROBLEMS IS TO USE SOME FORM OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION in
future elections, perhaps to fill the additional at-large seats.
Third, the PROPOSED
NOMINATION REQUIREMENT – SIGNATURES FROM 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS – APPEARS UNNECESSARILY
RESTRICTIVE. We support a 2% requirement combined with a minimum of 20 signatures
in regions with less than 1,000 voters and a maximum of 100 signatures in regions
with more than 5,000 voters. Such a requirement would permit the participation
of candidates with legitimate support without cluttering the field with frivolous
candidates. On the other hand, in our opinion, the 10% figure would serve as
a competitive primary election that would severely restrict the voters’ ability to
select their representative of choice.
Finally, the Center would like to formally
request to participate in the comprehensive study of the concept, structure, and
processes relating to the At Large membership that begins after the election of the
5 At Large Directors.