Reflection: Voting

In looking at the way the voting system works, several problems arose that gave thought to how a better model might be introduced.

Perhaps if it were not compulsory to express more than one's top preference, or top two, or three, or however many preferences you'd prefer. What if you didn't like any other parties? I find that after I've voted for my favourite party I then work backwards, starting with the party I dislike the most until the ballot sheet is filled. Then I read what I have written as my number 2 preference and think Really? That's the next best thing? I then realise that there's a rather large gap between my top two preferences. The next best thing is really just the party I hate the least out of all the others. Perhaps this kind of optional preferential voting will give the smaller parties more of a chance to compete?

Also, single member constituencies in the lower house make it possible for parties to win with less than 50% of the vote (Black 1949, 158). This in no way represents the majority of voters, and results in the "safe" and "marginal" distinction between seats. Parties then concentrate their campaigns on the marginal, undecided voters, and do not respond to public opinion in the safe areas despite the fact that less than half of the voters are represented. This intensifies party factionalism. Would multi member constituencies fix this? Perhaps we should aim for a more proportional representation of voters. Or, if voters only had to vote for their first preference, then it can be assumed that the party member with the highest number of first preference votes is deserving to win (Black 1949, 159).

Black, D. 1949. The Theory of Elections in Single-Member Constituencies. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 15 (2): 158-175.