It has been difficult over the years to explain why preferential ballots for voting is a very bad idea. The current concern is that many municipalities may be turning to this type of voting without realizing the pitfalls. The Conservative Party of Canada obviously did not let people know what could happen when they used a form of preferential balloting in the recent federal leadership voting.
The crucial point of this type of system is that it encourages the choice of the mediocre candidate. Instead of choosing an effective leader, it chooses the least annoying, most accommodating and least aggressive candidate. (Which seems a fair description of the new Conservative leader: ‘Chuckles’ Scheer.)
This preferential voting is supposed to correct the situation where a candidate in a multi-candidate race can win a first-past-the-post vote with just one more vote than anyone else. Why that is considered unfair has never been clear.
Even in run-off voting, the leading candidate in the first vote is most often the winner. In a run-off, it is also the most controversial candidate who is most likely to lose in a close vote.
Under the old first-past-the-post voting, winning in politics has always been based on the art of creating coalitions. Not everyone in your voting area is motivated by the same issues and the successful politician had to use the building blocks of multiple issues to create a winning vote.
But if you are going to win with a preferential vote, you have to be second choice to all your competitors. That is very different from a solutions-based coalition. In this situation, you have to be the nicest kid on the block. You might choose to kiss babies and help little old ladies across the street. The last thing you want to do is propose solutions that some people might oppose. You are better off being solution neutral—and loved.
-30-
Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry
Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]