Perhaps a Better Electoral System?
This was supposed to be a part of the earlier post about a possibly better political system, but I decided to turn it into a separate post while I was writing that one. Thought I’d be able to pay more attention to it this way, make it more detailed… Considering my current mental state, that seems highly unlikely, but I’ll try to write it anyway. It might not make much sense though.
The citizens of many countries show an increased disinterest in voting and many of those who do vote tend to be uninformed or otherwise unfit to make such a decision for all. A part of this is caused by politicians and another by the people, but I think the voting system is somewhat responsible for the situation as well. Changing the general “quality” of the politicians is hard and changing that of the voters is even harder, so we could get to that a little later, but the voting system could be modified in such a way as to improve the outcome pretty quickly.
These suggestions are based on a democratic system, so they don’t solve the problems inherent to it, the most important being its tendency to turn into a tyranny of the majority, but I already said that politics are less important than actually getting things done, so we could get around to solving those problems later.
The first thing to do would be to turn voting into a privilege, make it no longer be a right. People tend to pay less attention to the things they’re entitled to, so requiring them to earn the right to vote could make them become more interested in it, plus that it would get rid of those who are uninformed or otherwise unfit for such a task. It’d also be interesting to see how many of those who currently refuse to vote would start protesting if this right that they currently make a point of ignoring would suddenly be taken away from them.
This could probably be accomplished by making everyone take a brief test before being allowed to cast their vote. That test could involve asking the people to name three relatively significant candidates and at least two important differences between them. If there wouldn’t be at least three relatively significant candidates, the people could be required to describe the differences between the top two candidates in greater detail. People who fail to answer these questions or who show an obvious bias towards one party or candidate, such as by giving only positive traits for them and only negative traits for the others, should not be allowed to vote.
Since everyone would normally be aware of the existence of the test, they should know what they want to answer and therefore it would be completed quickly. But some separate rooms would be required, as well as additional personnel, because the test would obviously need to be written, so people won’t be able to just repeat what the person ahead of them said. This would increase the expenses and space requirements, but I think it’d be well worth it. The written test would also prove that those who want to vote know how to read and write, which I believe should be an obvious requirement, though now some illiterate people are “herded” towards the voting booths by some who are in positions of authority and who often also instruct them who to vote for by showing them said party’s symbol.
The second measure would involve adding some other options for the people to choose, besides the actual candidates. This would allow people to still cast their vote even if none of the candidates please them, letting their voice be heard.
An obvious one would be “I vote for a party or candidate whose application was rejected”. In case ballots are used, there should be a space immediately below that text where those who pick this option would have to specify exactly who they mean, valid votes being only those that specify a party or candidate who actually tried to run for this round of elections but had their application rejected, regardless of reason. In case the vote is cast by electronic means, a list of the parties and candidates whose applications were rejected for that specific round of elections could appear once a voter chooses that option, so they would only need to pick which one they mean. This option would obviously only exist if there were any rejected applications. If an application was rejected it probably means that said party or candidate is not eligible for a seat regardless of the number of votes they could earn from voters who choose this option, but they could automatically be allowed to run in the next elections, regardless of whether or not they meet the requirements, if they obtain at least a certain number of votes. That number could either be fixed, such as 1% of the total number of valid votes, or variable, such as requiring them to obtain more votes than the party or candidate who was allowed to run and ranked last. On the other hand, if a party or candidate who wasn’t allowed to run would somehow win the elections thanks to the voters who made use of this option, then the elections would have to be repeated and they would be allowed to run.
Another option could be “I vote for anarchy”. This is a pretty dangerous one though, seeing as people could just pick it as a way of saying that they’re dissatisfied with the way things are going, or just because they’re rebels without a cause. If this option wins then there would have to be a referendum, but even so I’m saying it’s dangerous because if it’d win that vote as well then it would really need to be implemented, and people are very far from being able to govern themselves. However, when it comes to sending representatives somewhere, such as to the European Parliament, it could be replaced with a “don’t send anyone” option and it could work rather well even if the majority would choose it and then confirm their choice in the following referendum (as there would still be one), simply causing the country, region or group to refuse to send any representatives, at least until the next elections. If this option would win a round of elections but lose in the following referendum, however, all the votes for it would be considered as “invalid” and all other percentages recalculated accordingly, without any need to repeat the elections.
And I left the most common suggestion for last, namely a “none of the above” option. If this would be chosen by the majority, the elections would have to be repeated and the candidates that received less than a certain number of votes would not be allowed to run again. That number could either be fixed, such as 10% of the total number of valid votes, or variable, such as one fifth of the number of “none of the above” votes. But even those who would be allowed to run again should think twice about it, because if the majority would once again pick “none of the above” then all those who ran both times would be banned either from running for any public office for a few years or for that specific office for up to ten years. In case the vote would be for party lists and not for individual candidates, only those placed on what would be considered to be “eligible positions”, as determined by an official report released before the elections, would be affected by these restrictions. In case most voters would pick “none of the above” the second time as well, then the elections would be repeated yet again and this option would be removed. In this case, eligible candidates would be only those who didn’t run at all in the first two rounds and those who ran only in one of them and received enough votes to allow them to run again. Also, the number of seats available to them would be greatly reduced, as a significant percentage of them would be reserved for members of non-governmental organizations and other activists, which would require changes in the electoral colleges. In case the elections are for a single position and the previous statement can’t apply, an additional position would be created so a member of a non-governmental organization or another important activist would be able to work very closely with the elected person for the duration of their term. Who would fill those seats or occupy that position shouldn’t be the government’s problem, even a rotation system being completely acceptable.
