Jeremy Chen/

The Elected Presidency is an office where the President is directly elected by the people. In our current elections, there are four “approved” candidates, which makes it tough for a single candidate to garner more than 50% of the electoral vote in a First-Past-the-Post (a.k.a. one-man-one-vote) voting system. With 50% being the default standard for “having the mandate of the people”, this poses some difficulties.

The objective of a voting system, at least for this election, is to measure the mandate of the people. While First-Past-the-Post has been widely used in Singapore and elsewhere, it does not make sense in this setting. This is because an individual may support more than one of the candidates to be President. This would certainly be likely in a situation where all candidates have been screened for suitability. As such, first-past-the-post is the wrong tool for measuring the mandate of the people.

Enter Approval Voting. Approval Voting is a system where voters indicate all the candidates that they would support for a position. That is to say each candidate is rated with either “Approve” or “Do Not Approve”. The candidate with the highest number of approvals wins the election. Based on this description alone, one might conclude that Approval Voting:

(i) is straightforward and comprehensible,
(ii) is simple to implement given our present electoral practices,
(iii) removes (or at least greatly reduces) personal dilemmas of choosing between two or more favored candidates, and
(iv) directly measures mandate of people.

A further minor feature is that Approval Voting may increase the percentage of valid votes. This is because a voter may approve of all or none of the candidates available, reducing the incentive to destroy one’s vote. In addition, Approval Voting has good theoretical properties, which the interested reader may look up. The property of “truthfulness”, in particular, is described in the Annex below.

Approval Voting is a good voting system and should receive consideration for subsequent elections. In parliamentary elections, it would mean that multiple opposition parties will be able to contest in a constituency without fear of splitting the opposition vote. But foremost should be the fact that Approval Voting directly measures the mandate of the people.

Approval Voting is already in used by bodies such as the Mathematical Association of America and the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. In the selection of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, rounds of preliminary approval polling are used to build consensus before a formal vote is held in the Security Council.

As such, there is a strong argument for exploring Approval Voting for use in future elections. More generally, it makes sense to form a committee to re-examine our voting system and make a recommendation on whether or not it should be changed, and if so, to what system. Such a committee might contain senior public servants, representatives from major political parties and academics who are familiar with the properties of various voting systems.

Annex on the “Truthfulness” of Approval Voting:

Under a reasonable model of preferences, it can be mathematically proven that Approval Voting ensures voters need not misrepresent their preferences on the ballot to pursue an election outcome they prefer. We say that “truthful voting” is an optimal response for each voting individual.

Specifically, the model of preferences referred to is one where individuals either support or do not support each candidate. Each candidate in the “Approved” category are equally supported, and all candidates that are in the “Not Approved” category are equally un-supported. This is known in the literature as “dichotomous preferences”. This is a realistic model of the “voter thinks candidate is suitable for position” and “voter thinks candidate is not suitable for position” dichotomy.

What I mean by “misrepresenting preferences” is best illustrated by an example from the USA. In the 2000 US Presidential Elections (using First-Past-the-Post), the front-runners were Al Gore (Democratic Party), George Bush (Republican Party) and Ralph Nader (Green Party). The final outcome was that Nader got 2.74% of the popular vote and Bush (47.87% of the popular vote) won by a razor thin margin only through the electoral college versus Gore’s 48.38% of the popular vote (yes, Gore had more votes). If one were a Green Party supporter, one would typically favor the Democrat platform far over the Republican platform. Thus though one would prefer Nader to Gore to Bush in that order, since the election results in just one winner, it would be strategically sensible to vote Gore even though one preferred Nader. Such misrepresentations of preferences, which can occur in first-past-the-post elections with more than two candidates, represents a distortion in the electoral poll which may have unpredictable results.

While the assumed model of preferences which generates “truthful voting” is wrong, as all models are (to any given voter, not all Tans are equal), approve/do not approve is a reasonable approximation. At the very worst, when inter-candidate preference effects are strong in the extreme, Approval Voting produces exactly the same result as First-Past-the-Post, with each voter approving only their most preferred candidate.

As a matter of personal preference, I believe it is sensible to encourage “truthful”, “non-strategic voting” among voters. This is very much akin to asking someone to talk straight and direct.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Minister Amy Khor: Social enterprise management model brings “vibrancy” to hawker centres

In the midst of the public uproar over some of the extra…

罗厘脚车争道 司机否认撞骑士

遭脚车骑士挡道,罗厘司机鸣笛示意对方让路,骑士也不满地打落罗厘的左侧镜,自己随后也被撞倒在路旁草坪上。 但是在面控时,罗厘司机却表示自己没有触碰到脚踏车,否认涉及鲁莽驾驶。 有关事件发生于去年12月22日,当时58岁的张胜仲,和35岁的英国籍脚车骑士张豪宇,在巴西立第三通道和巴西立坡交界处发生冲突,两人在事后,于今年1月皆被控上庭。 然而张胜仲面对的控状,于今年三月份,遭控方将从原本的“疏忽行为”修改为更严重的“鲁莽驾驶”,指控他突然左转罗厘并撞上脚车司机,导致对方自脚车上摔下,倒在草坪上。 据《刑事法典》,疏忽行为导致他人生命受危害可被判入狱不超过六个月、或罚款不超过2500元、或两者兼施;而鲁莽驾驶刑法则是疏忽行为的一倍,即罚款不超过5000元、入狱不超过一年、或两者兼施。 供证人指罗厘曾越界 张胜仲表示不认罪,并且没有接触到脚踏车,只是查案人员陈俊严指出,张胜仲所驾驶的罗厘当时曾一度越过分界线,再从隔壁车道左转向脚踏车骑士。 身为控方第一个供证人的陈俊严也法庭上投放出三段行车记录的画面,以证实其说辞。 惟,张胜仲的代表律师对此表示,其被告人当时听到类似有东西被压碎的声音,而且也听到右边德士鸣笛,以为已经撞到德士了,所以才左转。 而张胜仲始终坚持,他的罗厘并没有和脚踏车接触。 另外,张胜仲也因为没有在事发24小时内报案,因此触犯公共交通法令,一旦罪成将可被罚款不超过一千元,或者坐牢不超过三个月。

Online extortion by stranger after engaging with social escort company

Paul (not his real name) wrote into The Online Citizen to share…