In
order to understand how one can take action to be successful in a two-round
system as it pertains to our class elections, it is imperative to first
establish and then analyze the differences between the Roulette, First-Past-The
Post, and Two-Round systems. Broader analysis of these differences will suggest
various methods for success in the Two-Round system, which includes the
formation of coalitions, degree of opposition, and campaigning.
First,
in order to understand why changes
occurred in voting between the three systems, one must look at the change
itself. Starting with the roulette system, it is important to note that with 14
different organizations, representing each person in the class, each
organization only received one vote. As opposed to the other two systems, this
system allowed for larger candidacy (more organizations), thus reducing the
potential for any one organization to win. In comparing the roulette with the
FPTP systems, the latter involved fewer candidates as well as coalitions, effectively
reducing the options in our election. To take it further, in comparison to the
FPTP system the two-round system exhibits an even further reduction in
coalitions voted for, signaling an increasing divide between forming majority
and minority groups. Also worth noting is the fact that although the number of
votes cast between the FPTP and two-round systems is the same, the coalition
that won under the FPTP system did not win under the first round of the
two-round system. This indicates changes in voter preference as illustrated by
the two coalitions that did not receive votes, as well as the fact that all
other groups’ votes remained constant. For both the FPTP and two-round systems
as well, the coalitions that received the most votes address local issues, as discussed in various
campaign speeches. These are the differences that denote attention, and by
analyzing the reasons for their appearance, one can then formulate a strategy
for success in the two-round system.
In
first looking at the roulette example, one can see that there was no interest
in voting for other organizations. Although cooperation would have been
beneficial, it would still only allow for one person’s ideas to be represented.
Thus, the roulette system is the embodiment of personal viewpoint; it
highlights the diversity in thought and desire that creates the need for compromise, but does not
guarantee it. By looking at the FPTP and two-round systems, however, one can
see that there is organization of ideas. This is because as opposed to the
roulette system, where the person elected controls what will be debated and
therefore has an inherent advantage in being selected, the pluralitarian
systems theoretically place all candidates on equal ground. Thus, because there
is no establishment of authority in these systems prior to election, it is
encouraged that people coalesce. In addition, upon introducing a second round
of pluralitarian elections in the two-round system, it further promotes
coalitions because the entity must be able to survive two elections in the face
of changing perspectives and support, thus denoting the need for a large
platform of issues and therefore a larger coalition. Although this concept was
not as prevalent in our elections, one can see that, in terms of the local preferences,
the coalition with more local organizations (SOC) beat the other local
coalition (HAG).
Next, in terms of opposition, it is important
to note that with progression through the electoral systems we have used thus far,
with this increasing stress on coalitions, the number of candidates to choose
from diminishes significantly (especially between the roulette and FPTP
systems). Whereas in the FPTP elections all six of the coalitions received
votes, in the two-round system only four did. This is because our two-round
elections took place right after our FPTP elections, thus establishing SOC as
the majority group. As such, either opposition to SOC, or an interest in voting
for a group that actually has the potential to win, would motivate supporters
of the other two coalitions to vote for HAG. Therefore, it can be seen that
with a quantitative decrease in opposition, votes will tend to transfer to
other groups to alter the outcomes of an election. Finally, one of the greatest
reasons HAG was able to win the first round of the two-round elections is
because of campaigning. Campaigning played a key role in establishing the
differences between the systems because, as closely tied with levels of
opposition, as the number of coalitions campaigning increases, it becomes more
difficult to select a group to support. This trend can again be seen with the
progression of our elections, where as the number of groups campaigning
decreased, the number of votes per said coalitions increased. This again may
also reflect a lack of choice among voters that must pick between a few groups.
For my organization, it is important to address action pertaining
to coalition, opposition, and campaigning concerns as well. It is first and foremost
imperative that I form a coalition with organizations that are not only local,
but also will allow for our group to encompass many ideas and causes. Because
forming coalitions will diminish the level of opposition for the main groups,
it is also in my organization’s best interest to divide causes such that voters
will be forced to pick from a larger candidacy, and therefore split their
votes. Finally, it is essential that I campaign more heavily, because it
reminds voters as to what my coalition stands for, and possibly sway undecided
voters in my favor.
