Blog Post #3

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.