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.  

Roulette Versus Pluralitarian Systems

In comparing the roulette and pluralitarian electoral systems, one can see that they are both simple systems that contain the framework for legitimacy through the decisions of the majority. The issue that arises however, especially in relation to our in-class elections, is the method through which decisions are made. The roulette system, based on chance selection, is an indiscriminate form of choosing people or ideas, thus theoretically promoting proportional representation in its elections. The roulette system requires frequency of elections to warrant proportional representation however, and since this system allows for one person to choose the topics of discussion that will then be debated, as opposed to the pluralitarian system where voters are presented with a variety of ideas to choose from, it will ultimately hurt my organization’s chances of receiving funds more. Thus, the roulette system is limiting in nature, because it silences topics of discussion right from the start. Therefore, by looking at how both the roulette and pluralitarian systems address majority and minority concerns, the formation of coalitions, and the subsequent perceived legitimacy of the system, one can then see how the pluralitarian system would be more beneficial for getting my organization funding.

First, let us look at the roulette system with respect to these aspects. The roulette system is built to empower those elected from the beginning because it forces us to make decisions based on their desires, rather than that of the majority. With our example however, Eric and Adina still chose to include every organization in the debate when they very well could have formulated a discussion and voting method around their organizations, or at least, created some advantage for their organizations as the professor suggested. Because everyone is working to advance their own organizations, there are then 15 separate groups, or basically 15 minorities, and everyone’s chances of being selected are equal. As a result, relying on chance would not be an adequate means to action because each person would orient the agenda toward their own goals. In addition, each person would theoretically vote for their own organization, and no organization would win. It can thus be inferred that the system promotes alliances in order for anyone to succeed, where coercion would then come into play. In addition, it is important to note as mentioned above, that this system is built upon the idea that elections are frequent – thus justifying why the elections are random –because they enable a different person to present concerns each time. As a result then, theoretically the person that is picked will present concerns that coincide with that of the majority. Thus, although this system empowers those elected from the beginning, it is inherently legitimate, because everyone has an equal chance to set the agenda. With our example however, because we only did it once, we consequently increased every organization’s stake in the vote. And since we are forced to make decisions based on the desires of those elected, rather than majority concerns, this system is therefore not adequate for our purposes. This is why the pluralitarian system would be better in getting my organization funding.

The pluralitarian system also uses the majority to make decisions, but often includes all concerns right from the beginning. As opposed to the roulette system, this system encourages the presentation of a variety of viewpoints, but often hinders the success of minorities to a certain degree. As mentioned previously, the roulette system could actually elect someone of a minority position; the pluralitarian system is still better however, because it is easier for the minority to align with larger groups, and include their own concerns in a party’s extensive stance, rather than the opposite. Therefore this system also involves coalitions. Although the same thing can occur with the roulette system, the pluralitarian system is more efficient for both majorities, and minorities, because it allows for minority issues to tag along with major concerns. At the same time, it also protects the majority from minority powers over the agenda guaranteed in the roulette system. This system would thus develop a better perception of legitimacy because everyone’s views can be included in discussion from the beginning, and because coalitions provide ways for everyone to advance their interests. One of the problems that arises with this system however, is the tendency toward polarization, which creates a majoritarian system instead, as seen with that of the United States.

The electoral system in the United States is a pluralitarian system based on two major parties, also known as a majoritarian system, and it is through this setup that one can see that the negative consequences outweigh the positive. This system focuses on the decisions, as well as concerns, of the majority right from the beginning, just like the pluralitarian system. This is the greatest positive consequence, because it promotes parties to create inclusive party platforms. The biggest problem here however is that in the United States, this two-party system has evolved to solidify party stances, constricting the platforms to be as inclusive of party members as possible. Thus the best aspect of this system is also its worst. As a result of attempts to maximize on constituency votes, this two-party system alienates minority groups because it disproportionately selects the views of the two main parties. The polarization promotes a proportional representation among these two parties however, which then creates gridlock. As a result, we are left with a system that represents only the two main opposing views adequately, and at the same time fails to promote compromise between them.

Definitions of Democracy

1.      “A definition of the ideal: ‘Government by the people, where liberty, equality, and fraternity are secured to the greatest possible degree and in which human capacities are developed to the utmost, by means including free and full discussion of common problems and interests.’ ” (Pennock, 1979, 7)

2.       “ ‘Democracy provides opportunities for 1) effective participation, 2) equality in voting, 3) gaining enlightened understanding, 4) exercising final control [by the people—WR] over the agenda, and 5) inclusion of adults.’ The political institutions that are necessary to pursue these goals are ‘1) elected officials, 2) free, fair and frequent elections, 3) freedom of expression, 4) alternative sources of information, 5) associational autonomy, and 6) inclusive citizenship.’ ” (Dahl 1998, 38 & 85).

3.      “ ‘Democrats are committed to rule by the people. They insist that no aristocrat, monarch, philosopher, bureaucrat, expert, or religious leader has the right, in virtue of such status, to force people to accept a particular conception of their proper common life. People should decide for themselves, via appropriate procedures of collective decision, what their collective business should be.’ ‘Communitarian democrats make wrongheaded assumptions both about the nature of democracy and about its appropriate place in everyday life…. [P]articipation plays a necessary but circumscribed role in ordering social relations justly. Valuable as democratic participation is in managing the power dimensions of collective activities, it is not the point of the exercise.’ ” (Shapiro 1999, 29-30 &32)

In my opinion, Democracy is the governance of the people by the people; it should start with the citizenry, in the dialogue of issues, and end with them, in the decision-making process. As such, I feel that the first listed definition above best describes the true nature of Democracy. There are two key aspects to this definition; first, a government ruled solely by the people, and second, a people that have the most developed human capacities through “free and full discussion.” The reason this definition is better than the other two, is because it defines a form of rule in which the focus is on the people; it does not state that the people, in order to get what they want, are to elect informed representatives. Although this is one possible route of action for the people, it is not necessary for the advancement of Democracy as stated in the second definition above. The point of Democracy is to maintain the level of agency created, because from this setup anything can emerge, even the institutions we have today. By maintaining flexibility in this sense, the people can choose to make decisions and act in accordance with the social and economic conditions around them.  

The reason the second definition is not the best one here is because, although it may address all the benefits of Pennock’s ideal definition, it is built on the opportunity for effective participation, gaining enlightened understanding, and exercising final control. It is this definition of Democracy that most closely resembles the current form we have in the United States. It contains the potential for people to exercise power, but necessarily the guarantee. This, in my opinion is the result of the political institutions our founding fathers established, as well as the representatives we elect. Although this system ensures for notions such as separation of powers, checks and balances, and equal representation, it has also created the apathy of politics we see today; because many believe we have a system in which we elect people to think for us, where our concern ends at the voting booth. This is ultimately the result of our lack of political cognizance, which leads to our lack of participation, and thus our removal from power.

      This is where the third definition comes into play. It calls for a Democracy in which the people decide for themselves, but that they however are limited in their say. Participation, in my opinion, is the key to developing human capacities to the greatest degree; the desire to express one’s agency serves as the driving force for developing an informed citizenry, and thus enables the people with power. Even in our current system of Democracy, with the institutions we have in place, participation is still the foundation of action and requires reciprocity of ideas between the elected and the voters, to create this informed citizenry.