Vote splitting is nice entry point for argument in favour of switching to proportional representation.
When three candidates run, it is very possible that no one candidate will take a majority of the vote. But under FPTP that leading candidate, even if receiving less than half the votes, will be elected. The majority of voters thus will not be represented. The vote against him or her was "split."
It could happen that if transferable votes were used and the least-popular candidate elected, that that candidate's votes might go to the second-place candidate to give him or her a majority - and give the seat to that person, instead of the previous winner. Or the transferred votes might go to the FPTP winner, securing election. But now it would be certain that a majority of voters actually want that person to represent them.
Problems associated with vote-splitting come up often in electoral matters.
It works against candidates wanting to run. And it works against voters getting representation.
It leads voters to engage in strategic voting or voter misrepresentation as it used to be called.
Also when third party candidates were just emerging say in Winnipeg in 1910, they were sometimes called "spoiler" candidates because they split the vote. Now the vote is so split that we need pro-rep system, just as Winnipeg adopted STV in 1920.
But instead of taking that step, newsmakers now try to get voters to not vote for whom they want elected but instead to concentrate their vote, against their own instinct.
Hence the "value" of pre-election polls to act as sort of general election before a run-off election, the actual election. That is not how it should work. and it does not work well in any case.
There is another kind of vote splitting -- that done by boundaries of districts. The larger multi-member districts of STV or other form of pro-rep would address this form. Transferable Votes used in STV and Alternative Voting addresses the usual form of vote-splitting described above.
Although representation is great as discussion point, the election is about -- well -- electing people -- people to represent us (or the district in which we have been lumped) but still to elect people.
Basically we should be able to make headway if we ask people if their candidate was elected. Most of the people in half or more of the districts will honestly say no (because under FPTP this is the fact - most of the votes are not used to elect anyone), or like pollster we could ask do you think most people are happy with the result?
The system does not give most of us representation, so most of us should not be content with it. Surely that should give us some traction.
Thanks for reading
=====================================================
Comments