DOCSLIB.ORG

Voting Systems Study Committee 2000-2001

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Voting Systems Study Committee 2000-2001 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA MONICA A Study of Voting Systems Applicable to Santa Monica’s Non Partisan At Large, Multi-Seat, Multi-Candidate Governing Bodies January 2001 Committee Members Wini Allard, Sheila Field, Harriet Foster, Joanne Leavitt, Ann Williams Contact [email protected] 1 A STUDY OF VOTING SYSTEMS LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA MONICA SECTION ONE Scope: A study of voting systems for electing legislative bodies at the municipal level. Focus: The focus will be a comparison and evaluation of different voting systems, including plurality/majority, semi-proportional and proportional systems that have been or could be used in at- large municipal elections in the City of Santa Monica. INTRODUCTION In view of the fact that alternative voting systems have recently become an issue state and nationwide, we feel that it is important to consider voting systems as they apply to Santa Monica elections. Voting systems as described and discussed in this paper refer to the method of casting and/or counting the votes in any election. The term ‘voting system’ also encompasses the cultural and sociological forces that impinge on and shape election competition. We will only touch upon these forces in this report. This paper will consider City Council, School Board, Rent Control Board and College Board of Trustees elections in Santa Monica. All systems chosen and studied are discussed in terms of relevance to Santa Monica elections. Santa Monica elections are currently non-partisan, multi-seat, at-large, plurality elections. 2 DEMOGRAPHICS Santa Monica Santa Monica is a small city bounded on one side by the Pacific Ocean and surrounded on the three other sides by Los Angeles. It is one of the most densely populated urban areas in California. The following demographics are taken from a Rand Report prepared for the City of Santa Monica, Human Resources Division, March 2000. Population: 90,000 (59,305 registered voters as of Oct. 2000- per City Clerk’s Office). Area: 8.3 sq. mi. Median Age: 38 (ages 30-49 constitute almost 40% of population) Race: White 71% Latinos 16% Asians 8% Blacks 4% Median Income: $48,934 FOR A MORE DETAILED LOOK A T SANTA MONICA, SEE APPENDIX A. POLITICAL STRUCTURE Santa Monica has a seven-seat City Council elected in a 3/4 pattern for a four-year term. It has a City Manager form of government. The Mayor is elected from the sitting Council for a period of one year. The Rent Control Board has five seats, elected in a 2/3 pattern. The College Board of Trustees has a seven-seat board, as does the School Board, and both have the same 3/4 staggered elections for four-year terms. Elections in Santa Monica are influenced by various slates or factions. Opponents may view these as sources of exclusion, the narrowing of the public political agenda to a small range of issues, and impediments to participation by independent candidates. Proponents may maintain that they provide the necessary organization to promulgate platforms, focus on important issues, provide an opportunity for groups and individuals to participate in the public process who might otherwise be excluded and provide funds to candidates who might not otherwise be able to afford to run for office. The tendency has been for two slates or factions to run in opposition, and for a handful of unaffiliated candidates to run as well. The backing of an organized group greatly increases a candidates chances for election. 3 SECTION TWO A DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEMS STUDIED We have chosen to study the following five systems, based on their applicability to at large, multi- seat non-partisan elections: Plurality, Approval, Cumulative, Limited and Single Transferable Vote (sometimes called Choice). In addition, we have provided information on Instant Run Off Voting (IRV), (a single seat system), in Appendix B. FIRST PAST THE POST/PLURALITY VOTING This is the system currently being used in most areas of the United States. Description: Plurality or majoritarian voting is probably one of the oldest methods of choosing leaders. It is also probably the simplest and perhaps the most widely used form in the United States. One person, one vote, and the most votes win. It can be used in a single seat district or in an at large election. In either case voters have as many votes as there are open seats. The candidates with the most votes win. History: This concept of choosing leaders goes back to Greek and Roman times, and came to the United States with the British colonists. The Constitution discusses issues concerning the right to vote, and establishes the Electoral College, but leaves the methodology of it up to the states. In general, the states have patterned after the national system and use this method. According to Pippa Norris in her study “Choosing Electoral Systems”, 83 out of 150 countries were found to use this system. Most, but not all, of those countries have come under the influence of Great Britain at some time. Supporters say: • It provides a clear cut choice for voters • It gives rise to coherent parliamentary opposition • It excludes candidates from extremist parties from winning • It supports broad based parties • It provides for a stronger, more responsive government • It favors stability and decisiveness • It creates a link between the representative and the constituent • It allows for the choice of a person, not just a party Opponents say: • It excludes minority parties from participation and representation • It creates “wasted” votes • It is not responsive to public opinion • It may result in a winning candidate getting only a minority of the vote 4 BALLOT DESIGNS FOR DIFFERENT SYSTEMS Plurality There are four seats to be filled. There are twelve candidates. Directions to voters: Place an X next to the candidates you prefer. You may vote for up to 4 candidates Emily Dickinson John Steinbeck Sylvia Plath Ernest Hemingway Maya Angelou Mark Twain Edith Wharton Robert Frost Edgar Allan Poe Eugene O’Neill Louisa May Alcott James Baldwin 5 APPROVAL VOTING Description: Approval Voting is a procedure in which citizens can vote for, or approve of, as many candidates as they wish in multicandidate elections. Thus, if there are five candidates, running for three open seats, voters are not restricted to voting for just three candidates. The voter may vote for as many candidates as he/she wants. However, only one vote can be cast for every approved candidate; votes cannot be cumulated and several cast for one candidate. The candidates with the most votes and presumably most acceptable to the most voters, wins the election. The winner is simply the candidates approved by the largest number of voters. Very similar to what we now do in Plurality Voting. History: Approval voting is a relative newcomer to voting systems. Conceived independently by at least five different sets of people in the late 1970’s, the name Approval Voting was coined by Robert J. Weber, Professor of Decision Sciences at Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University. Several excellent books have been written about testing the viability of the concept by using a variety of mathematical models. Where Used: The Secretary-General of the United Nations is elected via Approval Voting. Approval Voting was used in 1990 in Oregon in a statewide advisory referendum on school financing, which presented voters with five different options and allowed them to vote for as many as they wished. The National Academy of Sciences, and many colleges and universities use it from the departmental level to the school-wide level. Several different scientific and engineering societies use Approval Voting as well. Supporters say: • It gives the voter more flexible options. • It helps elect the strongest candidates. • It will reduce negative campaigning. • It will increase voter turnout. • It will lead to the selection of candidates with the most widespread support among voters • It will give minority candidates a better chance to gather support. • Approval Voting is eminently practical. Opponents say: • Approval Voting does not allow ranking of candidates that other voting systems offer. • Approval Voting could encourage a proliferation of candidates. • Approval Voting could create significant inequities among voters. 6 BALLOT DESIGNS FOR DIFFERENT SYSTEMS APPROVAL There are four seats to be filled. There are twelve candidates. Directions to voters: Place an X next to any of the candidates that meet with your approval. You may vote for up to 12 candidates Emily Dickinson John Steinbeck Sylvia Plath Ernest Hemingway Maya Angelou Mark Twain Edith Wharton Robert Frost Edgar Allan Poe Eugene O’Neill Louisa May Alcott James Baldwin 7 CUMULATIVE VOTING Description: Cumulative Voting is a semi-proportional system used in at-large elections. In this system each voter casts as many votes as there are seats. The unique aspect of Cumulative Voting is that the voter may distribute (cumulate) his votes. For example, in an election with 5 open seats, the voter may divide his/her five votes as he/she pleases, giving all to one candidate or giving 2.5 to two, or 3 to one candidate and two to another or any other way he wishes, depending on the number of candidates he/she chooses to support. History: Cumulative voting does have some history in the United States. It was used in the Illinois State Legislature from 1870 - 1980. In recent years it has been seen as a solution to gerrymandered districts which are now finding disfavor in the courts. One of the main purposes of this system is to elect minority candidates in a situation where that may not be possible with plurality voting. Where Used: Today Cumulative Voting is used in at least 17 cities, counties or school districts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Single-Winner Voting Method Comparison Chart
    Single-winner Voting Method Comparison Chart This chart compares the most widely discussed voting methods for electing a single winner (and thus does not deal with multi-seat or proportional representation methods). There are countless possible evaluation criteria. The Criteria at the top of the list are those we believe are most important to U.S. voters. Plurality Two- Instant Approval4 Range5 Condorcet Borda (FPTP)1 Round Runoff methods6 Count7 Runoff2 (IRV)3 resistance to low9 medium high11 medium12 medium high14 low15 spoilers8 10 13 later-no-harm yes17 yes18 yes19 no20 no21 no22 no23 criterion16 resistance to low25 high26 high27 low28 low29 high30 low31 strategic voting24 majority-favorite yes33 yes34 yes35 no36 no37 yes38 no39 criterion32 mutual-majority no41 no42 yes43 no44 no45 yes/no 46 no47 criterion40 prospects for high49 high50 high51 medium52 low53 low54 low55 U.S. adoption48 Condorcet-loser no57 yes58 yes59 no60 no61 yes/no 62 yes63 criterion56 Condorcet- no65 no66 no67 no68 no69 yes70 no71 winner criterion64 independence of no73 no74 yes75 yes/no 76 yes/no 77 yes/no 78 no79 clones criterion72 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 monotonicity yes no no yes yes yes/no yes criterion80 prepared by FairVote: The Center for voting and Democracy (April 2009). References Austen-Smith, David, and Jeffrey Banks (1991). “Monotonicity in Electoral Systems”. American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 2 (June): 531-537. Brewer, Albert P. (1993). “First- and Secon-Choice Votes in Alabama”. The Alabama Review, A Quarterly Review of Alabama History, Vol. ?? (April): ?? - ?? Burgin, Maggie (1931). The Direct Primary System in Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Comparative Law and Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Insights from Constitutional Theory 114 ARUN K THIRUVENGADAM
    Evolution of a Revolution Between 1965 and 2005, changes to Singapore’s Constitution were so tremendous as to amount to a revolution. These developments are comprehensively discussed and critically examined for the first time in this edited volume. With its momentous secession from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, Singapore had the perfect opportunity to craft a popularly-endorsed constitution. Instead, it retained the 1958 State Constitution and augmented it with provisions from the Malaysian Federal Constitution. The decision in favour of stability and gradual change belied the revolutionary changes to Singapore’s Constitution over the next 40 years, transforming its erstwhile Westminster-style constitution into something quite unique. The Government’s overriding concern with ensuring stability, public order, Asian values and communitarian politics, are not without their setbacks or critics. This collection strives to enrich our understanding of the historical antecedents of the current Constitution and offers a timely retrospective assessment of how history, politics and economics have shaped the Constitution. It is the first collaborative effort by a group of Singapore constitutional law scholars and will be of interest to students and academics from a range of disciplines, including comparative constitutional law, political science, government and Asian studies. Dr Li-ann Thio is Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore where she teaches public international law, constitutional law and human rights law. She is a Nominated Member of Parliament (11th Session). Dr Kevin YL Tan is Director of Equilibrium Consulting Pte Ltd and Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore where he teaches public law and media law.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Electoral Rules
    Appendix A: Electoral Rules Table A.1 Electoral Rules for Italy’s Lower House, 1948–present Time Period 1948–1993 1993–2005 2005–present Plurality PR with seat Valle d’Aosta “Overseas” Tier PR Tier bonus national tier SMD Constituencies No. of seats / 6301 / 32 475/475 155/26 617/1 1/1 12/4 districts Election rule PR2 Plurality PR3 PR with seat Plurality PR (FPTP) bonus4 (FPTP) District Size 1–54 1 1–11 617 1 1–6 (mean = 20) (mean = 6) (mean = 4) Note that the acronym FPTP refers to First Past the Post plurality electoral system. 1The number of seats became 630 after the 1962 constitutional reform. Note the period of office is always 5 years or less if the parliament is dissolved. 2Imperiali quota and LR; preferential vote; threshold: one quota and 300,000 votes at national level. 3Hare Quota and LR; closed list; threshold: 4% of valid votes at national level. 4Hare Quota and LR; closed list; thresholds: 4% for lists running independently; 10% for coalitions; 2% for lists joining a pre-electoral coalition, except for the best loser. Ballot structure • Under the PR system (1948–1993), each voter cast one vote for a party list and could express a variable number of preferential votes among candidates of that list. • Under the MMM system (1993–2005), each voter received two separate ballots (the plurality ballot and the PR one) and cast two votes: one for an individual candidate in a single-member district; one for a party in a multi-member PR district. • Under the PR-with-seat-bonus system (2005–present), each voter cast one vote for a party list.
    [Show full text]
  • American Review of Politics Volume 37, Issue 1 31 January 2020
    American Review of Politics Volume 37, Issue 1 31 January 2020 An open a ccess journal published by the University of Oklahoma Department of Political Science in colla bora tion with the University of Okla homa L ibraries Justin J. Wert Editor The University of Oklahoma Department of Political Science & Institute for the American Constitutional Heritage Daniel P. Brown Managing Editor The University of Oklahoma Department of Political Science Richard L. Engstrom Book Reviews Editor Duke University Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in the Social Sciences American Review of Politics Volume 37 Issue 1 Partisan Ambivalence and Electoral Decision Making Stephen C. Craig Paulina S. Cossette Michael D. Martinez University of Florida Washington College University of Florida [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract American politics today is driven largely by deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans. That said, there are many people who view the opposition in an overwhelmingly negative light – but who simultaneously possess a mix of positive and negative feelings toward their own party. This paper is a response to prior research (most notably, Lavine, Johnson, and Steenbergen 2012) indicating that such ambivalence increases the probability that voters will engage in "deliberative" (or "effortful") rather than "heuristic" thinking when responding to the choices presented to them in political campaigns. Looking first at the 2014 gubernatorial election in Florida, we find no evidence that partisan ambivalence reduces the importance of party identification or increases the impact of other, more "rational" considerations (issue preferences, perceived candidate traits, economic evaluations) on voter choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Another Consideration in Minority Vote Dilution Remedies: Rent
    Another C onsideration in Minority Vote Dilution Remedies : Rent -Seeking ALAN LOCKARD St. Lawrence University In some areas of the United States, racial and ethnic minorities have been effectively excluded from the democratic process by a variety of means, including electoral laws. In some instances, the Courts have sought to remedy this problem by imposing alternative voting methods, such as cumulative voting. I examine several voting methods with regard to their sensitivity to rent-seeking. Methods which are less sensitive to rent-seeking are preferred because they involve less social waste, and are less likely to be co- opted by special interest groups. I find that proportional representation methods, rather than semi- proportional ones, such as cumulative voting, are relatively insensitive to rent-seeking efforts, and thus preferable. I also suggest that an even less sensitive method, the proportional lottery, may be appropriate for use within deliberative bodies, where proportional representation is inapplicable and minority vote dilution otherwise remains an intractable problem. 1. INTRODUCTION When President Clinton nominated Lani Guinier to serve in the Justice Department as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, an opportunity was created for an extremely valuable public debate on the merits of alternative voting methods as solutions to vote dilution problems in the United States. After Prof. Guinier’s positions were grossly mischaracterized in the press,1 the President withdrew her nomination without permitting such a public debate to take place.2 These issues have been discussed in academic circles,3 however, 1 Bolick (1993) charges Guinier with advocating “a complex racial spoils system.” 2 Guinier (1998) recounts her experiences in this process.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranked-Choice Voting from a Partisan Perspective
    Ranked-Choice Voting From a Partisan Perspective Jack Santucci December 21, 2020 Revised December 22, 2020 Abstract Ranked-choice voting (RCV) has come to mean a range of electoral systems. Broadly, they can facilitate (a) majority winners in single-seat districts, (b) majority rule with minority representation in multi-seat districts, or (c) majority sweeps in multi-seat districts. Such systems can be combined with other rules that encourage/discourage slate voting. This paper describes five major versions used in U.S. public elections: Al- ternative Vote (AV), single transferable vote (STV), block-preferential voting (BPV), the bottoms-up system, and AV with numbered posts. It then considers each from the perspective of a `political operative.' Simple models of voting (one with two parties, another with three) draw attention to real-world strategic issues: effects on minority representation, importance of party cues, and reasons for the political operative to care about how voters rank choices. Unsurprisingly, different rules produce different outcomes with the same votes. Specific problems from the operative's perspective are: majority reversal, serving two masters, and undisciplined third-party voters (e.g., `pure' independents). Some of these stem from well-known phenomena, e.g., ballot exhaus- tion/ranking truncation and inter-coalition \vote leakage." The paper also alludes to vote-management tactics, i.e., rationing nominations and ensuring even distributions of first-choice votes. Illustrative examples come from American history and comparative politics. (209 words.) Keywords: Alternative Vote, ballot exhaustion, block-preferential voting, bottoms- up system, exhaustive-preferential system, instant runoff voting, ranked-choice voting, sequential ranked-choice voting, single transferable vote, strategic coordination (10 keywords).
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy Without Elections Mainz
    Democracy without Elections: Is electoral accountability essential for democracy? Felix Gerlsbeck [email protected] Paper prepared for the workshop “Democratic Anxiety. Democratic Resilience.” Mainz, 15-17 June 2017 DRAFT VERSION, PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT AUTHOR’S PERMISSION 1. Introduction The idea of choosing political decision-makers by sortition, that is, choosing them randomly from a pool of the entire population or from some qualified subset, through some form of lottery or other randomizing procedure, is familiar to democrats at least since ancient Athens. Apart from the selection of trial juries, however, sortition has all but disappeared from official decision-making procedures within contemporary democratic systems, and free, equal, and regular election through voting by the entire qualified population of candidates who put themselves forward for political office, has taken its place. Nevertheless, there has been renewed interest in the idea of reviving sortition-based elements within modern democratic systems over the last years: a number of democratic theorists see great promise in complementing elected decision-making institutions with those selected randomly. These proposals variously go under the names mini-publics, citizen juries, citizen assemblies, lottocracy, enfranchisement lottery, and even Machiavellian Democracy.1 The roots of this practice go back to ancient Athens. During the 5th century Athenian democracy, the equivalent of the parliamentary body tasked with deliberating 1 See for instance, Guerrero 2014; Fishkin 2009; Warren & Gastil 2015; Ryan & Smith 2014; Saunders 2012; López-Guerra 2014; López-Guerra 2011; McCormick 2011. 1 and drafting policy proposals, the boule, was chosen by lot from the citizens of Athens through a complex system of randomization.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 US Presidential Election Herrade Igersheim, François Durand, Aaron Hamlin, Jean-François Laslier
    Comparing Voting Methods: 2016 US Presidential Election Herrade Igersheim, François Durand, Aaron Hamlin, Jean-François Laslier To cite this version: Herrade Igersheim, François Durand, Aaron Hamlin, Jean-François Laslier. Comparing Voting Meth- ods: 2016 US Presidential Election. 2018. halshs-01972097 HAL Id: halshs-01972097 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01972097 Preprint submitted on 7 Jan 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. WORKING PAPER N° 2018 – 55 Comparing Voting Methods: 2016 US Presidential Election Herrade Igersheim François Durand Aaron Hamlin Jean-François Laslier JEL Codes: D72, C93 Keywords : Approval voting, range voting, instant runoff, strategic voting, US Presidential election PARIS-JOURDAN SCIENCES ECONOMIQUES 48, BD JOURDAN – E.N.S. – 75014 PARIS TÉL. : 33(0) 1 80 52 16 00= www.pse.ens.fr CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE – ECOLE DES HAUTES ETUDES EN SCIENCES SOCIALES ÉCOLE DES PONTS PARISTECH – ECOLE NORMALE SUPÉRIEURE INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE – UNIVERSITE PARIS 1 Comparing Voting Methods: 2016 US Presidential Election Herrade Igersheim☦ François Durand* Aaron Hamlin✝ Jean-François Laslier§ November, 20, 2018 Abstract. Before the 2016 US presidential elections, more than 2,000 participants participated to a survey in which they were asked their opinions about the candidates, and were also asked to vote according to different alternative voting rules, in addition to plurality: approval voting, range voting, and instant runoff voting.
    [Show full text]
  • American Exceptionalism and Government Shutdowns: a Comparative Constitutional Reflection on the 2013 Lapse in Appropriations Katharine G
    Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers 5-2014 American Exceptionalism and Government Shutdowns: A Comparative Constitutional Reflection on the 2013 Lapse in Appropriations Katharine G. Young Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Katharine G. Young. "American Exceptionalism and Government Shutdowns: A Comparative Constitutional Reflection on the 2013 Lapse in Appropriations." Boston University Law Review (2014). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS: A COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL REFLECTION ON THE 2013 LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS KATHARINE G. YOUNG∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 991 I. THE U.S. SHUTDOWN AND POLITICAL DYSFUNCTION ......................... 993 II. COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL IMPASSE ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Election Methods in Order to Ensure That the Election Please Do Not Hesitate to Contact Us
    The Center for Voting and Democracy City 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610 – Takoma Park, MD 20912 Phone: (301) 270-4616 – Fax: (301) 270-4133 Council Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.fairvote.org Election This Manual is intended to assist Charter Review Comissions, city officials, and other community Methods leaders in determining what electoral systems will best meet the needs and goals of their community. Given that no system can accomplish every goal, this manual will help you analyze the INTRODUCTION consequences of adopting one system over The range of options that exists for electing a municipal government is broader than many people realize. Voting systems can have a another and will aid you in comparing the features striking impact on the type of candidates who run for office, how of various electoral systems. representative the council is, which candidates are elected, which parties control the city council, which voters feel well represented, Should you desire more information about any of and so on. This booklet is intended to aid in the evaluation of possible the voting systems discussed within this manual, city council election methods in order to ensure that the election please do not hesitate to contact us. method is determined by conscious choice, not inertia. A separate companion booklet, Mayoral Election Methods , deals with the selection of an executive. A summary of this booklet can be found in the city council election method evaluation grid at Page 11. 1 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING CITY COUNCIL ELECTION METHODS 1. VOTER CHOICE Different election methods will encourage different numbers of It is important to recognize from the outset that no election candidates to run, and will thus impact the level of choice which method is perfect.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy in the Age of Pandemic – Fair Vote UK Report June 2020
    Democracy in the Age of Pandemic How to Safeguard Elections & Ensure Government Continuity APPENDICES fairvote.uk Published June 2020 Appendix 1 - 86 1 Written Evidence, Responses to Online Questionnaire During the preparation of this report, Fair Vote UK conducted a call for written evidence through an online questionnaire. The questionnaire was open to all members of the public. This document contains the unedited responses from that survey. The names and organisations for each entry have been included in the interest of transparency. The text of the questionnaire is found below. It indicates which question each response corresponds to. Name Organisation (if applicable) Question 1: What weaknesses in democratic processes has Covid-19 highlighted? Question 2: Are you aware of any good articles/publications/studies on this subject? Or of any countries/regions that have put in place mediating practices that insulate it from the social distancing effects of Covid-19? Question 3: Do you have any ideas on how to address democratic shortcomings exposed by the impact of Covid-19? Appendix 1 - 86 2 Appendix 1 Name S. Holledge Organisation Question 1 Techno-phobia? Question 2 Estonia's e-society Question 3 Use technology and don't be frightened by it 2 Appendix 1 - 86 3 Appendix 2 Name S. Page Organisation Yes for EU (Scotland) Question 1 The Westminster Parliament is not fit for purpose Question 2 Scottish Parliament Question 3 Use the internet and electronic voting 3 Appendix 1 - 86 4 Appendix 3 Name J. Sanders Organisation emergency legislation without scrutiny removing civil liberties railroading powers through for example changes to mental health act that impact on individual rights (A) Question 1 I live in Wales, and commend Mark Drakeford for his quick response to the crisis by enabling the Assembly to continue to meet and debate online Question 2 no, not until you asked.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Voting in Alabama
    1 Alternative Voting in Alabama Alternative voting ( also called ‘modified at-large voting’ ) was first used as an election procedure in Alabama during the 1980s. When the procedure was introduced, it was as novel and as questionable as the first Caesarians used to deliver babies. Today, after several election cycles, alternative voting systems in Alabama are as politically acceptable as C-sections are in delivery rooms. In Alabama today, thirty-two different governing bodies use some form of alternative voting. Three are county governments, one is a county Democratic Committee, and twenty-eight are municipalities. Of these governing bodies, twenty- three use limited voting, five use cumulative voting, and four replaced numbered posts with pure at-large [see glossary.] With the exception of the Conecuh County Democratic Executive Committee and the city of Fort Payne, all of the alternative voting systems in Alabama were first used in 1988 as a result of settlement agreements in the landmark, omnibus redistricting lawsuit, Dillard v. Crenshaw County, et. al. In that case, the Alabama Democratic Conference sued 180 jurisdictions in the state, challenging at-large elections. First Run: Conecuh County, Alabama The first known application of an alternative voting system in Alabama was in the election of members to the Conecuh County Democratic Executive Committee in the September 1982 primary election. It came as a result of a federal lawsuit filed by blacks challenging the discriminatory manner by which members were being elected to the committee. Prior to the court challenge, the Conecuh County Democratic Executive Committee elected members by a strange system which divided the county into two separate malapportioned districts, with each district electing 15 members at-large from numbered places [see glossary] and with a majority vote requirement.
    [Show full text]