How election reform can eliminate spoilers, promote third party efforts, and clarify the meaning of democracy.

Home PurposeThe motivation of this site: the necessity and practicality of a new election system for a changing world. Election TheoryThe basic axioms of what we should desire in an election, and descriptions of several methods that attempt to address these. Why Condorcet?Argument for why Condorcet is the optimal system which we should strive to implement. PracticalityHow electronic methods make Condorcet practical, secure, and desirable. Links/ContactSite credits, contact information, and links to other resources. GlossaryGlossary of specific terms used throughout the site.

What is a vote?

It is difficult to precisely characterize a vote, because it properly consists in two different things: an exercise of power by a citizen, and an act of speech. Voting is referred to as illocutionary as a consequence of this dichotomy. For a thorough development of this idea, consult Johnson Johnson, J. A. (2004). The apology of Nader’s raiders: Third parties, speech acts, and moral obligations in the voting booth. The Forum, 2(2). Retrieved November 1, 2005 from http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol2/iss2/art7/.

An Act of Power

Each voter has preferences regarding the outcome of the election, and it is the aim of democracy to give citizens the power to decide the outcome most in their favor. It this sense, voting is an exercise of power, since each vote is a small portion of the power exercised by the electorate as a whole. According to this paradigm, each voter should consider how they believe the rest of the electorate will act, and select a vote they believe is most likely to cause their most desired outcome. This is commonly referred to as strategic or pragmatic voting, because it revolves around the voter doing what is most suited to accomplishing their desires.

An Act of Speech

Each vote is also an endorsement of a candidate. This is apparent in the way people commonly interpret the results of an election: it does not seem out of place for one to infer that “51% of voters want George Bush to be president” from the information that “51% of voters voted for George Bush.” The difference is subtle, but very important, and is often overlooked. To vote according to the desired act of speech is referred to as honest voting.

The Problem of Voting

The clear problem inherent in this dichotomy is that it is possible for these two interpretations of voting to come into conflict with one another. This is most notably true in the case of third party candidates. As an act of speech, a voter might wish to vote for the third party they endorse, but realizing that third party cannot win the election causes the voter to decide which of the major parties he or she prefers. This conflict is the source of enormous controversy, and it is the reason why Ralph Nader has been accused of spoiling the Presidential election of 2000. Many citizens find either honest or pragmatic voting to be fundamentally repugnant. It is the fundamental problem of voting that these two interpretations must come into conflict, and it should be the aim in any sort of electoral reform to address this disparity in the best way possible.