Deputy Vice Chancellor,
Point 3 of the Report of the Council on governance: `Among the other
points made in the course of the Discussion was that the recent voting on
governance had been unduly complex.' This is true, and it can be argued
(although I shall not do so) that any system where a voter has to express more
than one preference is `unduly complex'. It seems to me, casting an eye
over the results of recent ballots and Council elections, that some of the
electorate may not be aware of the ramifications of their choosing not to
express more than one or two preferences. In the light of the promise of
the Council to revisit the question of our ballot system, I would like to
say a few words about how to fill in a ballot paper such that one's vote has
the best chance of being effective, with half an eye to the forthcoming
elections to the Board of Scrutiny
1.
The first point that needs to be made in this context is that it is not necessary for the voter to understand in detail the procedure by which an STV election should be conducted as described in the Statutes and Ordinances. This is indeed fortunate, as the details are complex in the extreme, and serve only to confuse. The method of filling in a ballot paper so as accurately to express the voter's list of preferences is orthogonal to the method used to tally the results.
In fact, the only thing the voter needs to do is list in order his choices, from most acceptable to least acceptable. This may seem obvious, but over 20% of those who voted for an unsuccessful candidate as their first preference in the election to the Council in class (c) last December 2 did not bother to express any further preference and so they were effectively disenfranchised when her votes were transferred. Surely she was not the only candidate they found even passably acceptable?
Ideally, the voter will list all the candidates in order of preference. Realistically, the voter may be unable to tell whether Dr X would be less bad than Professor Y; in which case, as long as the much-despised Dr Z is not also standing for election, it is fairly safe only to mark preferences for those candidates who are known to be on the side of Good. On the other hand, if Dr Z is standing for election, it is necessary to mark preferences not only for one's favoured candidates, but also for those towards whom one is indifferent, or even somewhat negatively disposed, in order that Dr Z be the last preference. The vital question the voter should ask herself while filling in the ballot paper is: "Would I rather that my vote not count, than that it be counted towards this candidate?" Considered self-disenfranchisement is one thing; accidental disenfranchisement due to lack of understanding of the voting procedures is quite another.
Returning to the Report: `Complexity arises in particular where there are a number of alternatives, whether in the original Grace or through amendments. This is exacerbated when the alternatives must be expressed as draft Statutes or Ordinances.' This latter point is to some extent the case, although it is arguable that much of the complexity originated in the way in which the Graces3, and the draft Statutes and Ordinances4, were presented in the Reporter of 20 November 2002. Recently, I got around to doing what should have been done some months back and worked out which altered bits of Statutes and Ordinances belonged to which Grace. I have sorted them out into a web-page5 which I believe to be considerably clearer and more coherent than the piecemeal presentation in the Reporter. It should not have had to fall to me to do this; they should have been clearly presented in the first place.
The question of how best to choose between alternatives I have addressed in the past, and I see no need to repeat myself today, particularly given that `The Council intend to report further to the Regent House about arrangements for ballots which would seek to address these problems.' This is indeed good to hear. I hope that the Council in their deliberations will consider the potential problems of the use of STV for such ballots. They might also care to look at the wording of the second sentence of Page 122 of the Statutes and Ordinances: `Under no circumstances can a later preference count against an earlier preference.' While this may on the level of an individual ballot paper be true, it lends an air of false reassurance to the voting process that I find unwise given the possibility of farcical results such as those I described in my speech of 11 March 6.
One further matter that perhaps needs considering in any proposed overhaul of the voting system is how to determine the quota, particularly in the context of elections of candidates to, for example, the Council. The current system, one of the two variants of the Droop quota, is needlessly complex, in that it initially appears to allow more candidates to be elected than there are places available. Point 6 on Page 122 of the Statutes and Ordinances describes how to solve this anomaly; but this anomaly need never arise were the other method of calculating the Droop quota to be employed instead. It might also be worth giving thought as to whether the Droop quota is the most appropriate quota to be used in any case, as it is sometimes argued that it tends to favour large factions at the expense of smaller ones; and surely the Council would wish to encourage as diverse a representation as possible on central bodies?
Diana Galletly 2003-05-26