Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusion: A Realist’s Agenda for Research and Reform

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Smarter Ballots

Part of the book series: Elections, Voting, Technology ((EVT))

  • 251 Accesses

Abstract

Every conceivable voting system has its defects, but some of these may be resolved through creative design, and this chapter canvasses some possibilities. Further (and better) academic experiments are needed to spur innovation, and the best hope for fixing broken ballots and making them serve the cause of democracy lies in local experiments with creative combinations of contest structure and ballot structure. In political systems where the range of viable ballot options is habitually quite limited, such combinations are likely to pair a contest structure featuring a “jungle” primary with either ranking or grading ballot structures. Two original templates for smarter ballots in single-winner contests are proposed, as well as innovative proposals for designing multi-option referendums.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On windows of opportunity for electoral reform in New Zealand in the 1990s and in British Columbia, Canada, in the 2000s: Nagel (2004) and Carty et al. (2008). On the capacity of reform projects to use ideologies and values to overpower calculations of partisan advantage: Renwick (2018, 121–22).

  2. 2.

    For important challenges from anti-reform realism (with much attention on failures in California, where ballot inputs have gone untouched at the state level but contest structures are often modified): Bowler and Donovan (2013) and Cain (2015).

  3. 3.

    On the Coombs version of RCV: Grofman and Feld (2004).

  4. 4.

    On Utah: Potyondy (2018).

  5. 5.

    On the geographic (and thematic) expansion of referendums in recent decades: Beramendi et al. (2008, 20). On the vulnerability of referendums to elite manipulation: Tierney (2013, 510, 515).

  6. 6.

    On Newfoundland: Webb (1998, 179–80, 187) and Blake (1994, 22). On New Zealand: Vowles (1995, 104).

  7. 7.

    Milner (2017, 352).

  8. 8.

    On the conflicted meanings of Brexit votes in 2016: Jenkins (2017).

  9. 9.

    On the Scottish independence referendum of 2014: Tierney (2013, 521). On a hypothetical second Brexit ballot: Sargeant et al. (2018, 29–32, 36–39). For the International IDEA recommendations: Beramendi et al. (2008, 54, 196).

  10. 10.

    For a defense of closed-list PR in a single national district as the most democratic (on several criteria) method of electing a legislature: McGann (2006).

  11. 11.

    On post-2008 elections around Europe: LeDuc and Pammett (2013, 496).

  12. 12.

    On Ecuador: Mustillo and Polga-Hecimovich (2018, 125–26). On Switzerland: Lakeman (1974, 105, 154). On Finland: Von Schoultz (2018, 602). On Italy: Passarelli (2018, 855). On experimental “multiple-vote” proposals for PR elections: McGann (2006, 44–47).

  13. 13.

    On PR as part of a structural ensemble of “institutionalized popular inclusion”: Joshi et al. (2015, 2019).

  14. 14.

    Cote (2011) and Tervalon-Daumont and Garza (2011).

  15. 15.

    For Burlington as a cause celebre of voting theorists, who criticized RCV for not having selected the Condorcet winner: Ornstein and Norman (2014).

  16. 16.

    I am indebted to Steven Mulroy for information about RCV in Memphis; see also Munks (2018). The progress of RCV in American cities and states is monitored by Fair Vote, an advocacy group, on its Web site, www.fairvote.org.

  17. 17.

    On partisan elites’ dislike for STV: Lundberg (2018, 629–30, 637).

  18. 18.

    I am indebted to Kenneth Palmer and Scott Thistle for valuable points of information about the role of RCV in Maine politics. Except where otherwise noted, points of interpretation and attributions of motive are strictly my own.

  19. 19.

    Thistle (2017a).

  20. 20.

    On the legislative tussle: Thistle (2017b). On partisanship in the 2016 vote: Santucci (2018, 301–2).

  21. 21.

    Russell (2018).

  22. 22.

    Miller and Thistle (2018). On the frequency of leap-frog results: Baldini and Pappalardo (2009, 55).

  23. 23.

    For French preferences on ballot structure: Blais et al. (2015, 433).

References

  • Baldini, G., & A. Pappalardo. 2009. Elections, Electoral Systems, and Volatile Voters. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beramendi, V., A. Ellis, B. Kaufman, M. Kornblith, L. LeDuc, P. McGuire, T. Schiller, & P. Svensson. 2008. Direct Democracy: The International IDEA Handbook. Stockholm: Institute for Democracy and Election Assistance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blais, A., J.-F. Laslier, F. Poinas, & K. Van der Straeten. 2015. “Citizens’ Preferences about Voting Rules: Self-Interest, Ideology, and Sincerity.” Public Choice 164: 423–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, R.B. 1994. Canadians at Last: Canada Integrates Newfoundland as a Province. Toronto: University Press of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S., & T. Donovan. 2013. The Limits of Electoral Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, B.E. 2015. Democracy, More or Less: America’s Political Reform Quandary. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carty, R.K., A. Blais, & P. Fournier. 2008. “When Citizens Choose to Reform SMP: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.” To Keep or to Change First Past the Post? The Politics of Electoral Reform, ed. A. Blais. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cote, J. 2011. “S.F. Ranked-Choice Voting Confusing, Poll Says.” San Francisco Chronicle, March 10 (Accessed on August 16, 2017 at www.sfgate.com/politics/article/S-F-ranked-choice-voting-confusing-poll-says-2389425.php).

  • Grofman, B., & S.L. Feld. 2004. “If You Like the Alternative Vote (a.k.a. the Instant Run-Off), then You Ought to Know about the Coombs Rule.” Electoral Studies 23: 641–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, S. 2017. “Hardliners Won’t Like this Soft Brexit Plan.” Guardian (London), July 27 (Accessed on July 27, 2017 at www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/27/hardliners-soft-brexit-tough-negotiate-properly).

  • Joshi, D.K., J.S. Maloy, & T.M. Peterson. 2015. “Popular vs. Elite Democratic Structures and International Peace.” Journal of Peace Research 52: 463–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, D.K., J.S. Maloy, & T.M. Peterson. 2019. “Popular vs. Elite Democracies and Human Rights: Inclusion Makes a Difference.” International Studies Quarterly 63: 111–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakeman, E. 1974. How Democracies Vote: A Study of Electoral Systems. 4th edn. London: Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeDuc, L., & J.H. Pammett. 2013. “The Fate of Governing Parties in Times of Economic Crisis.” Electoral Studies 32: 494–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, T.C. 2018. “Electoral Systems in Context: United Kingdom.” The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, eds. E.S. Herron, R.J. Pekkanen, & M.S. Shugart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGann, A. 2006. The Logic of Democracy: Reconciling Equality, Deliberation, and Minority Protection. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K., & S. Thistle. 2018. “Jared Golden Declared Winner of First Ranked-Choice Congressional Election, but Challenge Looms.” Portland (Maine) Press-Herald, November 15 (Accessed on December 31, 2018 at www.pressherald.com/2018/11/15/final-ranked-choice-vote-count-slated-for-noon).

  • Milner, H. 2017. “Electoral System Reform: The Canadian Experience.” Election Law Journal 16: 349–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munks, J. 2018. “Instant Runoff Voting Survives at the Polls, but Will It Be Implemented in Memphis?” (Memphis) Commercial Appeal, November 7 (Accessed on January 5, 2018 at www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/2018/11/07/instant-runoff-voting-memphis-shelby-county-midterm-election/1858041002).

  • Mustillo, T.M., & J. Polga-Hecimovich. 2018. “Measures and Votes: Party Performance under Free-List Proportional Representation, with Evidence from Ecuador.” Electoral Studies 56: 124–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, J.H. 2004. “New Zealand: Reform by (Nearly) Immaculate Design.” Handbook of Electoral System Choice, ed. J.M. Colomer. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ornstein, J.T., & R.Z. Norman. 2014. “Frequency of Monotonicity Failure under Instant Runoff Voting: Estimates Based on a Spatial Model of Elections.” Public Choice 161: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passarelli, G. 2018. “Electoral Systems in Context: Italy.” The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, eds. E.S. Herron, R.J. Pekkanen, & M.S. Shugart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potyondy, P.R. 2018. “Maine Becomes the First State to Use Ranked-Choice Voting.” National Conference of State Legislatures, June 14 (Accessed on October 21, 2018 at www.ncsl.org/blog/2018/06/14/maine-becomes-the-first-state-to-use-ranked-choice-voting.aspx).

  • Renwick, A. 2018. “Electoral System Change.” The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, eds. E.S. Herron & M.S. Shugart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, E. 2018. “Mainers Vote to Keep Ranked-Choice Voting.” Portland (Maine) Press-Herald, June 13 (Accessed on October 21, 2018 at www.pressherald.com/2018/06/12/ranked-choice-voting-takes-lead-in-early-balloting).

  • Santucci, J. 2018. “Maine Ranked-Choice Voting as a Case of Electoral-System Change.” Representation 54: 297–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, J., A. Renwick, & M. Russell. 2018. “The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit.” University College, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tervalon-Daumont, E., & A. Garza. 2011. “Reforms that Helped Elect Candidates of Color in SF, Oakland under Attack.” New American Media, April 29 (Accessed on August 16, 2017 at newamericamedia.org/2011/04/reforms-that-helped-elect-candidates-of-color-in-sf-oakland-under-attack.php).

  • Thistle, S. 2017a. “Maine’s Highest Court Rules Ranked-Choice Voting Is Unconstitutional.” Portland (Maine) Press-Herald, May 23 (Accessed on August 23, 2017 at www.pressherald.com/2017/05/23/maine-high-court-says-ranked-choice-voting-is-unconstitutional).

  • Thistle, S. 2017b. “Voter-Approved Ranked-Choice Voting Stays in Effect as Repeal Bills Fail.” Portland (Maine) Press-Herald, June 28 (Accessed on August 23, 2017 at www.pressherald.com/2017/06/28/legislature-fails-to-repeal-voter-passed-ranked-choice-voting-law).

  • Tierney, S. 2013. “Using Electoral Law to Construct a Deliberative Referendum: Moving beyond the Democratic Paradox.” Election Law Journal 12: 508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Schoultz, A. 2018. “Electoral Systems in Context: Finland.” The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, eds. E.S. Herron, R.J. Pekkanen, & M.S. Shugart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vowles, J. 1995. “The Politics of Electoral Reform in New Zealand.” International Political Science Review 16: 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, J.A. 1998. “Confederation, Conspiracy, and Choice: A Discussion.” Newfoundland Studies 14: 169–87.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Louisiana, Lafayette, USA

    J. S. Maloy

Authors
  1. J. S. Maloy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. S. Maloy .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Maloy, J.S. (2019). Conclusion: A Realist’s Agenda for Research and Reform. In: Smarter Ballots. Elections, Voting, Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13031-2_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation