[At Home in Europeia] Public Divided on Election Reform






Public Divided on Election Reform
Written by Calvin Coolidge and Maowi
Polling Conducted by Calvin Coolidge



The first of these two opening questions shows a significant proportion of Europeians actively selecting to view the current vote tally before placing their own vote; only 17.9 percent never do so at all, with a further 35.7 percent only sometimes checking before voting. However, 42.9 percent of respondents then claimed that any information garnered from checking the tally did not affect their vote. Looking at individual responses, all those who replied "never" to the first question of course replied "not at all" to the second; but that leaves 25 percent of respondents who view the tally with some degree of frequency before voting, but do not change their vote based on what they see. In fact, voters who chose the "not at all option" had selected a fairly even spread of results in the first question, including a few who always view the tally beforehand. These are the people who would be almost entirely unaffected by any change to a private ballot; their motives for viewing the results before voting are likely to do with impatience and eagerness to see the results, although there is arguably little difference between viewing the tally before voting and viewing it just after; perhaps some do check with their vote in mind, but never end up changing their minds based on the tally. Admittedly, some opponents to private ballots raised the argument that being unable to check the tally throughout the voting period would drain elections of their characteristic excitement with little gain - proponents of that way of thinking, and others who empathise with its viewpoint, may be affected by a switch to a private ballot despite not voting based on the tally.

The rest of the poll respondents, bar one, indicated that they "somewhat" take the tally into account when voting; that is, they engage in strategic voting, perhaps opting for their second choice of candidate if their first choice seems unlikely to be able to properly contest the race. Whether this is a positive or a negative idea is far from objective fact and is a key part of the debate around private ballots. In a sense, it empowers each voter to make a stronger impact on the election - but could also lead to "lemming" voting and a snowball effect leaving certain candidates trailing who otherwise wouldn't be.

There was only one respondent who bases their vote in elections entirely on the vote tally. Perhaps this is the "troll-voting" a private ballot would prevent, although of course the reasoning behind placing such a vote could be many and varied and not necessarily sheer mischief-minded trolling. Respondents to this poll are likely to be active Europeian citizens, but the most certainly not negligible chunk of inactive citizens drawn in to vote in elections by Get Out the Vote (GOTV) campaigns probably vote based on very different rationale. Perhaps uninvolved citizens who have been contacted by multiple people and thus have little idea which way to vote place their vote based on the tally they see; if this is true, private ballots would be very effective at screening out these almost randomly placed votes. However, there is unfortunately no way to know for sure, as the portion of citizens in question is not very likely to become aware of and respond to any poll on the matter.


A mere 7.1 percent of poll takers held negative opinions on GOTV campaigns. The vast majority appear to regard such efforts as fair play on behalf of candidates in elections, or potentially even as a way of involving less active citizens and sparking their interest in Europeia. Of course, it's not just the less active citizens who are targeted by GOTV campaigns, but they are the ones who are likely to be significantly affected by the campaigns, if they were initially unaware of or disinterested in the election. On the flip side of raising interest among these voters, however, is the problem perhaps too big to be overlooked by the 7.1 percent of respondents that some voters, completely inactive in Europeia and with no idea who the candidates are, are given and even encouraged to use an equal say in the future of the region - which will hardly affect them - as the more involved citizens. Whichever way it is viewed from, GOTV is despite this a reality; it would be a uselessly self-imposed handicap to refrain from making GOTV efforts when the chances are that your opponents are doing so too.

Election Reform 1.jpg
Of course, there is also an ongoing discussion in the Senate in regards to election reform, to determine what elections that Re-Open Elections (ROE) should be included when it comes to ballot options. A majority of respondents (53.6 percent) believe that the law should not be changed, meaning ROE should be included on every first-round ballot. A sizable portion of the population (35.7 percent) believe that ROE should only be included on first-round ballots in uncontested races, while only 10.7 percent believe ROE should never be included on a ballot.

Election Reform 2.jpg
And now, we turn our attention to the upcoming Senate by-election, where we see that a slight majority (57.1 percent) would like the Chancellery to use a private ballot, as opposed to 42.9 percent of respondents who will not. Of course, the final decision on every ballot in terms of privacy is left up to the Election Administrator for each election, as the Charter of Rights s5 only guarantees each citizen “secret ballot or by equivalent free voting procedures”. So, we will have to see what the Chancellery does.

Finally, we asked our respondents to offer any of their own suggestions for election reform, if they had any. Some suggestions included an additional 24 hours of voting and ranked choice voting.
  • If Xenforo has any addons for polls, it could be interesting to see what IRV/Ranked Choice options there might be out there.
  • Ranked Choice Voting!
  • To clarify my answers to the first two questions (shame an "other" option or a place to explain wasn't provided): Question #1 (my answer: sometimes) - as I've state elsewhere, I look at the vote tally before voting for Senate elections. Besides allowing me to allocate my extra few votes to "bubble" candidates that I want to see get into the Senate, it also informs my decision when it comes to voting for the number of seats. Question #2 (my answer: somewhat) - in Senate elections. Never really strategically voted in other elections.
  • There's no reason to not give it a try for a couple of elections to see what happens. I don't really buy the critique that it will negatively influence the political aspect of the region.
  • I think the key is consistency across different types of elections.
  • I am not sure any solutions are needed, or that we need to embark on election reform. We shouldn’t presuppose it is necessary.

Thank you to all who participated in this poll, we hope you will vote in today's Senate by-election and continue to make your voice heard!
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to see if we could implement ranked choice voting
 
One thing to consider about "strategic voting" based on seeing results first: that doesn't necessarily mean looking at the results and having the current results influence how you vote. It can also mean it influences when you vote without changing your vote. I know there have been many times that I've withheld my vote based on where we were in the election day cycle and what the results were - but seeing the results has never changed my vote from one candidate to the other.

I probably would've worded the questions a bit differently to get more clarity - because as written, in my opinion, it reads as if those who are voting strategically are checking results and how that impacts their vote is solely limited to changing their choice in the election.

Still, a well done poll and analysis.
 
I probably would've worded the questions a bit differently to get more clarity - because as written, in my opinion, it reads as if those who are voting strategically are checking results and how that impacts their vote is solely limited to changing their choice in the election.
I haven't made a poll in a very long time, but I had similar qualms about that question and another one or two.
 
I probably would've worded the questions a bit differently to get more clarity - because as written, in my opinion, it reads as if those who are voting strategically are checking results and how that impacts their vote is solely limited to changing their choice in the election.
I'll be honest, that's the only outcome I was focusing on for this poll. When people vote is something to consider, and maybe could have been a different question, but I guess I don't know if people changing when they vote matters? I'd like to hear the argument that it does, though, just because I can't see that side right now.
 
I probably would've worded the questions a bit differently to get more clarity - because as written, in my opinion, it reads as if those who are voting strategically are checking results and how that impacts their vote is solely limited to changing their choice in the election.
I'll be honest, that's the only outcome I was focusing on for this poll. When people vote is something to consider, and maybe could have been a different question, but I guess I don't know if people changing when they vote matters? I'd like to hear the argument that it does, though, just because I can't see that side right now.
Holding a few votes to the end can matter.

And it's likely from people who were solidly in one camp to begin with. It can change things, but maybe not often.
 
But holding votes only matters if you can see the votes that have already been cast, right? You only hold votes to prevent information of your true support levels being shown earlier than you have to.
 
It is part of the election day dynamics. I really don’t think that many people base their decision on the current vote total. I am not saying that doesn’t happen - but I think most people base their vote on their opinion of the candidates and their platforms, the traditional metrics by which we judge candidates, rather than the current vote total.

There is a lot of dynamism in our elections driven the public race. I don’t think many people really want to lose that aspect.
 
57.1% base their vote at least somewhat on the current vote total, based on Calvin's poll. So, it's more than you'd think.
 
The wording of the poll is so ambiguous, it’s hard to know what that number really means.

If 57% of us are making our decision on the vote total, we might as well just draw straws for leadership positions.
 
The wording of the poll is so ambiguous, it’s hard to know what that number really means.

If 57% of us are making our decision on the vote total, we might as well just draw straws for leadership positions.
57% of us are somewhat making our decision on the vote total, meaning there's other factors at play, too. That makes sense to me.
 
Right. The poll number is what the poll number is.

it’s just hard to tell how much the vote total matters, and how often it makes a difference in changing the vote.

I think that’s the real question: how often does the vote total cause you to change your vote?
 
Back
Top