Op-Ed | Approval Voting
Why it's a great fit for Europeia
Written by Kasa
Edited by Vor and Lloenflys
Edited by Vor and Lloenflys
Preface
It feels somewhat strange to start an article without "Welcome Back", but here we are. As a disclaimer, all of the opinions expressed in this article are my own, and not those of anyone else at the EBC or the organization itself. Also, the crux of my argument here will focus on Approval Voting as a concept and not the more specific details of the Elections Act (2024), because some of the changes introduced by that Act are unrelated to the broader conceptual argument.
The Free Choice Argument
Perhaps the most compelling argument against the old system is that it artificially limits voter choice; limiting the amount of votes to fewer than the number of candidates running prevents people who want all candidates (or even any number beyond the arbitrary maximum number of votes) to serve from fully exercising their right to vote for their preferred candidate(s). Although this system supposedly encourages competition, it can also prevent the election of candidates with majority support, leading to a less representative Senate.
One of the arguments in support of the old system postulates that, if we removed the artificial limitation on votes, everyone who ran for office would always or almost always win. Although this situation isn't desirable, the assumption that it would inevitably exist is flawed. We don't have any reliable predictions for how the average Europeian's voting behaviour would change under Approval Voting, because we have never used it. Because the possibility of a larger Senate now exists, some voters may raise their standards around what they consider as an acceptable candidate, leading to more competitive elections as candidates scramble to get votes from a less easily-convinced electorate.
Of course, that might not be the case, and we may consistently see larger Senates. The point is that we do not yet know the effects of the new system, and it is nonsensical to base arguments off of theoretical future results.
Another counterargument is that the introduction of Approval Voting has removed the ability for voters to express a preference for Senate size, and is as such limiting voter choice when it claims to increase it. As opposed to the previous argument, which was misfounded, this argument is just wrong. For example, let's take a hypothetical "Voter A". Voter A approves of 8 of the candidates, but they only want a 6-person Senate. Therefore, they only vote for 6 of the candidates, leaving out the 2 who they approve of least. Approval Voting doesn't remove the ability to express a preference for Senate size, it just makes the vote indirect (via proxy) rather than direct.
This system grants even more freedom to the voter; voters who care about their approval of the candidates first and the number of seats second can choose to vote for as many candidates as they want, whereas voters who prioritize Senate size over electing everyone they approve of can choose to strategically vote to limit Senate size. Ultimately, this situation is a vast improvement over the previous system, where voters in the first group were forced to vote for Senate size anyway and not vote for candidates they wanted to elect.
The Audience Argument
Unlike Presidential elections, candidates in general elections aren't directly fighting or competing with their competitors based on their platforms; this was true even under the old system. They are fighting for exposure and approval, objectives which are usually fulfilled through GOTV efforts. For this reason, the old regime of limiting winners to encourage competition is somewhat misdirected, because it fails to identify the actual objectives of Senate candidates during their campaigns. The average general election voter doesn't think "Is candidate A's platform better than Candidate B's?" like they do in Presidential elections, because the stakes of the election, individual influence of the contested offices, and overall partisan divides are relatively lower in general elections. Rather, the question usually is "Is this candidate good enough to represent me, and do I broadly agree with their policy stances?"
In this sense, rather than trying to prove themselves superior to their competitors, Senate candidates are trying to "sell themselves" individually to the electorate, which is why Approval Voting makes sense in this context; if all candidates have succeeded in this effort and received majority support, it doesn't make sense to not let all of them hold office. The old system attempted to promote a form of competition that simply doesn't exist in Senate elections, and it is good that it is gone.
The Experiment Argument
As mentioned earlier, we really don't have any basis to examine the impact of Approval Voting on our elections, but we soon will. Even those who disagree with the general policy arguments in favor of Approval Voting should agree on this point, because actually trying this system out could theoretically give them ammunition to argue for its repeal. Whether Approval Voting succeeds or fails, it is important that we actually will have actually tried it, and seen the results for ourselves. Hopefully, after the next general election, we will get some renewed debate on the merits of this system, with actual statistics and results to draw conclusions from.
This discussion has been in the theoretical stage for long enough and received enough Legislative and popular support that it is worth testing out, even if that test tells us that we never want to use this system again.
Conclusion
Thanks for reading my opinion article. Hopefully it has done a good job presenting arguments in favor of Approval Voting. At the very least, I hope it ignites some further discussion. I'll be back fairly soon with the next Senate Week in Review.
