The random ballot

[homelycooking]

I like to think about this system and what it would mean for the election of, say, the President of the United States. It is a fair process in that each candidate has a chance of becoming elected equivalent to the percentage of the vote he receives, while the chance of a candidate becoming elected under any other system, FPTP or otherwise, is zero unless that candidate's vote total is the highest. It obviously can lead to unfair outcomes, however, since even the most irresponsible or incompetent candidates have a chance, however small, of being elected despite overwhelming majorities preferring someone else. And indeed, something is clearly wrong where two candidates receive one million and ten votes, respectively, yet the latter is elected because of a statistical fluke. But where three candidates receive one million, one million, and one million one votes, does the last candidate have the right to govern on the basis of his one-vote margin as if his margin were a million times that size?

The random ballot is democratic in a sense; in another it is not. Obviously the one voter whose ballot is selected as the determining random ballot becomes a dictator for a time - his will becomes the reality. But would he even know of his vast power, should he obtain it? No. In a sense, voting under the random ballot system would become a competition for power, in which each competitor could only be able to improve his odds of ascending to the dictatorship by voting, nothing more. What a bizarre situation - the malicious, crafty, manipulative cynics and nihilists would aspire to civic participation, and the honest might reject it outright! Even the nature of one's vote would be irrelevant: as long as it is valid and randomly selected out of the whole of the ballots, one's will is imprinted onto reality.

But consider a situation in which the electorate is made up of 51% "Reds" and 49% "Blues", and, in accordance with their interests, Reds always select Red candidates and Blues always choose Blues. In two-candidate races under FPTP, Reds would always triumph, despite winning by a small margin. Certainly this is the "fair solution", in that the candidate supported by the majority wins. But does a Blue candidate, under this "fair" system, deserve to have a zero percent chance of winning every time? Ultimately, is democracy about "deliberative fairness" - the long-run outcome of many elections mirroring the overall composition of the electorate - or about "deliberative justice" - winning the most votes matters above all? What should matter - process or results? And in what contexts or situations?

If you've reached this point, thanks for reading my disorganized stream of thought. I eagerly welcome your thoughts/comments/questions.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

If you can find me a computer program that can simulate this, I will gladly run the last Canadian election though it. I've tried, I could not find one.

[homelycooking]

I'd be very interested in seeing the 308 ridings determined by random ballot, but I don't know of any program to simulate it with.

But I could do it with my graphing calculator. Let me give it a shot.

Avalon: Liberal 73
Bonavista - Gander - Grand Falls -Windsor: Conservative 14
Humber - St. Barbe - Baie Verte: Liberal 38
Labrador: Liberal 57
Random - Burin - St. George's: Liberal 59
St. John's East: NDP 34
St. John's South - Mount Pearl: Liberal 23

Cardigan: Conservative 28
Charlottetown: NDP 90
Egmont: Conservative 20
Malpeque: Liberal 53
 
Cape Breton - Canso: Liberal 33
Central Nova: Liberal 71
Cumberland - Colchester - Musquodoboit Valley: Green 97
Dartmouth - Cole Harbour: NDP 93
Halifax: NDP 65
Halifax West: NDP 70
Kings - Hants: Conservative 2
Sackville - Eastern Shore: Conservative 11
South Shore - St. Margaret's: NDP 80
Sydney - Victoria: Conservative 37
West Nova: Liberal 51

Acadie - Bathurst: NDP 92
Beausejour: Liberal 49
Fredericton: Conservative 40
Fundy Royal: Conservative 18
Madawaska - Restigouche: Liberal 44
Miramichi: Green 99
Moncton - Riverview - Dieppe: Conservative 24
New Brunswick Southwest: Conservative 49
Saint John: Conservative 8
Tobique - Mactaquac: Green 98

LOL: Greens win Miramichi.

I'll do Quebec soon, if you'd like.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

What do the numbers mean

[Napoleon]

What do the numbers mean

The number selected at random, corresponding with a range of integers based on the percent vote received by each party.

[homelycooking]

What do the numbers mean

I use my graphing calculator to generate a random number from 1 to 100. This "selects" one ballot out of one hundred. All the riding's votes are represented by the 100 voters from which the random ballot is selected. The parties are arranged like so: Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc Quebecois, Green, Independent, Other. Low numbers mean that a Conservative will probably be elected, and scores of 90 or above usually mean that an NDP, Green or other party member will be elected.

Example: In the riding of Fredericton, where the result was:

Tories 48%
Dippers 24%
Grits 23%
Greens 4%
Independent 1%

The Tory candidate will be elected if the random number drawn is 1-48, the Liberal candidate will be elected if the number is 49-71, the NDP candidate will be elected if the number is 72-95, the Green candidate will be elected if the number is 96-99, and the Independent will be elected if the number is 100.
 
The number drawn was 40, so the Conservative was elected.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I once wrote a Python program to simulate a US presidential election at random.

[tpfkaw]

Just did it for 2010 Senate - this time was quite favorable to the Democrats, although they must suffer through the election of O'Donnell and Angle, and the defeat of Inouye.  No third-party wins (except Murkowski if that counts).