Subject: Re: definitions
From: Tom Round
Date: 11/26/2002, 4:25 PM
To: "Richard Winger" <ban@igc.org>
CC: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu

Wasn't the court's ruling that a run-off is not a whole, separate election by itself? (if I understand the case correctly).

If we define an "election" as the process of filling a single unique office, or a set of identical offices, for a particular term, then we can distinguish it from a "poll". Because the typical American, British, Canadian, Australian, German or New Zealand election has a single poll, it is easy to assume the two are the same -- but they aren't.

[1]     An "election" may end up having no "poll" at all -- if the number of candidates nominated doesn't exceed the number of offices vacant. (Eg, the major parties in Ireland managed to avoid holding Presidential elections in 1952, and between 1974 and 1990 by agreeing on a single compromise candidate each time. There was still an "election" but there was no "poll".)

[2]     Conversely, an "election" may have two or more valid "polls" (leaving aside re-run polls where the original attempt is ruled null and void). French double-ballot Presidential elections are an obvious example. The first round is valid but inconclusive -- valid, because it determines _which _ two candidates survive to contest "le tour decisif". This must be distinguished from cases where the first poll is quashed as invalid, eg because of fraud or substantial errors -- c/f Gerry Malone's 2-vote Commons victory in Winchester (UK) in 1997 -- because then it in no way determines who may contest the follow-up poll. You can have exactly the same candidates, or wholly new candidates, but no one is eliminated as a result of the first poll if it's a nullity.

In fact, many European countries in the 19th century allowed up to three ballots, not just two, if too few candidates polled an absolute majority of votes on the first round. Obviously this would quickly become tedious once universal suffrage was instituted! Also, it became clear over time that for multi-seat electoral districts (which many countries, like Switzerland and Italy, used) re-balloting was neither necessary nor sufficient for avoiding wastage of votes, so these countries adopted single-ballot proportional representation instead.

[3]     You can also have a "poll" without an "election" -- opinion surveys being an obvious example, but I'd also include referenda (conscious however that US usage uses "election" for what other countries would call a "referendum" or "plebiscite", and reserves "referendum" for votes taken on measures already passed by the legislature, as distinct from those initiated by voter petition).

PS:     And yes, I still prefer the plural "referenda" because English is clearer with irregular plurals. Otherwise it's too easy (even in writing, but a fortiori in speech) to confuse "the referendums' result" with "the referendum's result" when you hear both as "the referendums result".

At 09:15 26-11-2002 -0800, Richard Winger wrote:

Silly though it sounds, maybe we should first define "election".  The
California Supreme Court ruled last month in Edelstein v City & County of
San Francisco that a "run-off election" is not an election.

When we define "primary election", also we probably should acknowledge the
Latin root of "primary".

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Round (home)" <T.Round@mailbox.gu.edu.au>
Subject: "Primary", "runoff", etc elections


> Perhaps this is a chance for political scientists to steer the definitions
> in a more precise and stipulative definition. How about something like ...
>
> 1. A "primary" is an election where, within each party, the winning
> candidate[s] are deemed nominated or endorsed by that party for the
general
> election. Ie, a later election must follow even if, say, 6 out of 8
million
> citizens vote in the Republocrat Party primary and of them, 5 million
> prefer Bloggs. (The only ground for dispensing with the later election
> would be if Bloggs were the only candidate: I assume the Supreme Court's
> reading of the "uniform date" federal provisions impliedly allows for this
> -- unlike, eg, Austria and Thailand, where even if s/he unopposed a
> candidate must face a yes/ no referendum.)
>
> It is therefore NOT a "primary" if a candidate can claim victory over one
> or more surviving rival candidates by gaining the votes of some prescribed
> quorum, majority or super-majority of the voters (or of the total enrolled
> electorate, or the Voting-Age Population: Peru, I think, used to require
> that the plurality Presidential candidate be supported by 33% of the total
> adult population, whether or not s/he polled more than half the votes).
>
> This usage would reflect the fact that "primary" is only used, outside the
> USA, for mass ballots limited to party supporters (who usually must be
> paid-up members) -- eg, in Israel to choose the Labour and Likud
candidates
> for prime Minister and to rank the party's Knesset list. The numerous
> countries that use runoff systems for the President and/or legislature do
> not seem to use "primary" (or its equivalent) for the first round.
>
> 2. I propose "first round" or "preliminary ballot" in cases where a
> sufficiently popular candidate can defeat his/her rivals by outpolling
them
> decisively enough on that ballot.
>
> After all, it is possible to have both a primary and a general election
AND
> to have two separate rounds of voting for each, if no candidate gets a
> majority on either -- a total of four possible rounds.
>
> One possible model might be to prescribe a minimum of two and a maximum of
> three ballots for each office. On the first ballot (the "primary
> election"), any candidate can enter. Candidates who are registered members
> of the same party, and seeking the same office, are grouped together. A
> voter may select one candidate regardless of party.
>
> Then, only the following candidates may continue to the second round (the
> "general election"), a month or two later (I'll leave aside whether
> write-ins should be permitted):
>
> [a] Either of the two candidates with the most votes (regardless of party)
> (skipping over any who voluntarily withdraw).
>
> [b] Any other candidate who individually receives more than [say] 10% of
> the votes. (Modelled on the French rule, whose details fluctuate but which
> now, I believe, requires 12.5% of the total enrolled electorate for third,
> fourth, etc candidates to avoid elimination -- but not in Presidential
> elections where only the top two remain, as M Jospin found to his chagrin
a
> few months ago).
>
> [c] For each party whose candidates in total poll more than [say] 10% of
> the votes -- whichever of those candidates receives the most votes
> (skipping over any who voluntarily withdraw).. (So five Greens could run
> against a single "unopposed" Democrat without losing the Green slot on the
> general election ballot, provided that at least 10% vote Green in the
> aggregate.)
>
> Finally, if no candidate received 50% (or 40%, or whatever) of the votes
in
> the second "general election" round, a third, "runoff election" would be
> held, a fortnight later. Only the two highest-polling candidates from the
> second round may remain (skipping over any who voluntarily withdraw).
>
> I'm floating this thought-experiment as a question of good policy, without
> delving into its constitutionality -- especially the question of whether
> associative rights would be unconstitutionally infringed if the XYZ
Party's
> official nominee could be selected in any part by voters who have
> acknowledged no allegiance to the XYZ Party, even by the fairly minimal
> step of registering as one (which is very minimal compared to most other
> democracies where party members must usually pay fees, attend meetings,
> etc). This is the advantage of not having a Bill of Rights in Australia:
> that citizens other than Justice O'Connor get to put forward, even enact,
> their convictions about what a fair electoral system means...
Dr Tom Round
> BA (Hons), LL.B (UQ), PhD (GU)
> Research Fellow, Key Centre for Ethics,
>          Law, Justice and Governance (KCELJAG)
> Room 1.10, Macrossan Building, Nathan Campus
>          Griffith University, Queensland (Australia) 4111
> Ph:     (061 or 07) 3875 3817
> Mbl:    0438 167 304
> Fax:    (061 or 07) 3875 6634
> E-mail: T.Round@mailbox.gu.edu.au
> Web: http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/kceljag/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>