DR IAN JOHNSTON
It is clear that the Scottish election system - in particular the Holyrood system - is broken. There are several levels of problem. The unacceptably high number of spoiled ballot papers in the recent election shows that a large number of voters do not know how to vote. That might be sorted by better instructions or separate ballot papers, but leaves the second problem untouched: hardly anyone knows how the system works.
How many voters understand how list MSPs are chosen? I have a doctorate in applied mathematics, an academic career in engineering ... and not a clue about how that second cross affected the result.
This leads to a dangerous situation: when the electorate cannot understand how elections work they cannot, by definition, be expected to vote in a way which will give representative results. Apart from his lack of an overall majority, Mr Salmond has at the moment no mandate to negotiate independence (and the opposition leaders have no mandate for the union) as it is impossible to tell what the electorate really wanted. There are various solutions. We could redesign ballot papers or change the voting system - perhaps to first-past-the-post, which has the merit of simplicity. No fiddling of this sort will, however, deal with the worst problem, which is that to make an informed choice, voters need a good idea of the effect of their votes - and that means that the behaviour of other voters needs to be taken into consideration.
To solve that problem requires a radically different way of casting votes. I propose that in the interests of democracy and accountability, we should move to closed-loop voting.
At the moment all voting systems in use are open loop. That means that the electors are expected to know the effect of their votes in advance. It's like trying to run a bath to the right temperature by choosing the positions of the taps - possible, but much harder than checking the temperature and making adjustments. That process of checking the outputs and changing the inputs is feedback, and it allows a system to be controlled accurately even when its precise behaviour is unknown. I propose that feedback control is used in elections.
It would work like this. On the first day of the election, everybody who wants to vote does so. At the close of polls a result is produced and announced in the usual way. Now for the feedback loop. After that day, everyone who voted may change their vote as often as they like. As they do, the results are updated in real time - allowing them to decide whether to change (again) or let their votes stand. Once things have reached a steady state (no change in the outcome for twenty four hours), the election would be over.
This method will work with any electoral system. It would be straightforward to implement. Votes could be cast in person - electronic tallying machines are in widespread use - or online, by phone or by text message. Even under the most complicated voting system, producing real-time results would be straightforward.
The advantages would be enormous. Electors would no longer have to second-guess decisions of others, tactical voting would be effective, wasted votes reduced, dubious marginal results largely eliminated and every elected member - direct or list - would be subject to electoral approval.
Let's give the electorate control.
- Dr Ian Johnston is a staff tutor in technology with the Open University in Scotland.
- Does Dr Johnston's idea get your vote? Comment online below or e-mail features@theherald.co.uk (with the subject line Think Tank). We'll bring you the best responses later in the week, and a new idea next Monday.
- And if you have a radical idea you'd like us to consider for a Think Tank, e-mail an outline to the same address.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article