Ranked balloting advocated again. Dead Horses lie everywhere.

Vincent J. Curtis

19 Nov 2018

RE: Hamilton Deserves a Better Voting System (Hamilton Spectator 17 Nov 2018)

It is not enough for Mr. Brad Walchuk to huff and puff about ranked balloting, claiming there is a democratic deficit and saying that ranked balloting is better than the system we have now – plurality election.

He has to do his homework.  Ranked balloting is not a new issue, and several decisive counter-arguments have been advanced over the years against it and against the assertion of a democratic deficit.  He has to address and answer the objections.  He does not.

One objection is that ranked balloting cannot follow its own principle.  In the by-election that saw Donna Skelly elected in Ward 7, Skelly won against 16 other candidates.  Even if voters were forced to rank all 17, Skelly’s vote count could never plausibly be massaged above 50 percent.  (And less than 30 percent of the electorate bothered to vote, creating an insuperable obstacle to the principle of 50 percent and the "democratic deficit.")

Ranked balloting can be defeated by widespread plunking.  Ranked balloting simply fails in some instances, so why not go whole hog and hold run-off elections – or is that too expensive?

You have to do your homework.  The system of plurality election, the standard method since the first parliaments of England, remains the best.  That’s why we still have it.

-30-