It is highly atypical to have three Presidential Candidates. In fact, no current TCU member has had the opportunity to vote in a Tufts Community Union (TCU) Presidential Election with three candidates.
So, this situation presents a departure from the norm and thus, a seeming departure from precedent. With the TCU Presidential election quickly approaching, the Elections Commission (ECOM) wanted to take time to explain how this years voting system works.
The TCU Constitution (Article VI.B.1.4) states, The TCU presidential election shall use a rank voting system, wherein each member of the TCU may rank the candidates numerically in the order of their preference.
In the past, with a two-candidate race, our choice was simplified. We could vote for Candidate A, Candidate B or we could abstain from voting. In that there were two choices, voting was inherently preferential or ranked. A voter could rank Candidate A over Candidate B, Candidate B over Candidate A, or rank an abstention (implying that neither candidate was electable) higher than both candidates.
But this situation is more complex; not only are Candidates A and B running for President, but Candidate C has entered the picture. So, instead of being able to vote for Candidate A over B, or B over A, there are a plethora of choices (which Im sure we can all imagine). To complicate the choices, the TCU Constitution (VI.B.1.4) also gives voters the chance to vote for any or all of the candidates. This provides a voter with even more choices because voters dont have to make three selections they can vote for only 1 or 2, if they believe only 1 or 2 candidates are worthy candidates.
So, ECOM hopes that at this point, TCU members voting options are clear and we wanted to move to a brief explanation of the paradox of voting. In preferential voting, there are a couple of theoretical situations that can impact the end result.
The first is called the no-show paradox and describes how sometimes not voting certain ways may allow the lesser of all the evils to win. For example, in the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, if Nader supporters had recognized that Gore would have been more effective than Bush and thus voted for Gore instead of Nader (who was not going to win the election) the Democrats would have won four more years in the White House. But, by voting for a liberal non-Democrat (Nader), Gores candidacy was undermined and the GOP won the election.
The second is the thwarted-majorities paradox. This one is simpler. Basically, even though a candidate may be able to beat all other candidates in a two-way election, that candidate may not win the election. Again, Gore would have beaten Bush and Nader in the absence of Nader and Bush, respectively.
The third paradox concerns the presence of multiple-districts. Due to the fact that Tufts is one campus with no electoral college the paradox cant exist in this election. But, in a nerdy Tufts kind of way, ECOM recognizes that it can exist.
Finally, the-more-is-less paradox deals with the influence of individual ballots on the whole election. If the majority of Candidate A supporters arrange their ballots in one way, say A,B,C, but others (who also like Candidate A) vote A,C,B, and the winner of the election were Candidate C, the voters who arranged their ballots A,C,B actually may have caused Candidate A to lose the election.
In the end, voicing your opinion is the best way to ensure that your favorite candidate wins, but how you voice your opinion through voting also matters. Remember to vote.
--
The authors are the 2013 members of the Elections Commission. Joel Kruger is a junior majoring in anthropology. Michael Lesser is a junior majoring in quantitative economics. Daniel Johnson is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major. Paige Newman is a freshman who has not yet declared a major. Brian Sayler is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
