Where there are two candidates, each voter has four options: prefer candidate A to candidate B; prefer candidate B to candidate A; consider both A and B acceptable; deem both A and B unacceptable. With only one vote at their disposal, voters can make only the first two choices; they are prohibited, under pain of disqualification, to make the other two. This problem gets aggravated when candidates are many. For instance, where there are a score of candidates, voters are allowed to indicate only their top preference. They are compelled not to voice their opinion on any one of the other candidates. We have failed to realise that the prevailing one vote per voter rule is an unfair restriction on the freedom of voters. Worse, it is a mathematical rule that this will silence the majority. Hence, let’s not blame politicians for doing wrong. We will get politicians who will pursue only minority interests so long as the electoral system muzzles voters.

Some years ago, the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers, the world’s largest scientific body, was troubled by a demagogue who wanted to covert it into an American trade union. Being expert communication engineers, top people in the Institute found the logical solution: they permitted voters to vote in favour of as many candidates as they desired and to indicate their disapproval of any candidate by not casting a vote in that person’s favour. The consequence was electric: instead of voting for their best choice and rejecting even those who were otherwise acceptable, voters were now free to indicate which candidates were acceptable. Candidates who depended on narrow vote banks were therefore outnumbered by those who had broader appeal. Only those candidates who favoured a broad consensus, who promoted the welfare of the majority, succeeded. In short, the system brought to the fore positive-minded leaders who sought to serve the interests of the majority and thereby rejected those who were negative and depended on an assertive minority.

... contd.