Jeremy Chen/
The Elected Presidency is an office where the President is directly elected by the people. In our current elections, there are four “approved” candidates, which makes it tough for a single candidate to garner more than 50% of the electoral vote in a First-Past-the-Post (a.k.a. one-man-one-vote) voting system. With 50% being the default standard for “having the mandate of the people”, this poses some difficulties.
The objective of a voting system, at least for this election, is to measure the mandate of the people. While First-Past-the-Post has been widely used in Singapore and elsewhere, it does not make sense in this setting. This is because an individual may support more than one of the candidates to be President. This would certainly be likely in a situation where all candidates have been screened for suitability. As such, first-past-the-post is the wrong tool for measuring the mandate of the people.
Enter Approval Voting. Approval Voting is a system where voters indicate all the candidates that they would support for a position. That is to say each candidate is rated with either “Approve” or “Do Not Approve”. The candidate with the highest number of approvals wins the election. Based on this description alone, one might conclude that Approval Voting:
(i) is straightforward and comprehensible,
(ii) is simple to implement given our present electoral practices,
(iii) removes (or at least greatly reduces) personal dilemmas of choosing between two or more favored candidates, and
(iv) directly measures mandate of people.
A further minor feature is that Approval Voting may increase the percentage of valid votes. This is because a voter may approve of all or none of the candidates available, reducing the incentive to destroy one’s vote. In addition, Approval Voting has good theoretical properties, which the interested reader may look up. The property of “truthfulness”, in particular, is described in the Annex below.
Approval Voting is a good voting system and should receive consideration for subsequent elections. In parliamentary elections, it would mean that multiple opposition parties will be able to contest in a constituency without fear of splitting the opposition vote. But foremost should be the fact that Approval Voting directly measures the mandate of the people.
Approval Voting is already in used by bodies such as the Mathematical Association of America and the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. In the selection of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, rounds of preliminary approval polling are used to build consensus before a formal vote is held in the Security Council.
As such, there is a strong argument for exploring Approval Voting for use in future elections. More generally, it makes sense to form a committee to re-examine our voting system and make a recommendation on whether or not it should be changed, and if so, to what system. Such a committee might contain senior public servants, representatives from major political parties and academics who are familiar with the properties of various voting systems.
Annex on the “Truthfulness” of Approval Voting:
Under a reasonable model of preferences, it can be mathematically proven that Approval Voting ensures voters need not misrepresent their preferences on the ballot to pursue an election outcome they prefer. We say that “truthful voting” is an optimal response for each voting individual.
Specifically, the model of preferences referred to is one where individuals either support or do not support each candidate. Each candidate in the “Approved” category are equally supported, and all candidates that are in the “Not Approved” category are equally un-supported. This is known in the literature as “dichotomous preferences”. This is a realistic model of the “voter thinks candidate is suitable for position” and “voter thinks candidate is not suitable for position” dichotomy.
What I mean by “misrepresenting preferences” is best illustrated by an example from the USA. In the 2000 US Presidential Elections (using First-Past-the-Post), the front-runners were Al Gore (Democratic Party), George Bush (Republican Party) and Ralph Nader (Green Party). The final outcome was that Nader got 2.74% of the popular vote and Bush (47.87% of the popular vote) won by a razor thin margin only through the electoral college versus Gore’s 48.38% of the popular vote (yes, Gore had more votes). If one were a Green Party supporter, one would typically favor the Democrat platform far over the Republican platform. Thus though one would prefer Nader to Gore to Bush in that order, since the election results in just one winner, it would be strategically sensible to vote Gore even though one preferred Nader. Such misrepresentations of preferences, which can occur in first-past-the-post elections with more than two candidates, represents a distortion in the electoral poll which may have unpredictable results.
While the assumed model of preferences which generates “truthful voting” is wrong, as all models are (to any given voter, not all Tans are equal), approve/do not approve is a reasonable approximation. At the very worst, when inter-candidate preference effects are strong in the extreme, Approval Voting produces exactly the same result as First-Past-the-Post, with each voter approving only their most preferred candidate.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
good idea!
who can approve approval voting?
It does sound like a good idea.
We need Erected President more than we need Elected President.
This Election is rigged to have a 4 corner fight, people are not daft, it’s not out of the generosity of the Election Dept to approve the other Tans, other than their PAP endorsed candidate Tony Tan.
Voters have to think carefully whether to vote with their head or their heart.
Forced to do strategic voting, and vote with untrue heart.
If vote for TCB or TJS, it dun mean we like or agree with their manifesto, it’s just we dun want TT to win, we’ll try to prevent this. Just shrug our shoulders if we fail in our efforts. No big deal, the whole thing just an act, no importance to us.
Want only to bet on the most likely winner, other than TT, yes, it’s cold strategic voting, but we have to bend with the wind. No other way.
TT is the best and the brightest! And Singapore needs the best and the brightest as her elected President.
Any candidate is good, but not Tony Tan.
We wil vote him out!
@fatah
All the candidates are non-erectable with the possible exception of Tan Jee Say because he is the youngest among them
Me & my PRC friends hope that Singaporean will choose Tan Jee Say.
TJS has good idea to dismentle Temasek and sell off all the GLC, this is a good oppotunity for China to invest in SG and 10 year or 15 years time SIA, DBS, Singtel or SGX could be majority owned by China. US is technically bankrupt so it is safer to shift the investment chip to SG if GLC are for sell. Vote Tan Jee Say!
Who knows some day in future PRC management team will surely take better care of Singaporean workers and labour. Vote Tan Jee Say for a better future!
If the President’s role is purely ceremonial fronting Singapore in local and international affairs, TT seems to have the most experience because of his exposure as a senior statesman. Professionally he is a good man. But for an elected President whose critical role is one of check and balance, we should choose someone who is effectively non-partisan and fiercely independent. Sad to say, if one were to rank the 4 candidates in this respect, TT will be ranked lowest.
TT may claim to fit the bill but to many he is not seen in this light, and for valid reasons, some of which have been brought up by the other candidates. Firstly, leopards do not change their spots overnight or even at all. TT has been directly involved in formulating and implementing government policies for decades at the most senior levels. Many of these have been critised by the electorate. To name a few, until recently he was the chairman of SPH which has been critised as a government’s tool in the restriction of freedom of speech. He was also the executive vice-Chairman of GIC who together with LKY (as Chairman) got GIC into billions of dollars losses even till today in investments which ultimately are funded by reserve funds given to it by the Ministry of Finance/government. GIC has not admitted any responsibility for these losses and by implication TT has not. Both have to this date kept the situation opaque to the public.
TT has argued that by letter of the constitution the elected President has no role to question Gig’s poor investment ventures and policies. We can assume therefore that he will take this interpretation with him if he were to be elected president and will continue to ignore any GIC’s wayward endeavours. I believe he is being defensive and tries to cover his ass by ignoring the spirit of the constitution and his moral responsibility. He misses the forest for the trees. GIC funds are undoubtedly part of Singapore reserve funds. Any custodian of reserves must and should be concerned if employment of such funds is put at undue risks of losses as had happened in GIC. While not involved in day-to-day activities of GIC, he must still make it his duty to the people of Singapore to vet and endorse, at the “board” level, risk management policies such as on due diligence discipline, maximum risk appetite, portfolio concentrations, cut-loss limits etc in a similar manner as prescribed by MAS and other first world central banks to financial instructions in risk management. Losses by GIC and for that matter by Tease Holdings surely has an impact on overall reserve funds, regardless of whether losses are accounting-wise termed as from present or past reserves. In the spirit of things they are all fungible reserve funds belonging to the country however it is cut up. I think therefore that the current president’s silence and boh-charp stance on this matter has added to popular opnion that a candidate like TT who is closely pro-government at the highest level will not do a proper job as a watchdog over the government.
In fact, and this was argued by Tan Cheng Bock, first world corporate governance practices dictates that a person with executive responsibilities in an organization should not be put into a corporate governance position of that organisation with a moratorium period of 3 years or so. On this count TT should automatically be disqualified from this presidential election.
Notwithstanding TT’s expertise and knowledge on financial matters, the government in its own right already has capable personnel in place to formulate the appropriate strategies in times of crisis as shown in the last crisis. The present president is not a financial expert and it was not known that his services were called upon except at the back-end to use the 2nd key to open the vault. If TT thinks he has a critical part to play in saving Singapore from the next potential crisis, it is better for him to remain in GIC or as adviser to Tharman and the cabinet in direct problem solving because as a president he will not be actively involved in affairs of the government on a day-to-day basis.
@SIMPLE, please vote TJS.
Technically speaking, 40% gave their ‘mandate’ to Opposition. Or put it this way, 40% did not gave their ‘mandate’ to pap.
But the PAP got more than 60% seats. In fact, they increased the total number of seats such that despite the few rare more seats occupied WP, about 95% is occupied by pap.
This is not proportionate with the real situation on the ground where it is not 95% support pap.
Thus, i question this model if it REPRESENTS the People fairly.
We must Scrutinize Everything.
Leave no Stones unturned.
Question Every dam thing.
Only this way we can get the most truths revealed. Put it this way, if you assume, you do not know.
If you trust without evidence, but based on impression from media, you are not based on the full truths.
From now till the end of our lives, Question! Question! Question!
Towards a 1st world system!
Approval voting would be a clear advance if you could force all voters to be “truthful” and for all the political players to not try to pursue tactics to help your side win.
But that’s not going to happen in such an election. See concerns expressed here:
http://www.approvalvoting.blogspot.com
Better to go for traditional runoff elections, as used in most presidential elections around the world, or ranked choice voting (the preferential voting system used in Australia and some other elections).
Those who don’t want Tony Tan to be the president please share the facts about Tony Tan’s “track record” with your friends, families, neighbours, colleagues, etc.
http://young-pap.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html
Just today, I provided details of his “track record” to change the minds of 2. They previously based their decision on MSM information about Tony Tan’s resume. E.g. He presents a dignified image of Singapore when interacting with foreign heads of states, with his GIC experience he can help grow the economy, blah, blah, blah. But they did not know the *FACTS* about his *actual performance* on-the-job.
Mind you, they are literate and internet-savvy folks. So don’t assume that the young internet-savvy folks would have heard the truth about Tony Tan’s “track record” or about the “Patrick Tan scandal”. Please for the sake of Singapore’s future, share! The more the merrier!
Good one winking doll,
Interesting article, I used to think tt got good image among pappies but he got cans of worms inside him too scared not to be president
Vote for tjs..
aljunied GRC residents had the honour to vote out the Pap during the GE 2011.. if my GRC had a better opposition running against the Pap.. the opposition would certainly win more seats.. this time round for the Presidential Election, every individual voter, dun miss the chance to show the PAP that we really dislike them and enough is enough!.. even though the elected president doesn’t have much power to really effect changes to the government policies to put sporeans first.. we can do our part not to let Tony Tan win at all costs.. talk to ur parents, grandparents, spouse, brothers, sisters and friends, help to pass the message across.. we cannot afford to vote Tony Tan.. if not it will be a very very sad future for all singaporeans..
@Ma Zhou. Please don’t try to sell your TJS Koyok here. If Temasek really selling off GLC that who will benefit? You think the taxi driver or the Ah Beng will benefit? At least now under the Govt the GLCs will still pass on to Ah Beng’s grandchildren generation. If it is sold who will pick up the shares? Another Far East Organization? Then they can spend 10% and buy another hospital name form the Ng’s family? TJS is a dud in Economic, only fools will believe him.
HE WAS BORN INTO A BANKING DYNASTY. HE WAS A FINANCE MINISTER. YET HE BOUGHT THE WRONG BANKS AT THE WRONG PRICES AT THE WORST TIME. HE STILL COLLECTS HIS SALARIES WHILE SINGAPOREANS PAY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR HIS HORRENDOUS MISTAKES. http://singaporereserves.blogspot.com
@IVOTEahMENG, yes I think TJS is a genius in Economic. As he suggested better sell off all the GLCs, government should get out of business. PRC is more than happy to divert funds to SG to buy up all the shares sold by Temasek. Actually PRC have good management team and no problem for Singaporean to work under PRC management. Anyway we are all Chinese after all.
Please support TJS, me & my PRC friends like TJS very much, he is the best Tan out of the 4.
While REFERENDUM may not be suitable to be used to formulate policies all the time, We CAN still use REFERENDUM to serve its fundamental purpose : Let the people’s views be heard.
At least the people’s views should be polled and let everyone know even if this may not be used to decide on policies.
The key here is to let everyone know rather than to hide this sentiment from the people.
Last time, we did not really know in concrete terms how many would vote AGAINST the PAP thanks to the WALKOVER and GRC system and fear and kia’ism plagueing the minds of talented citizens preventing them from stepping forward to Allow citizens a chance to vote. Its the people who allowed that situation to continue for decades.
Now we finally know about 40% critical mass want to oust the pap.
1 more mistake, i suspect, they would be kicked out of prosperity.
@IVOTEahMENG.
Good, for PRC FT like me we really hope that China company can buy a controlling stake in SIA, Singtel and all the GRCs. So when TJC says he want to dismantle Temasek I think that is already a winner. Vote TJS.
@IVOTEahMENG.
With TJS as president and his good policy of dismantling Temasek that would be good for China investment. Do you know that it is not possible to buy over SIA, DBS, Capitaland etc etc., now? Once TJS recommendation of selling off GLCs is approved I can assure you China will come here with 40ft containers of US$ to buy up everything available. Singaporean would be very happy because when they sell their share they get extra pocket money. TJS is the best Tan out of the 4. Vote TJS.
Everything has its order of beginning and ending and my assessment is that the Papies could no longer manipulate and hookwink the common folks with its fabricated and programmed tricks to outwit us.If we want our CPF back in full,affordable public housing,education,transportation,medical and food,then we,true blue S’poreans should earnestly pray hard for the intervention of the UNSEEN to help us free from the crawls of the demon.
Would you like to be President??
The answer is YES…..I WOULD TOO.
Give me $4 million bucks.
That’s why.
I will kiss babies, shake hands with people I don’t know and those I don’t like, keep my mouth shut and not ask questions of Gahmen…and yes ..I will suck up to the Pappies too…as well.
For $4 million bucks.. I will do it….and to hell with my principles.
========
TOGETHER..let us wipe the smile off Tony Tans face.
HOW CAN TONY TAN EVER BE INDEPENDENT OF THE PAPPIES??
HE IS AS INDEPENDENT OF THE PAP AS LHL WILL EVER BE?
WHEN LKY TELLS HIM TO JUMP>> HE WILL ASK HOW HIGH SIR???
HE IS CONNECTED TO THE CHEEKBONE, THE BACKBONE AND THE HIP BONE OF THE PAPPIES …FOREVER.
DONT BE FOOLED.
Tony Tan IS THE PROBLEM. NOT THE SOLUTION.
WHAT DID HE DO AS CHAIRMAN OF SPH TO GIVE SINGAPORE MORE PRESS FREEDOM?
SWEET F-ALL…THAT’S WHAT!!!
ALL HE DID WAS SIT ON HIS ARSE, FATTEN HIS WALLET AND SUCK UP TO THE PAPPIES.!!!!
DONT BE FOOLED.
ARE YOU READING AND LISTENING??
DONT BE FOOLED BY TONY TAN.
DONT VOTE FOR TONY TAN.
He says he is independent of the PAP.
He is as independent of the Pappies as LHL is.
Dont be fooled.
Dont be taken in by the propaganda of the lap dog ST which just follows the Pappies.
DONT VOTE FOR TONY TAN.
@Rob Richie
The strength of approval voting is that it is more expressive. It is also about deciding, on a personal level who you think is good enough to be in office.
On strategic voting:
If your first and second choices are close enough, in your view, in terms of benefit to you, then also voting for your second choice and causing your first choice to lose is not such a bad thing.
As for the strategic people who “take advantage of the situation” and vote only their preferred candidate, they are expressing their view that only one person is good enough.
At least this is one view.
It is far less debatable that approval voting represents an improvement over first past the post.
The PAP strategy of exterminating opposition parties and dissenters in Singapore by force of arms and law systematically for over 50 years have paid off for them. Since there are no sitting long term opposition of any kind until recently the PAP wins easily everytime. No matter what anyone else have to offer for normalcy and democracy they will be rejected because these people are by force of PAP thuggery new on the scene and unrecognizable by the bulk of the populace. So opposition candidates in Singapore are new and mostly strange faces to the populace with no familiarity for the people. Not surprisingly the opposition has a hard time gaining credence and win elections.
Now that another PAP man Tony Tan has become the supporting arm of Government, it does not mean that we let the ISD hound us whenever they like nor judges emasculate us for phony defamation charges nor elite lawyers who are PAP handmaidens humble us by wielding the ISD or other state institutions nor forget that the office holders are getting paid in amounts that are fit for Kings robbing us openly nor sit by while the country is overrun by foreign economic units to earn the PAP GDP points; in short to be vigilant about the PAP governance and to be ready to pay for normalcy and democracy with our lives.
We must stop the vicious cycle of the PAP. The routine is of exterminating opposition parties in Singapore and new unknown faces having gained credence by process of time only to be cut down, and the cycle begins again.. There is a real danger if this continues that Singapore will be a One Party country for the next 50 years if we let the ISD and the legal machinery of the PAP full play as usual. This is because people take time to become familiar faces as opposition figures, they don’t just spring up as talking heads at an election and disappear after that. We must ensure that these opposition parties are not cut down by the PAP pit bulls as soon as it seems the coast is clear for the political police to act and the judges to sin in Court.