Jacob: Can you explain cumulative voting?
Rachel: Let us compare voting in the United States vs Europe (and most countries of the world). The elections in Iraq, for instance, are European style Parliamentary elections, not U.S. style Congressional elections.
Suppose a State gets two Senators, and each citizen in the State gets to vote for each Senator. The citizens are loyal party members and they vote along party lines. The State has 55% Democrats and 45% Republicans.
In the U.S., we have separate ballots for each Senate seat. Both Senate seats are won by the Democratic candidate.
In Europe, each party submits a list of two names. Citizens vote for a party, not for a Senator. The voting result is 55% Democratic and 45% Republican. The closest division is 1 Senator for each party.
Each system has its advantages. In the U.S., we never vote for parties. In theory, every election is between individuals, not between parties. A person may vote for the Republican candidate in one Senate seat and the Democratic candidate in the other Senate seat.
The problem with the U.S. system is that a slight edge in citizens may give an enormous disparity in Congress. Suppose every election district in the U.S. has a 55% to 45% split between Democrats and Republicans. If people vote along party lines, the Democrats pick up every seat in Congress.
The European system says: "This makes no sense. In practice, people vote along party lines. The Congress should end up 55% Democrats and 45% Republicans.
Jacob: How does this relate to cumulative voting?
Rachel: Suppose a Board of Directors has 20 members. The managing officers of the firm own 10% of the stock. Most small stockholders will vote for whomever the management wants, and they give their votes to management to vote by proxy. These small stockholders have 45% of the stock, so management controls 55% of the votes.
Minority shareholders, such as a large pension fund, own 45% of the stock. They want a different direction for the firm, and they want to elect members of the Board of Directors.
With voting for individual members, the management would control all 20 seats on the Board. With cumulative voting, management controls 11 seats, and the minority shareholders control 9 seats.
Jacob: Are you saying that the European system is better? Are there advantages to the U.S. system?
Rachel: In the European system, no one runs for office himself or herself. In the U.S., if a person can persuade voters that he or she is the best candidate, that person can win election. One doesn’t need a party for support.
Jacob: Does this happen a lot in the U.S.?
Rachel: It occurs all the time. To get on the ballot, a person needs signatures. To run a campaign, a person may use personal funds or find wealthy supporters. Candidates generally work through parties, since they get the party’s campaign structure. But it is the individuals who promote themselves and get the party nomination; the party elders have little say. This occurs in every election we have. Even for Presidential elections, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were outsiders, not the first choice of the Democratic Party, when they first ran for President.