Wire Train - Chamber Of Hellos

Guild Wars 2 OST - Lornar's Pass

Election Ramble II

The Philippine presidential election is decided by plurality vote. Some may know our system as "first past the post"  voting. Simply put, whichever of the candidates gets the most votes wins. The problem of this system is apparent. A situation may arise where the winner of the election may receive the most votes out of all the candidates but does not receive the majority of the total votes of the electorate. For example, in a five-way race where candidates A, B, and C each receive 25% of the vote, candidate D only needs 40% to win. Can it really be said that D's victory was by the will of the people? Depending on the number of candidates and the way the votes are split, D's margin can be lower.

In contrast, some countries practice a runoff system or two-round voting. In this system, the top two candidates, or in some cases the candidates who reach a certain threshold, from the first round of voting will run again in the second round. There are two major advantages to this. Firstly, the will of the electorate is more clearly expressed and determined since the winning candidate will require a majority vote of the entire electorate. Secondly, the losers of the first round have the opportunity to make deals with the frontrunners to lend their support (voters) in exchange for concessions, making sure that even minority interests still have a say. Such dealings are apparent in countries with a strong political party system.

But I digress in mentioning two-round voting. 

It would be reasonable to predict that a plurality voting system would eventually produce a two-party system. In a winner-takes-all scenario, there will come a point where the small fish just don't stand a chance. Political parties that are too small will wither away. Eventually, the race will always boil down to two or maybe three people who have a serious chance of winning. In the Philippines, that hasn't happened.

In the Philippine elections, both past and present, the polls will eventually show the top two candidates who are most likely to win, and an assorted bunch of future losers. The candidates at the bottom tend to stay in the race despite all odds. Making deals and concessions with the frontrunners is out of the question since our party system is woefully unsophisticated. There's nothing to be gained by dropping out of the race. It seems people are content to just stay on like a boil that refuses to pop.

I thought about this the other day and I wondered why hopeless candidates won't just quit. The cynic in me proposed a crude answer. What if it's about receiving campaign donations? What if running for president is not something to spend money on but an opportunity to make money?

It's a ridiculous thought. It's probably incorrect but I am ashamed to admit that I don't know what happens to unspent campaign money after the elections are over. Is it possible to run a pro forma campaign where you just go through the motions of giving speeches and waving, all the while receiving more money than what your efforts warrant? It would then be an indirect form of bribery, assuming you get to keep the change. Keep in mind that candidates who occupy office don't have to give it up until they actually win.

It can't be this simple.