Valencing the vote, balancing the ballot

When San Vicente School contemplated on holding elections to select the leadership in its Student Council this year, the issue emerged on how to conduct the election so that it is not a divisive but a unifying exercise. The issue did not last long. There were no models readily available to replicate. Since this was an election year for the CNMI, we thought we would mirror the prevailing system. Adopting the current model of contending parties and individuals where the adversarial ethos is built in to the process, the election was contentious and divisive.

Dr. David Khorram of this page asked in one of his regular Thursday columns: Is there a better way to elect leaders? What could be changed about the electoral process that would maintain a democratic system designed to select individuals that are well-suited for leadership, while also maintaining the unity of the community?

Sam McPhetres at the college suggested that we might institute run-off elections in order to reflect the majority choice as opposed to settling for a minority pick which had been the case in the last three gubernatorial contests.

In the SVS election, we did have a model we could have tried. We did not because we thought mirroring the current practice would be more instructive. And it was. But there is a planning methodology that utilizes broad-based decision making without relying on the disputative procedures of debates and dividing the house for a vote. It is used by group facilitators to elicit priorities among contending proposals, preserving a comprehensive perspective without excluding anyone’s insight. It is an enabling valencing process. My use of the noun ‘valence’ as a verb already points to the novelty of this procedure.

So, OK. Let’s get at the word ‘valence’ before we go any further. The word is used in biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics, and also in psychology, neuroscience, and linguistics. The word denotes the relative capacity of a unit of measure to combine, unite, react, or interact with other units of the same as well as dissimilar types of measure or category. Valencing then serves as a relational term when one weighs the value of one element against another through the preference given.

In the STUCO election, had we used this method, we would have asked the students to assign a preferred number to the four parties vying for the same office, with number four designating the top preference, and one designating the least choice. The choice then is not on one against the other three, but of the four being given different weights of preferences. In this scenario, the top will be a majority choice. The end would not lend to such categorization as winners and losers. There are only layers of preferred choices, giving nods to candidates to play the roles they applied for, in this case, governor, lieutenant. governor, secretary/treasurer, and campus cop.

Move the same scenario to the latest gubernatorial election, and had we given valence to the four candidates, our choices would not have been to isolate one of the four contenders, but to do a preference rating. One might give Ben & Tim a four, Lang and Al a three, H&D a two, and BB a one, or any other order. At the end, the tabulation of the ratings would reflect both a quantitative and qualitative choice. Such categories as majority and minority choices would not apply.

Because the choice is made on preferences rather than on exclusions, Ben & Tim could turn around after the election and offer concrete roles to their fellow candidates, beyond the perfunctory words of “needing to work together.” B&T can actually say, “We are going to focus our energies on the economy and how our economic processes of resource protection and utilization, maximize output of production forces and localize production means, broaden distribution channels and commercialize exchange mechanisms that will accrue revenues into government coffers. We are going to revitalize the current economy to be in tune with global realities while meeting local needs.”

They may then look their fellow candidates directly in the eye across campaign platforms, and say, “We obviously need loyal opposition within our government who will keep a critical eye on our administration. But more importantly, we need partners who will continue planning the common good and exercising the art and discipline of civic virtues. Might we ask, in their private capacities as well as within and among their web of informal networks, that the BB team keeps an eye and assists us to take advantage of opportunities proffered to us by Federal agencies and national resources? Would the H&D team hold us accountable in engaging the creativity of the youth and their passion to deal with issues on education, health and welfare? Might Lang and Al promote the cultural perspective, particularly the cause of the elderly and aging, and ensure that we do not lose sight of the ‘human factor’ in the governance of this Commonwealth?”

Some will snicker that I am treading in the realm of utopian dreaming. But this would be possible and highly probable if candidates did not spend their time bashing each other like they were in gladiatorial combat or wrestling bouts. We would not be inclined to make snide remarks about the others’ incompetence, or deficiency in brain and brawn, as if elections were staged to choose Mr./Ms. Congeniality. I do think, like David Khorram, there are those who would welcome sentiments as those reflected above mirrored in inaugural addresses after each election process.

Representative democracy, the political form we have chosen, requires “agents on-behalf-of” types of leadership. The context for election is decision-making. Valencing the vote might change our candidates from ferocious pugilists who are out to incapacitate their opponents, to strategic sumo wrestlers who are merely out to nudge their opponents out of the circle of attention. The end result of valencing the vote, to paraphrase the credo of one of my education colleagues, would be “many intentions, one direction.” We would balance the ballot so that it does not rend community but solidifies it.

Removing adversity as the basis of democratic contention began with England’s King John and his nobles in the signing of the 1215 Magna Carta. However, the Robert Rules of Order still echoes the disparity acknowledged in their House of Lords and the House of Commons. While we in the CNMI have claimed this to be our political heritage, perhaps, it is also time to reclaim the consensus methodologies of the Utt and the Log House. In their solemn deliberations, the art of persuasion rather than disputation were practiced, comprehension preceded argumentation, discussion avoided disputation, and the calculus of addition reigned over the impulse to subtract.

Let’s allow Dr. Khorram’s focused question require from citizens us a response by the time we come to our next election. I offer the above as prologue. Let the discussion begin.

* * *

Vergara is a Social Studies 6th grade teacher at San Vicente Elementary School