Egyptian Presidential Election Advances Two Most Polarizing Major Candidates to a Run-Off

Egypt held a presidential election on May 23-24. Because no one got as much as 50%, there will be a run-off on June 16-17. Although official election returns have not yet been announced, it appears that the two most polarizing major candidates will advance to the run-off. Here is the wikipedia page about the election. Also see this news story.

Mohammed Mursi, candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood, placed first with 5,553,097 votes (25.30%). Close behind is Ahmed Shafiq, a former Prime Minister under former President Mubarak. He had originally been barred from the race because of his close association with the past discredited government, but he won an appeal and was allowed to run. He received 5,210,978 votes (23.74%). Those two will be in the run-off.

The candidate who placed third, Hamdeen Sabbahi, received 4,739,983 votes (21.60%). He campaigned as a populist, and his base of support was poor neighborhoods in urban areas.

The candidate who placed fourth, Abdelmoneim Abol-Fotouh, received 3,939,264 votes (17.95%). He was a moderate Islamist and a Salafist.

The candidate who placed fifth, Amr Moussa, received 2,407,837 (10.97%). He had once been the front-runner, and is a former chief of the Arab League. All the other candidates together received less than one-half of 1% of the total vote. The ballot listed 13 names, but two had withdrawn before the voting.

These results show the deficiency of election systems that don’t use either Ranked Choice Voting, or Approval Voting. If either of those two alternate systems had been used, the results probably would have been very different.

18 comments

  1. The USA Parliament’s Foreign Ministry has positive solutions.

    We promote the most mathematical way to distribute seats in elections and decision-making that’s known;

    http://usparliament.org/foreignministry.php

  2. Richard Winger · · Reply

    #1, that’s no help in a race to elect a single winner.

  3. Richard, you are incorrect.

    There most certainly IS a single winner, and there always has been a single winner under the Sainte-Lague system.

    The single winner is elected into the #1 spot. There is only one single-winner at the #1 spot, in 1000 consecutively ranked names. There is also #s 2 through 1000, which diminishes the importance of #1, because #s 2-1000 out vote #1 999 to one.

    Your perception that one person is the controller of the assembly, is a poor one. The idea is that there is a big team, and while #1 does play a role, it’s not a role as supreme dictator over everyone else.

  4. Numbers 2 through 1000 out-votes number 1 by a margin of 999 to one in a properly elected parliament.

  5. Egypt uses a poor system, it’s not a proportional representation system. Theirs is a single-winner plurality system, like what everyone thinks is the best way.

    Single-winner plurality not a good way at all.

    Neither is single-winner IRV, the system you’ve been promoting in the past 18 years, that’s now being adopted.

    What makes you think the top one (IRV) is so much better than top two?

    I’m promoting the top 1000.

    I apologize that you don’t get it, I’ve tried to explain it to you for years.

    Maybe if people would quit deleting my posts, I’d have more success in providing the correct information?

  6. The American parliament is currently holding an election to elect 1000 consecutively ranked names, with plenty of consecutively ranked names as back-ups.

    The American Libertarian Party is not for that, and neither is the American Green Party.

    At least some people are trying to change things for the better, and we welcome people to the team.

    But it only works when you actually vote to elect names, otherwise it doesn’t work to elect your nominees, and it doesn’t get arranged by your vote.

  7. We’re currently electing a national 1000 member “9th USA Parliament”, a “Texas Super-state Parliament” and planks on the platform in a “2nd Direct Democracy Election”:

    Please feel free to vote, we’re compiling a stack of ballots through August 5th, and it’s a great way for a lot of diverse people to work together by electing names and decisions;

    http://usparliament.org/votehere.php

  8. It seems to me that the military junta rushed to elections to make sure that civic organizations and political parties did not have time to develop. The results seem the worst possible outcome. An apparachik and a theocrat.

    Ogle, you need to get something to do with your life, and I admit I wish BAN would ban you.

  9. Demo Rep · · Reply

    Utopia –

    Condorcet Head to Head Number Votes math with an Approval Voting tiebreaker

    — but requires *some* literacy in making the number votes — a MAJOR problem in Stone Age regimes — like the U.S.A. (with its armies of public school barely functional illiterates), etc.

    In the meantime – Approval Voting — vote for 1 or more, highest win.

    P.R. for legislative bodies.
    —-
    IRV is F-A-T-A-L for single person offices (perhaps even worse than the FATAL top 2 primary stuff – as in Egypt).

    34 S–M–H
    33 H–M–S
    16 M–S–H
    16 M–H–S
    99

    IRV M loses, S 50, H 49 Let the Civil WAR begin.

    M = MODERATE MIDDLE — esp. for executive officers.
    S = Stalin clone, H = Hitler clone

    Gee — does M have a mere 99 of 99 votes in 1st+2nd place votes ???

    Too many IRV math moron super-dangerous fanatics on Mother Earth to count

    — One more New Age mental disease for having quick fixes to major problems.
    ——–
    The third place guy wants a partial recount according to internet = more chaos.
    —-
    # 8 How about BAN folks who want to BAN other folks ???

    Can’t we all get along ??? Rodney King circa 1992 ??? Los Angeles major riot with many dead and injured.

  10. “# 8 How about BAN folks who want to BAN other folks ???”

    Me: No, we should protect everyone’s free speech rights, even those we don’t agree with – we need to be kind and accept caustic anti-free speech fanatics, and mean people too.

    You never know when they’ll help you. Happens to me all the time. When I least expect it, someone who I don’t like or don’t agree with, helps the parliament in their own unique way.

  11. Since I’m on a roll, how about the Libertarian national convention where they continually take a 2/3rds vote from the floor.

    I mean you can’t tell these people anything and be correct. They always seem to be eager to defy simple math.

    Who else actually believes that 1/3rd is a majority winner, and still tries to defend their position but a big room full of people with pea-sized brains?

    But they’re still cool, they just don’t know better math. Some day they may figure it out.

    😉

  12. Demo Rep · · Reply

    THE problem is divided majorities with 3 or more choices.

    Standard example — A-B divided majority — which obviously can be 2 or more in a divided majority.

    26 A–B–C
    25 B–A–C
    50 C–?–? (esp. if the C folks HATE choice A)
    101

    *just enough* math MORONS with MORON quick fixes (top 2 primaries, IRV, NPV, etc.) to cause international and civil WARS by monarchs / oligarchs.

    See the MORONS at 1986 Chernobyl pulling out control rods in a nuclear reactor, going full speed at night in a known iceberg area (Titanic 1912), etc. etc. etc.

  13. IRV perpetuates a two-party system, and I can’t believe how much time and effort has been wasted over the past 15 years or so by well-intentioned do-gooders.

    Even top two is better than IRV. But if you want to break the two-party system, two-member districts (the more per district the better) elected at-large in ranked choice voting (RCV) would help.

    IRV in single winner districts does little or nothing to help the problem, and single winner districts in general are not good for democracy.

  14. Look at the Egyptian elections as an example of single-winner districts failing the majority. Almost 75% voted AGAINST the person in round one, but that’s who will probably win. And executive by committee (three to five?) would be better than single-winner elections.

    But the USA leaders aren’t going to help Egypt learn, because out leaders think plurality elections are wonderful because that’s how they were elected.

  15. Demo Rep · · Reply

    IF multiple ballots can easily happen (as in legislative bodies), then another alternative is having bare majority votes for single offices.

    i.e. in the Egypt case
    round 1 -vote for 7 of the 13
    round 2 -vote for 4 of the 7
    round 3 -vote for 2 of the 4
    round 4 -vote for 1 of the 2

    i.e. the losing minorities would perhaps vote for the lesser of the remaining alleged evils in the later rounds ???

  16. bolshevik-leninist · · Reply

    It’s impossible to be a “moderate Islamist and a Salafist.” That’s like being a moderate liberal and a Communist. What you mean is that he’s a moderate Islamist who was endorsed by the Salafists. The Salafists didn’t endorse him because they agree with him (they don’t), they basically just did it to piss off the Muslim Brotherhood.

  17. Hello there, simply became alert to your weblog via Google, and found that it is truly informative. I am gonna watch out for brussels. I will be grateful in case you proceed this in future. Lots of folks shall be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!

  18. Liana Guillote · · Reply

    Continue [i]can you break mobic tabs[/i] in homologous and annually and pursue for as imposible as banned (up to 10 seconds), nonelderly mononitate out consecutively through pursed suits or your nose.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: