Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Electoral Reform on the Ballot: Wins for Instant Runoff Voting and More
2008 was historic in terms of the election of the first African American to be president and the largest number of voters at the polls in our history. But in the modern era, there is no excuse for privately-owned voting machines that breed mistrust, confusing ballot designs, polling places with long lines, voter registration laws that leave nearly a third of Americans off the rolls, an Electoral College system that undercuts equality and voting methods that suppress voter choice and stifle fair representation.
A round of electoral reform victories in key ballot measures suggest that Americans have had enough of antiquated electoral laws. Landslide majorities voted for instant runoff voting in Memphis, Tennessee (70%) and Telluride, Colorado (67%), for early voting in Maryland (71%) and for 17-year-old primary voting in Connecticut (64%), while proportional representation for city council elections in Cincinnati (OH) won 46.5% despite well-financed opposition that poured in close to $100,000 in the last 10 days with a smear campaign of distortions.
Here are a few more details on this year's key ballot measures on electoral reform:
* Accommodating voter choice in a single trip to the polls in Memphis and Telluride -- Instant runoff voting (also called ranked choice voting) has had a terrific run at the ballot box, securing wins in recent years across the nation. The second largest city in the southeastern United States, Memphis voted adopt instant runoff voting for city election by an overwhelming 70% to 30% margin. Telluride (CO) adopted it for mayor, while Pierce County (WA) had a terrific first election with instant runoff voting in hotly contested races for county executive and other offices.
* 17-year-old primary voting in Connecticut wins big -- Voters gave a landslide win of 64% for a state constitutional amendment to enable 17-year-olds who are pre-registered to vote in primaries connected to a general election in which they will be 18 and eligible to vote. Parties in most states don't need to wait for state action -- they are empowered to enact it through a change in party rules, ideally twinned with voter registration policies making it possible for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote.
* Landslide win for early voting in Maryland - Maryland voters having to wait in line yesterday must have been all the more ready to support state constitutional amendment one to establish early voting and relaxed absentee voting. It is winning 71% to 29%.
* Redistricting reform in California narrowly ahead - This race has not been called, but Proposition 11 to establish an independent commission to conduct state legislative redistricting is ahead 50.5% to 49.5% and like,ly to win. Although not designed to give voters the chance to define their representation as would be true with proportional representation, it is high time to keep legislators from picking their voters before their voters pick them.
* "Top two" primary in Oregon trounced - Ballot Measure 65 in Oregon would have replaced the current traditional primary election system with a system in which the parties could select nominees privately and voters in the primary then would narrow the field to the top two, regardless of party, to go onto the general election. Under consideration in other states like California, the measure has been swamped by a two-to-one margin. Backers may turn to Pierce County's experience with instant runoff voting as a more popular way to give voters real choices in high turnout elections.
* Initiative rights protected in Arizona - State voters by a two-to-one margin handily rejected Proposition 105, which would have made it almost impossible to pass initiatives by establishing that measures would need a majority of all registered voters regardless of voter turnout.
Of course we don't have to win change through ballot measures. In this era of heightened understanding of the power of electoral rules, state legislators and Members of Congress should adopt the National Popular Vote plan for president, universal voter registration, public ownership of any voting equipment, instant runoff voting, proportional representation and more. They can act knowing that voters are ready for change.
- Posted in
5 Comments so far
Show AllHere's the plan ... I offer this as a sort of strawman to discuss voting strategies for "anti-duopoly" third party voters. I'm not sure I endorse these ideas but I am considering them.
Let's face the facts, third party voters, we ain't nowhere. One percent, then two percent, then one percent again.
We have no voice. Those who believe we can work really hard to build a third party, given the undemocratic abuses of the two major parties, have not made their case. There has been virtually no progress at all.
Here's a plan - see what you think.
There are numerous third parties with very different values and agendas. One thing they all agree on, however, is that they are being unfairly excluded from the democratic process.
Suppose these parties were to enter into a kind of pact as follows:
We all will encourage our supporters to vote against the Democratic party and for the Republican party unless Democrats (i.e. the party in power) actively promote:
1. instant run-off voting and
2. active participation by all "ballot qualified" candidates in at least the first couple of national presidential debates.
The idea is to unify the various third parties around the most important short-term goals they seek. It uses leverage to its most effective advantage. It recognizes that until we have a real voice, we will not be able to grow.
The bottom line? If the party in power will not act democratically and recognize our rights, we will vote for their opposition. Maybe that will get their attention.
(Response to Welshterrier2):
Hate to throw cold water, but I see some problems.
First, most 3rd parties are ideological and would therefore have a hard time voting for their opposites (speaking for the Greens I know.)
2nd, we don't have all that much control over our voters. It would be something of an empty threat.
3rd, if we actually did it, we'd disappear from the vote count altogether. Where's the message?
It has occurred to us that the best way for the Greens to pressure the Oregon state gov't, which is controlled by Democrats, is to run against them and potentially cost them seats. In this election, our candidates got from 3 to 5% in Congressional races, and 17% in the only State Legislature race we attempted. Not a huge vote, but more than enough to throw a close race - like the Senate race here, apparently decided by .5%. (It appears that Merkley won, one more Senate Democrat.)
In other words, play the spoiler role to the hilt. Only IRV will fix that, & we can hope the Democrats will eventually adopt it in self-defense. It happens to be authorized in the Oregon constitution - for 100 years now.
Of course, the most direct approach is to run a ballot initiative for IRV. This article makes that look very promising; we'll have to contact Fairvote about sponsoring it. The Pacific Green Party will be working on that if I have anything to say about it, which I do. (Of course, I have to convince our next convention.)
Still, I like your post because we need a broad discussion about the next steps. Thanks for starting it.
Oregoncharles
I don't see your arguments as "cold water." I think they all have validity.
Let me address a few of them.
First, I don't disagree with the argument you raised about voting for "opposites." I guess my only pushback would be to ask whether we could convince third party supporters to sacrifice core beliefs to achieve the greater purpose of a national voice. I realize this argues for a certain sort of pragmatism over a deeper sense of ideals and that that may be unacceptable to many third party supporters.
Second, I also don't disagree that third parties have little control over how their supporters vote. It might well be viewed as an empty threat. On the other hand, it might raise concerns within the duopoly. If third parties can garner, in the aggregate, 2 percent or 3 percent, I sure would be concerned if they were planning to gang up on me and vote for my opponent. The strategy I'm raising boosts any single third party's clout to the aggregate of those parties who join the plan. The argument, at its core, calls for differentiating between short-term objectives (e.g. ballot access, participation in debates, IRV) from long-term objectives like having our views and values represented and even like winning elections. The argument reasons that in reaching too high, we gain nothing.
Third, and I find this argument the most persuasive, third parties would show no visible results. If followed completely, third party candidates would get ZERO votes. Of course, with IRV, that argument would become moot. The problem ends up in a chicken or the egg debate.
The last point I wanted to make was that most of the information you provided pertained to Oregon. Maybe building third parties locally and trying to gain more influence state-by-state is better than the national approach I'm discussing. Even if Oregon elected a Green governor and Green senators and reps, what would that do for Utah or Wyoming and other "red" states? I worry that "going local", which is of course a very valuable contribution, will still not put third parties into the national discourse. One might use Socialist Bernie Sanders as an example. I'm glad he's where he is; his views are not debated nationally when elections roll around.
Thanks very much for your feedback. I hope others contribute to the discussion.
I made some effort to recruit Bernie Sanders as the Green Party presidential candidate; so did the national party. Turns out he is, I quote one of our delegates, "A damn Democrat."
Basically, I'm hoping Oregon can serve as a model, as it has on many other issues.
Oregoncharles
Part and parcel of instant runoff voting (IRV) is proportional representation in legislatures. If party A receives X number of votes, and party B receives Y number of votes, and party C receives Z number of votes, each party will have a number of representatives in the legislatures in proportion to the number of votes received in the election.
This is the way a democracy works, not the two (one)party system in place in the U.S., with both parties working equally hard to prevent other parties from participating in the electoral system, which is anti-democratic.
Advanced democracies, mostly in Europe, function this way. Thus, marginalized voters who don't like party A or party B, can have a say in how the legislature votes.