SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
It's the Electoral System, Stupid!
Feb 23, 2004
George W. Bush lost the popular vote in the 2000 election and was installed as president by a questionable party-line vote of the U.S. Supreme Court despite the illegal and widespread disenfranchisement of African American voters in Florida perpetrated by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. Rather than challenging or investigating these blatant banana republic shenanigans, the press and the Democrats decided that the greatest failure of the American electoral system in history was the fault of one individual: Ralph Nader.
Now that Mr. Nader has again decided to seek the presidency, the media and the incredibly shrinking Democratic Party will overlook the obvious once more. The problem isn't having an accomplished consumer advocate or too many candidates in the race. No, here's the problem: It's the electoral system, stupid.
The problem is an electoral system which has allowed a president to take office with a minority of votes for the past three presidential elections in a row. The problem is an electoral system which forces voters to choose a candidate they really don't support because voting for the candidate of their choice would be a 'wasted vote.' The problem is an electoral system so unresponsive and irrelevant that it's boycotted by half of its potential users. Fortunately, for the citizens of the "world's greatest democracy," there are solutions.
One solution is the voting method which has come to be known as Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV. Used to elect the president of Ireland, a variety of office-holders in Australia and approved by San Francisco voters for city-wide use there, Instant Runoff Voting deftly deals with multiple candidates and ensures that the winner of an election is supported by a majority of voters. It works like this: instead of voting for just one candidate, voters instead rank the candidates in order of preference. Their first choice candidate is number one, the second choice number two and so on. If any candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, that candidate has won and the election is over. If, however, no candidate receives an absolute majority of first choice votes, then the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated from the race and the ballots are counted again. This "second" round of voting, or runoff, is conducted automatically. In the second round, the ballots cast for the eliminated candidate are scanned for their second choice votes and are awarded to the remaining candidates. This process of eliminating the last place candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.
IRV is simple to use. All the voter has to do is rank the candidates in order of preference: 1,2,3. For local elections which currently require a runoff to produce a majority winner, IRV can save considerable amounts of money by eliminating the need for two separate and costly elections. If we were to use IRV for our presidential elections, the "spoiler" problem would be immediately eliminated and people would be free to vote for the candidate of their choice without concern that their vote might help elect a candidate they fear. IRV would encourage strong issue-oriented candidacies and broaden the debate in our country since candidates would not only have to seek first choice votes, but would have to appeal to voters supporting other candidates for their second choice votes. This would discourage negative campaigning since a candidate wouldn't be likely to attract the second choice votes they might need to win an election if they "went negative" on another candidate.
With growing third parties and rising registration numbers of independent voters, it is clear that Americans want more choices at the ballot box. For far too long, Americans have been force-fed a two party diet. This, some might say, has led to civil stagnation and a lack of innovation. With a spiraling national debt, high unemployment and shrinking civil liberties, we could use some creative solutions. And certainly a country which embraces hundreds of channels of satellite television, scores of breakfast cereals and thirty one flavors of ice cream can handle more than two choices in the voting booth.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Blair Bobier
Blair Bobier is an attorney and author who has spent several decades advocating for democracy in the U.S. You can follow him on Twitter @BlairBobier.
George W. Bush lost the popular vote in the 2000 election and was installed as president by a questionable party-line vote of the U.S. Supreme Court despite the illegal and widespread disenfranchisement of African American voters in Florida perpetrated by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. Rather than challenging or investigating these blatant banana republic shenanigans, the press and the Democrats decided that the greatest failure of the American electoral system in history was the fault of one individual: Ralph Nader.
Now that Mr. Nader has again decided to seek the presidency, the media and the incredibly shrinking Democratic Party will overlook the obvious once more. The problem isn't having an accomplished consumer advocate or too many candidates in the race. No, here's the problem: It's the electoral system, stupid.
The problem is an electoral system which has allowed a president to take office with a minority of votes for the past three presidential elections in a row. The problem is an electoral system which forces voters to choose a candidate they really don't support because voting for the candidate of their choice would be a 'wasted vote.' The problem is an electoral system so unresponsive and irrelevant that it's boycotted by half of its potential users. Fortunately, for the citizens of the "world's greatest democracy," there are solutions.
One solution is the voting method which has come to be known as Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV. Used to elect the president of Ireland, a variety of office-holders in Australia and approved by San Francisco voters for city-wide use there, Instant Runoff Voting deftly deals with multiple candidates and ensures that the winner of an election is supported by a majority of voters. It works like this: instead of voting for just one candidate, voters instead rank the candidates in order of preference. Their first choice candidate is number one, the second choice number two and so on. If any candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, that candidate has won and the election is over. If, however, no candidate receives an absolute majority of first choice votes, then the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated from the race and the ballots are counted again. This "second" round of voting, or runoff, is conducted automatically. In the second round, the ballots cast for the eliminated candidate are scanned for their second choice votes and are awarded to the remaining candidates. This process of eliminating the last place candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.
IRV is simple to use. All the voter has to do is rank the candidates in order of preference: 1,2,3. For local elections which currently require a runoff to produce a majority winner, IRV can save considerable amounts of money by eliminating the need for two separate and costly elections. If we were to use IRV for our presidential elections, the "spoiler" problem would be immediately eliminated and people would be free to vote for the candidate of their choice without concern that their vote might help elect a candidate they fear. IRV would encourage strong issue-oriented candidacies and broaden the debate in our country since candidates would not only have to seek first choice votes, but would have to appeal to voters supporting other candidates for their second choice votes. This would discourage negative campaigning since a candidate wouldn't be likely to attract the second choice votes they might need to win an election if they "went negative" on another candidate.
With growing third parties and rising registration numbers of independent voters, it is clear that Americans want more choices at the ballot box. For far too long, Americans have been force-fed a two party diet. This, some might say, has led to civil stagnation and a lack of innovation. With a spiraling national debt, high unemployment and shrinking civil liberties, we could use some creative solutions. And certainly a country which embraces hundreds of channels of satellite television, scores of breakfast cereals and thirty one flavors of ice cream can handle more than two choices in the voting booth.
Blair Bobier
Blair Bobier is an attorney and author who has spent several decades advocating for democracy in the U.S. You can follow him on Twitter @BlairBobier.
George W. Bush lost the popular vote in the 2000 election and was installed as president by a questionable party-line vote of the U.S. Supreme Court despite the illegal and widespread disenfranchisement of African American voters in Florida perpetrated by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. Rather than challenging or investigating these blatant banana republic shenanigans, the press and the Democrats decided that the greatest failure of the American electoral system in history was the fault of one individual: Ralph Nader.
Now that Mr. Nader has again decided to seek the presidency, the media and the incredibly shrinking Democratic Party will overlook the obvious once more. The problem isn't having an accomplished consumer advocate or too many candidates in the race. No, here's the problem: It's the electoral system, stupid.
The problem is an electoral system which has allowed a president to take office with a minority of votes for the past three presidential elections in a row. The problem is an electoral system which forces voters to choose a candidate they really don't support because voting for the candidate of their choice would be a 'wasted vote.' The problem is an electoral system so unresponsive and irrelevant that it's boycotted by half of its potential users. Fortunately, for the citizens of the "world's greatest democracy," there are solutions.
One solution is the voting method which has come to be known as Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV. Used to elect the president of Ireland, a variety of office-holders in Australia and approved by San Francisco voters for city-wide use there, Instant Runoff Voting deftly deals with multiple candidates and ensures that the winner of an election is supported by a majority of voters. It works like this: instead of voting for just one candidate, voters instead rank the candidates in order of preference. Their first choice candidate is number one, the second choice number two and so on. If any candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, that candidate has won and the election is over. If, however, no candidate receives an absolute majority of first choice votes, then the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated from the race and the ballots are counted again. This "second" round of voting, or runoff, is conducted automatically. In the second round, the ballots cast for the eliminated candidate are scanned for their second choice votes and are awarded to the remaining candidates. This process of eliminating the last place candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.
IRV is simple to use. All the voter has to do is rank the candidates in order of preference: 1,2,3. For local elections which currently require a runoff to produce a majority winner, IRV can save considerable amounts of money by eliminating the need for two separate and costly elections. If we were to use IRV for our presidential elections, the "spoiler" problem would be immediately eliminated and people would be free to vote for the candidate of their choice without concern that their vote might help elect a candidate they fear. IRV would encourage strong issue-oriented candidacies and broaden the debate in our country since candidates would not only have to seek first choice votes, but would have to appeal to voters supporting other candidates for their second choice votes. This would discourage negative campaigning since a candidate wouldn't be likely to attract the second choice votes they might need to win an election if they "went negative" on another candidate.
With growing third parties and rising registration numbers of independent voters, it is clear that Americans want more choices at the ballot box. For far too long, Americans have been force-fed a two party diet. This, some might say, has led to civil stagnation and a lack of innovation. With a spiraling national debt, high unemployment and shrinking civil liberties, we could use some creative solutions. And certainly a country which embraces hundreds of channels of satellite television, scores of breakfast cereals and thirty one flavors of ice cream can handle more than two choices in the voting booth.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.