Redesigning Democracy

Two seconds of radio news was enough -- suddenly the 2008
presidential campaign collapsed around me in an unrecognizable heap of consumer
politics as I ate breakfast.

"Redistribution of the wealth," John the Candidate
was saying. "That's one of the tenets of . . . socialism."

This was maybe the ten thousandth time I'd been whacked
with that and similar Cold War-era words in the last couple weeks, and the
surrealism buildup -- the sheer weight of all this empty rhetoric and mock
horror, the waste of money and air time and newsprint, the overwork of my own
revulsion mechanism, but most of all my exhausted sense of urgency that the
nation has serious troubles that need immediate attention -- came out in a
groan of paralyzing despair.

Enough, enough, enough, enough, enough. Electoral politics at the
presidential level -- excuse me, this is the most important reassessment
of national and global direction taking place on the planet right now --
has deteriorated, or at least half-deteriorated (the Karl Rove half), to the
level of impulse snack sales at the supermarket checkout aisle.

Now, in handy, sound-bite-sized containers: Fear! Terrorism!
Socialism! Bill Ayers! ACORN! Collect them all! Debate with your friends!

This is only going to get worse. A 30-year trend has turned into
a free-for-all. Like the theft of democracy -- voter purges, intimidation,
misinformation, the hacker-friendly vulnerability of computerized voting
-- the dumbing down of democracy is one of those unacknowledged facts of
American life in the 21st century that almost no one at an official level is
evincing concern over, much less addressing.

The core of the problem, as I see it, is that the debauched
neocon belief in power at all costs -- their "dreams of managing
history," as H.D.S. Greenway put it recently in the Boston Globe, quoting
theologian Reinhold Niebuhr -- has corrupted our system almost beyond
recognition. A powerful, ruthless clique that wants to run, uh, keep running,
the country has figured out how to game the system, and if they do it for too
much longer, the integrity of more than just John the Candidate will be
irreparably compromised.

Our system is based on a widespread agreement to put principle
above power, and we seem to be stuck in a state of self-congratulatory denial
that we have done so in some permanent way. Well, we haven't, and I know
I'm not the only one to notice. A large, passionate citizens movement is
growing around the issue of fair elections -- thank God. We also need to
turn our attention toward relevant elections.

It's time, in short, to redesign our democracy, in ways
that encourage power to be responsive to the public interest, not just its own
maintenance; that encourage widespread, creative participation at every level;
and that discourage the ever more simplistic sound-bite politics --
"that's (gasp) socialism!" -- inundating us in 2008.

To this end, one of the most intriguing alternative election
systems I'm aware of is called instant runoff voting, where, in
single-winner elections, voters cast a ballot for both their first and second
choices; if the first round fails to yield a majority winner among the field,
the second choices of the voters whose candidates were not in first or second
place are counted accordingly.

Such a system, which is slowly growing in popularity as people
become aware of it -- and is now in use or soon to be implemented in about
a dozen U.S. cities and counties, including San Francisco, Minneapolis, Oakland
and Santa Fe, and is used in national elections in Australia and Ireland --
offers some distinct advantages over the system we have.

For instance, it encourages the proliferation of third parties
because their role is now no longer that of counterproductive spoiler; voters,
praise the Lord, could vote their consciences without fear of "throwing
their vote away." And it outright eliminates at least part of the reason
why campaigns "go negative." Candidates whose views are relatively
close to one another's are a team rather than mortal enemies; picture
Gore vs. Nader in 2000, where the Democrats vented far more spleen on the
Greens, to the detriment of both, than they did on the party of Bush. With
instant runoff voting, the Dems would have courted Green voters as their second

And here's where I think such a system would really show its
value. It guarantees a voice for candidates who likely will not win. Right now,
such candidates are mockingly dismissed as irrelevant, though often
they're the ones who best articulate voters' deeply held beliefs.
While the centrist compromisers will still win most elections, the conscience
candidates have more traction to keep them honest -- and keep the debate

In 2007, for instance, the Australian Green Party not only helped
the Labor Party win the election, but "almost certainly transformed majority
opinion on the environment and Iraq and made the Labor Party more responsive to
that opinion," Katrina vanden Heuvel, quoting FairVote director Rob
Richie, wrote in the Nation.

Can it happen here? What if it doesn't?

Join Us: News for people demanding a better world

Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place.

We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference.

Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today!

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.