The problem with the US electoral system is that plurality rules. Let me illuistrate that with a generalized example. Say that Hillary Clinton gets 33% of the vote, Bernie Sanders gets 23%, Jill Stein gets 10%, and Rump Dump Trump gets the rest, 34%. Although almost twice as many Americans vote for a lefty, the extreme right Fascist wins, because he has the plurality. However ranked choice (instant runoff) voting would br fair, because it ends with a majority, not just a plurality.
.Dissatisfaction with voting choices, though, may have opened a window for serious debate about an alternative voting system. In an interview with Green Party candidate Jill Stein for Redacted Tonight VIP, Lee Camp asked Stein how voters could justify "wasting” a vote on her. Stein said the answer was simple: change the system from winner take all to ranked choice voting.
As FairVote.org explains, ranked choice voting makes democracy more fair and functional. In ranked choice voting, alternatively known as instant-runoff voting, voters rank their votes. If your first choice does not win, then your vote goes to your second choice, and so on. So, under ranked voting, you could vote Stein first, then Clinton. That would guarantee that a vote for Stein could not actually help Trump. It would also guarantee that we could get a fair and accurate assessment of how many people really picked Clinton or Trump as their first choice. If it seems complicated, check out a sample ballot.
Ranked choice voting is used in local elections throughout the country. It is also used in national elections in Ireland and New Zealand. It has a history of making elections more open and fair. Even more importantly, it encourages candidates to cultivate a broad, moderate base of support rather than intense, zealous supporters.,,,
From <Alternet>
With this system, my first choice would be Bernie Sanders. My second would be Jill Stein. My third would be Hillary Clinton. However, under our present system, assuming Hillary is the Democratic nominee, a vote for Bernie or Jill helps only Trump.
Perhaps changing the system is how we need to direct our efforts instead of trying to elect people with no chance to win because they are write-in candidates or third party candidates.
10 Responses to “Plurality Rules”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Well, it works for a lot of nations. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't trust the present Congress to pass anything which would remotely work, however. Especially if applied to House districts – currently so heavily gerrymandered in most places. (Off topic, but I had to laugh at seeing a Canadian use the term "gerrymandered" so naturally the other day. Too bad Canada can't be picking up on our best ideas instead of our worst.) However, I hope we can make some changes in the present COngress, and that those changes can lead to even more changes, and then we might be able to do something constructive here.
An idea that provides an alternative to voting for evil.
This sounds good to me. I like it.
I know that run off elections work well in some states, although Kentucky does not have them. It sounds like a good idea to me.
Canada is also mired in the mud of plurality voting — first past the post wins, regardless of the percentage of the vote obtained. That is how Stephen Harper won with only 39% of the popular vote. Trudeau won with only 39.5% of the vote nationally, but he won 184 seats or 54.5% of the ridings. We have 5 parties with the following results from 2015: Liberal 184/39.5%; Conservative 99/31.9%; NDP 44/19.7%; Bloc Québecois (Québec only) 10/4.7%; and Green 1/3%. (from http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/results-2015/)
Electoral reform is an issue here as well. The new Minister of Democratic Institutions (brand new ministry in 2015) is charged with the following: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-democratic-institutions-mandate-letter
You can see that the Trudeau government is trying to address so of the issues like plurality etc. The Minister is Ms Monsef who arrived in Canada as a refugee from Afghanistan and is very much engaged in the democratic process.
Canada is also mired in the mud of plurality voting — first past the post wins, regardless of the percentage of the vote obtained. That is how Stephen Harper won with only 39% of the popular vote. Trudeau won with only 39.5% of the vote nationally, but he won 184 seats or 54.5% of the ridings. We have 5 parties with the following results from 2015: Liberal 184/39.5%; Conservative 99/31.9%; NDP 44/19.7%; Bloc Québecois (Québec only) 10/4.7%; and Green 1/3%. (from http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/results-2015/)
Electoral reform is an issue here as well. The new Minister of Democratic Institutions (brand new ministry in 2015) is charged with the following: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-democratic-institutions-mandate-letter
You can see that the Trudeau government is trying to address so of the issues like plurality etc. The Minister is Ms Monsef who arrived in Canada as a refugee from Afghanistan and is very much engaged in the democratic process.
Presidential elections aren't the best showcase for ranked voting as these aren't votes for a party but for an individual. no matter how strongly or loosely tied to a party. As I understand it, all Americans who are registered to vote can vote for any candidate they like, they're not bound to a party. Because the country has a strong two-party system however, a third party candidates or independent candidates will always lower the chances of the candidate of the party they're the most closely politically affiliated to; in this case – and most often 🙁 – the left. Under 'normal' circumstances there wouldn't be a debate at this point, but the fact that both parties had a popular primary candidate who was an outsider and are dealing with that differently, plus an additional Green candidate Jill Stein on the left, have brought this conversation to the forefront again.
Drumpf was never expected to become the presumptive Republican candidate, but all other candidates have pulled out and Republicans have closed ran, despite their obvious dislike of him. Drumpf is their man, for better or for definitely worse, and their voters will vote for him despite it all. There's been some lame resistance, but as far as I know Ted Cruz supporters aren't writing in his name and the Republican party hasn't got a right-wing independent to contend with. The Democrats, however, are still in turmoil, torn between two candidates as they are, and even considering a third option. And that is because many Democrats have to chose an individual they feel doesn't represent their party – or rather what they think their party should turn into – very well. It's very laudable they have qualms, something many Republican's have never heard of, but bringing up the discussion now feels a bit like bandage to stop the bleeding for the moment. Something that wouldn't have come up at this point if the shoe had been on the Republican foot.
So focus on getting the left united behind one candidate who then wins the elections AND make sure that voters are equally determined in giving as many Republicans the boot as possible and getting Congress back. Only then can it be time to change the voting system along with all other necessary social changes, undo the Gerrymandering and start again.
And be careful what you wish for. I've seen up-close in Australia how ranked voting, implemented but not fully thought out, can terribly complicate matters, even in a simple local election of a Mayor (who had no ties to a party). It took about three weeks to count all the votes correctly and there's far too much room for error (or possibly, in the wrong hand, for fraud and deceit). And to some voters its just too confusing, making their votes error-prone too. As Lynn showed, it should be part of a major electoral reform and should be carefully and thoroughly set up, after you created the right political environment to carry it through.
Republicans do have Libertarian Gary Johnson to contend with, but he is very far under the radar, and that is not due only to Trump's publicity hogging . Republicans are much better at ignoring him than Democrats are at ignoring third parties on the left. I agree that the ways election reform can go wrong are far more numerous than the ways it can go right (and there is Murphy's Law), and therefore would want much study and intelligent decision makers, both of whoch are in short supply.
Makes a world of sense to me….altho I'd rather just eliminate the Republican party altogether….
Thanks all!! Hugs!! Hurrying!!
Thisz can be done state by state.