Instant
Runoff Voting: A Solution to Hyperpluralism
Hyperpluralism is a problem. The idea of our pluralistic
system is one of distributed power. Interest groups influence the government,
and the government makes policy. This works best when there are many special
interests groups promoting candidates from which we choose representatives, who
then balance one another within our government. In the US, we have many, many
political parties, but rarely do we notice anyone not from the two largest
parties. This has led to a state of hyperpluralism, wherein our two main
parties have grown so strong that they've suppressed both the power of the
government and the will of the people. We now have two angry mobs playing Tug
of War with our civil rights, our economy, and our lives. We should reform our
Presidential electoral system in order to provide a robust selection of
candidates, which would in turn, reintroduce balance to our system of
governance.
The United States was not designed to be
hyperpluralistic, nor even a two-party system. The exact method of determining
electors to elect the President was deliberately left up to the will of the
state legislatures, whom have generally chosen to use an indirect popular vote.
Since the creation of our Constitution, our Presidential electoral system has
evolved in accordance with the principle of Duverger's law, wherein weaker
parties are abandoned for stronger parties, and remaining weak parties ally to
become a single party. (Schlesinger, Joseph) There are a few benefits to a
strong two-party system, including the preservation of the "one person,
one vote" principle that was cited multiple times during Supreme Court
cases concerning gerrymandering in the 1960's. In addition, some supporters
view a two-party system as more stable, and one that works to diminish the risk
of extremist special interest groups. However, these benefits are far
outweighed by the hyperpluralism that has overtaken our country.
The United States has many political parties that have
managed a decent showing time and time again. Since 1990,
third-party/independent candidates in about ten percent of Senate elections
have managed to obtain at least five percent of the vote, and two of those
candidates actually won. During the same time, third party/independent
candidates in about fifteen percent of gubernatorial elections have managed to
obtain at least five percent of the vote, and six of those candidates actually
won. Since 1856, third-party/independent candidates in about thirty percent of
presidential elections have managed to obtain at least 5% of the vote. Prior to
the 21st Century, we elected governors from Progressive, Reform, Farmer-Labor,
Populist, and Prohibition and many other parties. However, in the last century,
we've been overtaken by our two-party system, which is the result of our
single-seat plurality electoral system. Despite this, voters have begun to show
a predilection for unlikely candidates, including Bernie Sanders, a noted
Democratic Socialist, Jesse Ventura, a pro wrestler, and Lisa Murkowski, a
candidate who was so popular that she won against a fellow Republican candidate
via write-in votes (Rosen). The US has clearly shown that we have the ability
to field candidates that don't subscribe to our current brand of stranglehold
politics and that resonate with candidates... So why don't these candidates win
elections?
Unfortunately for the US, plurality electoral systems
discourage true voting in favor of tactical voting, which is also known as
voter compromise, wherein voters are pressured to vote for a Big Two candidate,
even if they don't like either one. A vote for any other candidate is seen as a
'waste' that will have no impact on the final result. This difficulty is
sometimes summed up as "All votes for anyone other than the second place
are votes for the winner", because by voting for other candidates, they
have denied those votes to the second place candidate who could have won had
they received them. An example of tactical voting is the 2000 Presidential
Election, where in Democratic Candidate Al Gore lost to Republican Candidate
George W. Bush. In this election, many people publicly blamed the people who
voted for Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader because exit polls indicated that
they would have preferred Gore to Bush. (Herron) So no Nader or no votes for
Nader would have led to more votes for Gore. This is also known as the ‘spoiler
effect’.
In addition, tactical voting relies heavily on voters'
perception of how other voters intend to vote, which lends a great deal of
power to the media and their corporate ownership thereof. Voters tend to
believe the media's assertions as to who the leading contenders are likely to
be in the election, and even voters who distrust the media understand that
other voters do trust the media, and will vote for the of the Big Two. As fewer
choices are offered to the voters, voters may vote for a candidate with whom
they largely disagree so as to oppose a candidate with whom they disagree even
more. The downside of this is that candidates will less closely reflect the
viewpoints of those who vote for them. As an example, 2012 Presidential
candidate Gary Johnson was allowed on the ballot in almost every state, had an
impressive political record, stood with the majority of Americans on many large
issues, including marijuana legalization, immigration reform, and guns, but
received almost no media coverage. (Schlesinger, Craig) This media stranglehold
subverts the power of the individual voter, which further compromises our
electoral system.
The solution to this huge electoral problem is instant
runoff voting. Instant runoff voting "allows voters to rank candidates in
order of preference... without fear that ranking less favored candidates will
harm the chances of their most preferred candidates. First choices are then
tabulated, and if a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she
is elected. If nobody has a clear majority of votes on the first count, a
series of runoffs are simulated, using voters' preferences as indicated on their
ballot. The candidate who receives the fewest first place choices is
eliminated. All ballots are then retabulated, with each ballot counting as one
vote for each voter's highest ranked candidate who has not been eliminated.
Specifically, voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate will now have their
ballots added to the totals of their second ranked candidate just as if they
were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election, but all other voters
get to continue supporting their top candidate who remains in the race. The
weakest candidates are successively eliminated and their voters' ballots are
added to the totals of their next choices until a candidate earns a majority of
votes." (FairVote)
Instant runoff voting has the effect of avoiding tactical
voting, the spoiler effect, returns the power of the media to the people, and
would result in an end to the hyperpluralism that is holding our country
hostage. It would supersede the 'one person, one vote' principle, but it would
replace it with 'one person, one ballot', thus retaining the principle of
equality behind that ideal. It would also require a Constitutional amendment
abolishing our electoral college, but I think we can all agree that voters
would not necessarily find this troubling.
Instant runoff voting has been successfully used in the
United States since 1912. Many cities in the United States, including San
Francisco, Berkeley, Aspen, Minneapolis, along with smaller cities and counties
in Vermont, Maryland, Washington, Minnesota, and North Carolina, continue to
use instant runoff voting for municipal and country elections today. I hope
that you agree that the implementation of instant runoff voting for
Presidential elections is a reform that needs to happen. Thank you for your
time.
Works
Cited
Herron,
Michael C.; Lewis, Jeffrey B. "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency? A
Ballot-Level Study of Green and Reform Party Voters in the 2000 Presidential
Election" UCLA. 24 April 2006.
PDF. 1 December 2012.
Rosen,
Yereth. "Senator Lisa Murkowski wins Alaska write-in campaign" Reuters. 17 November 2010. Web. 1
December 2012.
Schlesinger,
Craig D. "Gary Johnson Supporters Protest Media Blackout Across
Nation" Independent Voter Network. 17 July 2012. Web. 1 December 2012.
Schlesinger,
Joseph A; Schlesinger, Mildred S. "Maurice Duverger and the Study of
Political Parties" French Politics 4: 58. PDF. 1 December
2012.
"What
Is IRV?" FairVote.org. Center for
Voting and Democracy. Web. 1 December 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment