Charlotte Observer
California Recall Reveals
American Democracy's Breaking Point By Robert Richie
and Steven Hill
July 23, 2003 (The
following commentary ran in several papers around the nation
.)
California promises to be home of this year's biggest electoral
media circus. Governor Gray Davis may be booted out in a special
recall election. His replacement could be... almost anyone, ranging
from Republican Arnold "The Terminator" Schwarzenegger to the Green
Party's Peter Camejo. The reason for the chaotic uncertainty of
Davis' possible replacement is that voters can indicate only one
choice in what promises to be a large field. The first-place
finisher will take office no matter how small the percentage of the
vote. For a sense of what that means, how does "President Pat
Buchanan" sound? In 1996, Buchanan "won" the New Hampshire primary
with barely 25% of the vote. If the Republican field had remained
divided, Buchanan could have ridden similar plurality victories to
the Republican nomination despite clearly not being the party's
majority choice. As happens in every big-candidate field with
plurality voting, this fall much attention will focus on which
California candidates are "spoilers." Did independent John Anderson
"spoil" Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential race? How much did
Ross Perot hurt George Bush in 1992? Did Ralph Nader elect George W.
Bush in 2000? Having a range of strong candidates participate
seemingly should strengthen democracy, providing voters with more
opportunity to consider issues, a wider range of political debate
and greater incentives to vote. But we generally use a plurality
voting system that turns democratic principles on their head when
more than two candidates run. Credible candidates inevitably are
dismissed as mere spoilers, and winners can take office despite
majority opposition. In the 21st century we should no longer accept
a system where voting for your favorite presidential or
gubernatorial candidate can contribute directly to the election of
your least favorite - particularly if that candidate is opposed by a
majority. Even as California showcases the bizarre realities of
plurality voting, one of its leading cities is showing us a better
way. This fall San Francisco will elect a new mayor by instant
runoff voting, a sensible election method long-practiced in nations
like Ireland and Australia. With instant runoff voting, people vote
for their favorite candidate, but at the same time can indicate
their runoff choices by ranking their choices as 1, 2 and 3. If a
candidate receives a majority of first choices, the election is
over. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and
a runoff round of counting occurs. In this runoff round, your ballot
counts for your top-ranked candidate still in the race. Runoff
rounds continue until there is a majority winner. In San Francisco,
instant runoff voting is already improving the city's politics since
voters approved it in 2002. Candidates and political organizations
who might be sniping bitterly at one another because they compete
for similar voters are instead reaching out to each other's
supporters. The big money interests aren't sure what to do now that
they can't unload big bucks against their least favorite candidate,
as they did back with the old two-round runoff system. And San
Franciscans can focus on planning for the holidays in December
rather than trudge to the polls for an unnecessary runoff election.
By adopting instant runoff voting in all of our big races for
executive offices, we would determine a true majority winner in one
election and banish the spoiler concept. Voters would not have to
calculate possible perverse consequences of voting for their
favorite candidate. They could vote their hopes, not their fears.
Under this system, in 2000 those liberals who liked Ralph Nader but
worried about George Bush could have ranked Nader first and Al Gore
second. Similarly, hard-line conservatives that year could have
ranked Pat Buchanan first and George Bush second. Rather than
contributing to Gore's or Bush's defeat, Nader and Buchanan instead
could have stimulated debate and mobilized new voters. And the
winner would have had to demonstrate majority support, as neither
Bush nor Gore won a majority of the vote in Florida or the nation.
Our primitive voting system is our elections' real spoiler. Instant
runoff voting would give us a more participatory, vital democracy,
where candidates could be judged on their merits and the will of the
majority would prevail. (Robert Richie is executive director of the
Center for Voting and Democracy (www.fairvote.org) and Steven Hill
is the Center's senior analyst and author of "Fixing Elections: The
Failure of America's Winner Take All Politics"
(www.FixingElections.com).) For more information, contact: PO Box
60037, Washington, DC 20039 |