July 2002
Just as the
Fourth of July orators say, America has been an inspiration to
peoples struggling for democracy. But, when it comes to actually
designing the machinery, the American model has had no takers--not
among successful democracies, at any rate. (The Philippines,
Liberia, and some Latin-American countries, which have copied us,
are not good advertisements.) [Robert] Dahl surveys the twenty-two
countries that have governed themselves democratically without
interruption since 1950. Only six, including the United States, are
federal, and in every case "federalism was not so much a free choice
as a self-evident necessity imposed by history." Only four, all of
them federal, have strong bicameralism. Only the United States, the
United Kingdom, Canada, and France do not use one of the many
variants of proportional representation, a nineteenth-century
invention. We get bad marks in "democratic fairness" and
"encouraging consensus."
March
2002
If
(instant runoff voting) begins to take hold, the impact on America's
political culture could be profound. It would encourage civility,
discourage fratricidal negative campaigning, prevent the election of
candidates strongly opposed by majorities, and broaden the range of
candidates while eliminating the third-party spoiler phenomenon. The
two big parties would retain their primacy, but no one can say which
would benefit. The only sure winners would be the voters. Remember
them?
November
2000
But why stop at forty per cent? Why not trying for -- daring
thought -- majority rule? The Australians and Irish use something
call "instant -- runoff voting," which allows voters to designate
not only their top choice but also their second, third, and fourth;
if there's no outright majority winner, the losing candidates are
eliminated one by one and their supporters' alternative choices
redistributed until, bingo, somebody goes over fifty per cent. (The
voting is as simple as the counting is complicated, but that's what
computers are for.) Although IRV is still below the conventional
wisdom's radar, serious moves are under way to adopt it in Vermont,
New Mexico, and Alaska. IRV would guarantee us a President elected
with at least the grudging support of the majority. As a bonus, it
would enable people to express themselves by voting for third
parties -- such as the Greens, this year -- without running the
awkward risk of helping elect their most unfavorite candidate.
Granted, it's a little on the Rube Goldberg side. But, after two
hundred years of the Electoral College, aren't we used to
that?
May
2000
For Americans,
London's instant runoff idea presents especially intriguing
possibilities. It's a way of opening up politics to a wider variety
of voices without sacrificing the clarity and energy of a single
directly elected executive. As a third-party or independent
candidate, you can campaign hard without the risk of being a spoiler
and handing the election to the candidate most hostile to your
views. As a citizen, you can vote your heart without giving up your
shot at picking the lesser evil. London's voting system allows the
electorate to speak far more subtly and precisely than ours does.
Red Ken won fair and square, because he was at least barely
acceptable to a majority. He was the people's choice, but not their
first choice. The voters gave him the job, but they were able to
specify that they were giving it to him grudgingly. And, if there's
one thing American voters would dearly love to be able to express,
it's grudgingness.
April 1995
"We already have
term limits," goes the supposedly most withering argument against
the idea, flourished over and over during the House debate. "They're
called elections." What we generally don't have, however, are
competitive elections. The Republican Party did well in the
last election, but not nearly so well as the Incumbent Party: a
near-Brezhnevian 91% of the incumbent House candidates were
reelected. Sixty-four per cent of the "races" were decided by
margins of twenty points or higher, which is to say that their
outcomes were never in doubt. Is it any wonder that in the most
one-sided districts two-thirds or more of the potential electorate
decided not to bother voting?
June
1993
Most of the electorates of Continental Europe, including
those of the liberated East, elect their legislatures under some
form of proportional representation; so do the Irish, the Italians,
and the Israelis; and so will the New Zealanders, who passed a
referendum on the subject in November 1993. PR, as its advocates
call it, is the very opposite of undemocratic. It not only
facilitates minority representation but also virtually guarantees
majority rule (the majority most often being a legislative
coalition). By contrast, single-member district, winner-take-all
systems, like ours and Britain's, often produce minority
governments. The last peacetime British government that represented
a majority of the British voters was Stanley Baldwin's, elected in
1935; and Bill Clinton himself, it should be remembered, owes his
job to forty-three percent of the voters.