By Robert Richie and Steven Hill
Published July 23rd 2003 in Knight Ridder
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.
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.
