Innovative reforms engaging youth in politics

By Rob Richie and John Russell
May 21, 2003

Young Americans have abandoned our elections in droves. In 1996, for example, only 32% of adults under 25 voted, in stark contrast to 67% turnout among senior citizens. This two-to-one gap was much smaller in 1972, when 50% youth turnout more closely rivaled 63% senior turnout. That's what draws us to a new movement on campuses to adopt innovative voting methods that could engage more students in elections and inspire local, state and national leaders to follow.

As with most elections in the United States, student government elections are typically plagued by low turnout. While seen as a sign of apathy or weak governments, students in fact often are being realistic about the impact of their vote.

Under the winner-take-all voting system used in most American elections, a candidate with a bare 51 percent majority will receive 100 percent of the representation. Winning 49 percent of votes may not win any voice in government. For those on the losing side, their votes effectively do not count. This not only leads to unrepresentative government, but limited campaign choices. Even when having strong support and presenting important policy options, candidates often choose not to run if winning 51% seems unlikely.

Students are working to change these dynamic. This spring choice voting -- a form of full representation used in Ireland, Cambridge (MA) and for city council elections in New York City during the era of Fiorello La Guardia -- was passed overwhelmingly in a referendum at UC-Davis. Choice voting allows voters to rank several candidates in order of preference rather than just one. These preferences are then used to award seats. With ten seats to be filled, a candidate needs the support of about a tenth of students to win a seat. If there are five seats, a candidate will win with the support of about a fifth of students.

Choice voting means far more voters elect representatives. A relatively small group of like-minded voters can win at least one seat. If a voter's first choice is not strong enough to win, that voter's next choice is considered. Ranking candidates ensures that more than 90 percent of ballots lead directly to representation when electing ten seats.

This is significant for student governments, where one campus group often< dominates elections. Winner-take-all elections allow a dominant group to win all or most seats. Under choice voting, a variety of student groups can win representation, leading to a more diverse student government.

Harvard, Princeton, University of Illinois, Carleton and Vassar all use choice voting or similar systems. Even more schools use instant runoff voting (IRV) for electing executive offices, with recent adoptions at UC-San Diego, Duke, Stanford and William and Mary. Under IRV, students rank candidates, but with just one office to fill, the winner must receive 50% of the vote. Ballots are counted in a series of rounds until one candidate wins a majority, with the weakest candidate eliminated after each round and ballots counted for the top-ranked candidate remaining in the race.

Choice systems are also making headway at a local and state level. IRV bills passed one house this year in Arkansas and Washington and were debated in 18 other states. San Francisco will use IRV to elect its mayor this November. Since 1941, Cambridge (MA) has elected its city council and school committee with choice voting. On the international scene, the United States and Canada are the only major, full-fledged democracies exclusively using winner-take-all for national elections.

The low and declining voter turnout of 18-24-year-olds in national elections is a time bomb. Implementing choice voting addresses it because winning a seat at the table is a powerful incentive to care about decisions made there. Setting a model for fair elections in student elections just may inspire reform for our state and national elections, which urgently need an infusion of new energy, fresh voices and better representation.