|
Student Life
Instant Runoffs
By Yoni Cohen
October 1, 2002
"I figured that freshman elections would not be the
petty popularity contest that is so often prevalent in high school,"
wrote Washington University freshman Corey Schneider in a recent
column. Perhaps they were. Perhaps they weren't. But Corey and 32
other students lost elections to individuals who...were losers
themselves. In each of the five races, many more students voted
against the candidate who won than voted for him or her. A
presidential candidate won with only 22 percent of votes cast, an
internal vice-president with but 30 percent, an external
vice-president with just 25 percent, a treasurer with an
election-low 20 percent, and a secretary with merely 31 percent.
Given the large numbers of students who ran, these
results were to be expected. Yet they are also to be deplored. It
could hardly be argued that the candidates elected "represent" the
freshman class. At best, they reveal the preference of but a third
of all freshmen, at worst a fifth. Today's freshman class officers
do not have a popular mandate. They were likely elected by friends
on their freshman floors rather than by classmates throughout their
WU community.
What then is to be done? Should Student Union limit
the number of candidates eligible to run? No. Should SU consider
more significant electoral reform? Yes. Specifically, I suggest SU
(and the United States as a whole -- see below) adopt "instant
runoff voting." Employed in Australia, Ireland, and the American
cities of San Francisco, Calif., and Cambridge, Mass., instant
runoff voting is a system under which voters rank candidates in
order of preference. In the case no single candidate receives a
majority, the individual with the lowest level of support would be
eliminated and those who voted for him or her would have their
second preference counted as if it were their first. Such a process
would continue until one candidate received majority support.
Confused? Read on.
Consider the 2000 Presidential Election. Under instant
runoff voting, each citizen votes not for a single candidate, but
for a range of candidates, ranking Ralph Nader, George Bush and Al
Gore in order of preference (e.g. Nader 1, Gore 2, Bush 3). Imagine
a scenario under which Al Gore then receives 47 percent of the vote,
George Bush 48 percent and Ralph Nader 5 percent. No candidate has a
majority. Ralph Nader, the least popular among them, is subsequently
dropped from consideration. In the ensuing Gore-Bush "instant
runoff," all those who designated Nader their first choice then have
their second choice counted. In this case, Gore triumphs with 52
percent to Bush's 48 percent (the majority of Nader supporters would
likely have preferred Gore to Bush).
My proposed reform, however, would not benefit
Democrats more than Republicans, nor Republicans more than
Democrats. Indeed, it is utterly devoid of ideology. In 1992,
ranking of candidates would likely have led to Bill Clinton's defeat
at the hands of the elder George Bush (remember that Bill Clinton
was elected with less than 40 percent of the vote, the majority of
Ross Perot's supporters would likely have preferred Bush to
Clinton).
Rather, instant runoff voting would benefit you, your
classmates, and the public at large. Democracy is based upon the
principle of choice. Recent freshman class elections, however, were
more consistent with the reality of chaos. America's elections for
local, state and national office are characterized by constraint;
two parties dominate and third parties flounder. Any attempt to
enter the political spectrum on the left (e.g. Nader) undermines
Democrats and facilitates election of Republicans. Likewise, any
attempt to enter on the right (e.g. Perot) undermines Republicans
and enables election of Democrats. The result is predictable, few
third-party candidates have tried and fewer have succeeded. Nor is
any attempt to vote to the left of the Democrats or to the right of
the Republicans fruitful: in the first case the vote helps
Republicans and in the second Democrats. The result again is
unsurprising, few individuals vote for third-part candidates.
Herein lies the potential of instant runoff voting --
but also its central barrier. Instant runoff voting would broaden
democracy by benefiting third parties of all shapes and colors, be
they Greens, Libertarians, Socialists or Fascists, at the expense of
Democrats and Republicans. As such, while you and I will likely
embrace the proposed reform, our friends in positions of power in
Washington may not. But how about our friends at Student Union?
No doubt those who were elected two weeks ago to
Freshman Class Council, Justin Huebener, Shuddie Ray, Sagar Ravi,
Long Long and Sally Smith, have an incentive to hold onto power.
Ditto for those elected to the senate and for those on SU's
executive board. I believe, however, that for a range of reasons --
few desire office the following year, students campaign as
individuals, not as ideologues, etc. -- instant runoff voting is a
necessary and realistic reform for student government. Other
campuses' seem to think so. Recently, Vassar College, Stanford
University, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the
University of Maryland, the University of Washington and Whitman
College adopted the proposed reform.
In the national case of two/too few candidates,
instant runoff voting would empower third parties and guarantee real
choice. In the local case of too many candidates, instant runoff
voting would enable students to support, albeit to different
degrees, multiple candidates on a single ballot and in so doing
secure real representation.
Student Life is the student newspaper of
Washington University in St. Louis. |
