With the presidential election less than a year away, the Ghost of Elections Past hovers. For me, the most poignant aspect of the 2000 election, was the post-election pillorying of one of my heroes.

A decade ago I met my car's air bag, up close and personal, with only a fat lip where the bag's chemicals had sprayed, as the result. My life saver was Ralph Nader, bane of corporate America, and lifelong crusader for consumers. Forget all that; he's the guy who cost Gore the election, or so charged Gore's supporters.

Yeah, what nerve! Running for President just because he believed the country was being bought by corporations and he perceived the major parties as Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

But you know, those angry critics were absolutely right. Counting votes is about math (the 2000 election being something of an exception) and had Ralph not run, it's fairly certain Gore would have carried Florida.

Is there no hope for voters wanting more choice? There is. A system that would have the backing of most voters---if only they knew about it: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).

Here's how it works. To win, a candidate must have at least fifty percent of the vote. No more talk about mandates to do this or that without a true mandate.

Often there is a third candidate with an agenda that doesn't necessarily include winning. Such candidates benefit one side or the other. Clinton and Dubya owe Ross Perot and Nader, respectively, big time. Perot and Nader are deemed spoilers and those of us who voted for them naivetes, throwing away our votes.

IRV solves these problems and more. Let's use the three candidates well-named by Jim Hightower: Sally Sensational, Bob Boring, and Harry Horrible. You, smart voter that you are, vote for Sally and to block Harry, indicate as your second choice Bob, for here is the crux of IRV: You get to number your choices.

If no candidate achieves fify percent  of first choices (quite possible when there are more than two candidates) the candidate with the least support is defeated and the "instant runoff" round takes place. Everyone's ballot again counts in the second round, with ballots of the supporters of the eliminated candidate now counting for their next choice among the remaining candidates. This process continues until one candidate wins with a majority of votes in the instant runoff. Everyone has had a chance to vote their true preferences without forfeiting the chance to be part of the decisive round of counting the produces a majority winner.

So, no more spoilers. Just more voices. In 2000, the so-called "other" candidates (only seen on C-Span of course) usually made more substantive statements than either Bush or Gore. These folks don't play around with wedge issues or abandon the base to attract independents. And in choosing these "others" first, and a national party second, voters do not feel they are throwing away their votes.

The cozily run debate organization, created by Tweedledum and Tweedledee, will have to admit the others. Even if Dum or Dee pull off a plurality they might need those second choice votes to get to fifty percent.

Campaigns will also be more civilized. Because candidates need the latter choices of voters, they are much less likely to engage in smearing opponents.

And because there are more Ms. Sensationals willing to get involved, voting is no longer an exercise in negativity: voting for the "lesser of two evils".  We are drawn to the voting booth, not by anger, but by hope.

Best of all, that half of the electorate that presently doesn't vote will be drawn to the voting booth, both because of more choice and because votes will matter more.  A democracy without the involvement of all its citizens is what? Up for sale, I'd say.

More choice, more voters. What's not to love? Or more ominously, who's not to love such a system? Easy. Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The major parties are locked in a tight little dance they thenselves have choreographed. Are they likely to let anyone cut in? They have not only figured out the red and blue states, they have identified the very voters needed to win, complete with addresses. 

Yes, improved voting machines and procedures are needed. People erroneously denied the vote is wrong. Winning the popular vote and losing the election rankles (how about giving ten additional electoral votes in such cases?).}

But it is IRV that has the real power to give us true choice, more voters, and real hope.