By J. Robert Latham
Published November 20th 2004 in Salt Lake Tribune
Utah's voters spoke earlier this month, mostly for the Republicans and
Democrats on the ballot. But enough voters spoke for Libertarian
candidates in 2004 to keep us on Utah's ballot in 2006. Thank you for
allowing us to continue participating in the conversations that shape
public policy.
Despite this progress, some organizations maintained their policy of apartheid toward candidates affiliated with non-incumbent political parties. (I prefer "non-incumbent party" to "third party.")
For example, although Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and his Democratic challenger Greg Skordas didn't object, KUED television wouldn't allow Libertarian challenger Andrew McCullough to join their debate.
Similarly, KBYU television kept Libertarian 3rd Congressional District candidate Jim Dexter out of its debate for that race, despite Rep. Chris Cannon's request to include him.
The existing "winner-take-all" electoral system in the United States makes it incredibly difficult, although not impossible, for any non-incumbent party to receive more than single-digit support in a race contested by the two incumbent parties. Political scientists call this loaded-dice effect "Duverger's Law."
Unfortunately, as many political scientists have observed, the winner-take-all system is not only dangerously polarizing American citizens, but also orphaning "blue" voters in "red" states and counties. And vice versa.
One alternative is to change the rules we use to elect our representatives from a winner-take-all system to a "full representation" electoral system, beginning at the local level. Under that system, representatives are elected from multi-seat districts in proportion to the number of votes received. It assures that political parties or candidates will have the percent of legislative seats that reflects their public support. A party or candidate need not come in first to win seats.
Full representation systems, had they been invented prior to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, would almost certainly have been adopted by the Founding Fathers to elect members to the House of Representatives because, to quote John Adams, they create "in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large."
Some argue that the political process shouldn't be opened too much, lest undesirable individuals get a seat at the table. Faced with the choice, which would you rather have Timothy McVeigh sitting on your City Council? Or sitting outside your City Council building in a Ryder truck?
If the party of Lincoln, Bush and Huntsman genuinely wants to reach out to the rest of us, its members should level the political playing field by transforming America's and Utah's two-party system into something akin to the multi-party representative democracies in which Afghanis and Iraqis will soon participate.
Despite this progress, some organizations maintained their policy of apartheid toward candidates affiliated with non-incumbent political parties. (I prefer "non-incumbent party" to "third party.")
For example, although Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and his Democratic challenger Greg Skordas didn't object, KUED television wouldn't allow Libertarian challenger Andrew McCullough to join their debate.
Similarly, KBYU television kept Libertarian 3rd Congressional District candidate Jim Dexter out of its debate for that race, despite Rep. Chris Cannon's request to include him.
The existing "winner-take-all" electoral system in the United States makes it incredibly difficult, although not impossible, for any non-incumbent party to receive more than single-digit support in a race contested by the two incumbent parties. Political scientists call this loaded-dice effect "Duverger's Law."
Unfortunately, as many political scientists have observed, the winner-take-all system is not only dangerously polarizing American citizens, but also orphaning "blue" voters in "red" states and counties. And vice versa.
One alternative is to change the rules we use to elect our representatives from a winner-take-all system to a "full representation" electoral system, beginning at the local level. Under that system, representatives are elected from multi-seat districts in proportion to the number of votes received. It assures that political parties or candidates will have the percent of legislative seats that reflects their public support. A party or candidate need not come in first to win seats.
Full representation systems, had they been invented prior to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, would almost certainly have been adopted by the Founding Fathers to elect members to the House of Representatives because, to quote John Adams, they create "in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large."
Some argue that the political process shouldn't be opened too much, lest undesirable individuals get a seat at the table. Faced with the choice, which would you rather have Timothy McVeigh sitting on your City Council? Or sitting outside your City Council building in a Ryder truck?
If the party of Lincoln, Bush and Huntsman genuinely wants to reach out to the rest of us, its members should level the political playing field by transforming America's and Utah's two-party system into something akin to the multi-party representative democracies in which Afghanis and Iraqis will soon participate.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.