By Caleb Kleppner
Even though at "press time" it's still not clear who the next President of the United States is, several problems are apparent.
The blame for the first two problems -- deficit between the popular vote and the winning vote and the lack of majority rule -- rests squarely with that 18th-century anachronism, the Electoral College. Under the ponderous Electoral College method, each of the 50 states' presidential races is conducted as an individual contest. This means that a presidential candidate can lose the national popular vote but narrowly win as few as 11 states and become president, ruling over 270 million-plus Americans.
It also means that a candidate does not need a majority of the popular vote to win the election.
The other two problems result from the use of plurality elections, which just means that the candidate with the most votes wins the election (or state), even if the candidate receives less than 50 % + 1 of the votes. This is because votes cast for a third party candidate in a close race can swing the election between the two frontrunners. In this case, Ralph Nader apparently received more than enough votes in the battleground states of Florida (25 Electoral College votes), Oregon (seven votes) and New Hampshire (four votes) to "spoil" these states and the presidency for Gore. As we go to press, Gore is only ten Electoral College votes shy of winning.
In recognition of this very possibility, millions of voters chose not to vote for their favorite candidate, and instead voted for the one they considered the "lesser evil."
This "spoiler" problem allows the media to ignore issues raised by third party candidates because those candidates at best have no impact on the final result and at worst, merely "spoil" the election for one of the frontrunners. This phenomenon explains why the American public heard essentially no debate about the death penalty, free trade, the World Trade Organization, reducing the military budget, labeling genetically modified foods and all the other issues that Ralph Nader raised, and Bush and Gore shunned.
So what can be done? We should abolish the anachronistic Electoral College and replace it with a direct election that ensures majority rule. Most countries with a popularly elected president do this.
There are two simple ways to ensure majority rule in a direct election of the president, and a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College should permit both. The first is to hold a second, runoff election between the top two candidates if no one receives a majority of the votes in the first round. The obvious downsides of a second runoff are the cost and the schedule-wrecking hassle of holding a second election. In the United States, such an election would cost more than $100 million.
A more efficient approach is to use an "instant runoff." An instant runoff is like a runoff election except that voters indicate their runoff choice in advance so that they don't need to return to the polls for a runoff election. Voters do this by ranking a first choice, a second choice, and, if they choose, a third choice.
The instant runoff would strengthen democracy and expand debate in several ways. First, it would give winners a real majority mandate. Second, it would give all voters incentive to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of electing their least favorite, since they could list a backup choice in case their first choice gets eliminated. As a result, the media would have incentive to cover third party and independent candidates and the issues they are raising. This would improve public debate and give more voters the ability to cast an informed vote that helps elect a candidate they like.
Instant runoff voting is a politically viable reform. Voters in San Leandro (CA) and Oakland (CA) just approved local initiatives to allow the use of instant runoff voting, joining Vancouver (WA) and Santa Clara County (CA), who had done so in previous years. Instant runoff voting will appear on the statewide ballot in Alaska unless the state legislature adopts it first, and the reform is under serious consideration in several others states and cities.
To broaden political debate, elect a president with a genuine mandate and promote wider political participation, it's time to abolish the Electoral College and implement instant runoff voting.
- The winner failed to receive a majority of the vote.
- The person who won the popular vote may have lost the election.
- The presence on the ballot of the Green Party's Ralph Nader in several key states caused Vice President Al Gore, Democratic Party Candidate, to lose those states and, most likely, the election.
- Out of fear of "spoiling" the race, millions of voters did not vote for their favorite candidate.
The blame for the first two problems -- deficit between the popular vote and the winning vote and the lack of majority rule -- rests squarely with that 18th-century anachronism, the Electoral College. Under the ponderous Electoral College method, each of the 50 states' presidential races is conducted as an individual contest. This means that a presidential candidate can lose the national popular vote but narrowly win as few as 11 states and become president, ruling over 270 million-plus Americans.
It also means that a candidate does not need a majority of the popular vote to win the election.
The other two problems result from the use of plurality elections, which just means that the candidate with the most votes wins the election (or state), even if the candidate receives less than 50 % + 1 of the votes. This is because votes cast for a third party candidate in a close race can swing the election between the two frontrunners. In this case, Ralph Nader apparently received more than enough votes in the battleground states of Florida (25 Electoral College votes), Oregon (seven votes) and New Hampshire (four votes) to "spoil" these states and the presidency for Gore. As we go to press, Gore is only ten Electoral College votes shy of winning.
In recognition of this very possibility, millions of voters chose not to vote for their favorite candidate, and instead voted for the one they considered the "lesser evil."
This "spoiler" problem allows the media to ignore issues raised by third party candidates because those candidates at best have no impact on the final result and at worst, merely "spoil" the election for one of the frontrunners. This phenomenon explains why the American public heard essentially no debate about the death penalty, free trade, the World Trade Organization, reducing the military budget, labeling genetically modified foods and all the other issues that Ralph Nader raised, and Bush and Gore shunned.
So what can be done? We should abolish the anachronistic Electoral College and replace it with a direct election that ensures majority rule. Most countries with a popularly elected president do this.
There are two simple ways to ensure majority rule in a direct election of the president, and a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College should permit both. The first is to hold a second, runoff election between the top two candidates if no one receives a majority of the votes in the first round. The obvious downsides of a second runoff are the cost and the schedule-wrecking hassle of holding a second election. In the United States, such an election would cost more than $100 million.
A more efficient approach is to use an "instant runoff." An instant runoff is like a runoff election except that voters indicate their runoff choice in advance so that they don't need to return to the polls for a runoff election. Voters do this by ranking a first choice, a second choice, and, if they choose, a third choice.
The instant runoff would strengthen democracy and expand debate in several ways. First, it would give winners a real majority mandate. Second, it would give all voters incentive to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of electing their least favorite, since they could list a backup choice in case their first choice gets eliminated. As a result, the media would have incentive to cover third party and independent candidates and the issues they are raising. This would improve public debate and give more voters the ability to cast an informed vote that helps elect a candidate they like.
Instant runoff voting is a politically viable reform. Voters in San Leandro (CA) and Oakland (CA) just approved local initiatives to allow the use of instant runoff voting, joining Vancouver (WA) and Santa Clara County (CA), who had done so in previous years. Instant runoff voting will appear on the statewide ballot in Alaska unless the state legislature adopts it first, and the reform is under serious consideration in several others states and cities.
To broaden political debate, elect a president with a genuine mandate and promote wider political participation, it's time to abolish the Electoral College and implement instant runoff voting.