Independents Roil VoteBy Paul Fidalgo and Rob Richie
Published July 17th 2007 in Hartford Courant
There's one certain outcome from New York Mayor
Michael Bloomberg's announcement that he has left the Republican Party
to become an independent: The concept of "spoiler" presidential
candidates will be inescapable for the coming year.
Take what the Electoral College could produce. If an independent won a couple of states in a politically even year, it would send the election into the House of Representatives, that bastion of calm, collected reasoning, where each state's delegation - that's right, delegation - would cast one vote for president. Texas would have as many votes as Wyoming: one each. States with an even split of Republicans and Democrats might have to resort to rock-paper-scissors. Weirder still, if no candidate won 26 delegations, then whomever the Senate picked for vice president would become president until the House made up its mind.
We may also have a popular-vote loser in the White House again. That likely would have happened in 1992 if Ross Perot's vote had risen nationally from 19 percent to 34 percent, with Perot cruising to an Electoral College majority, despite trailing Bill Clinton in popular votes. Or we might have the winner of the popular vote finish second in the Electoral College, but win in the House. Or the popular vote's third-place finisher could win in electoral votes, but the House elects the candidate who came in second.
But rather than hide under covers, let's take action. Our fears of Electoral College deadlocks, losers-as-winners and spoiled elections are grounded in laws that fail to accommodate voters having more than two choices - yet can be changed by mere statute in state legislatures.
If enough states were to join Maryland in signing on to the National Popular Vote compact, for example, we could be sure that the person who takes office actually won the most votes. Under the popular-vote compact, states that join agree to give all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of the vote in their state. The plan could still be enacted for next year if states representing a majority of electoral votes took action. Even if not, 2008 promises to be the last national election that uses the Electoral College as anything more than a formality.
Increasingly popular in cities, instant runoff voting represents another idea whose time has come. If implemented, we would have a far better chance of electing someone backed by a true majority of voters. The mere presence of third parties and independents need not "spoil" anything, as voters could indicate backup choices in case there is no initial majority winner and their first choice fails to make the cut. Naderites, Bloombergophiles, and Leave-Us-Alone Libertarians could vote with a free heart.
So as would-be insurgent candidates become you-best-start-taking-me-seriously candidates, and as we all quake in terror at the prospect of Congress picking our president or another spoiler-in-chief, keep in mind that we have the power to instill sanity and equality into a potential electoral circus.
Rob Richie is executive director of FairVote in Takoma Park, Md. Paul Fidalgo is its communications director.
Given many
voters' frustration with the poisonous partisan atmosphere inside the
Beltway, a well-funded independent with a track record of
accomplishment should be taken seriously. A recent Rasmussen poll found
as many as 39 percent would consider voting for Bloomberg. He already
polls 23 percent in New Jersey.
Clearly Bloomberg could win
enough support to have a major impact, sparking electoral consternation
once he begins to "siphon" support from major party candidates or -
gasp - looks ready to win states and their electoral votes.
The fun doesn't end there. Ralph Nader is talking about another run at
the presidency, surely thrilling those Democrats who despair at his
impact in 2000. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran in
favor of pulling the troops from Iraq, hints that his independence in
Congress may extend to a White House run.
Take what the Electoral College could produce. If an independent won a couple of states in a politically even year, it would send the election into the House of Representatives, that bastion of calm, collected reasoning, where each state's delegation - that's right, delegation - would cast one vote for president. Texas would have as many votes as Wyoming: one each. States with an even split of Republicans and Democrats might have to resort to rock-paper-scissors. Weirder still, if no candidate won 26 delegations, then whomever the Senate picked for vice president would become president until the House made up its mind.
We may also have a popular-vote loser in the White House again. That likely would have happened in 1992 if Ross Perot's vote had risen nationally from 19 percent to 34 percent, with Perot cruising to an Electoral College majority, despite trailing Bill Clinton in popular votes. Or we might have the winner of the popular vote finish second in the Electoral College, but win in the House. Or the popular vote's third-place finisher could win in electoral votes, but the House elects the candidate who came in second.
But rather than hide under covers, let's take action. Our fears of Electoral College deadlocks, losers-as-winners and spoiled elections are grounded in laws that fail to accommodate voters having more than two choices - yet can be changed by mere statute in state legislatures.
If enough states were to join Maryland in signing on to the National Popular Vote compact, for example, we could be sure that the person who takes office actually won the most votes. Under the popular-vote compact, states that join agree to give all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of the vote in their state. The plan could still be enacted for next year if states representing a majority of electoral votes took action. Even if not, 2008 promises to be the last national election that uses the Electoral College as anything more than a formality.
Increasingly popular in cities, instant runoff voting represents another idea whose time has come. If implemented, we would have a far better chance of electing someone backed by a true majority of voters. The mere presence of third parties and independents need not "spoil" anything, as voters could indicate backup choices in case there is no initial majority winner and their first choice fails to make the cut. Naderites, Bloombergophiles, and Leave-Us-Alone Libertarians could vote with a free heart.
So as would-be insurgent candidates become you-best-start-taking-me-seriously candidates, and as we all quake in terror at the prospect of Congress picking our president or another spoiler-in-chief, keep in mind that we have the power to instill sanity and equality into a potential electoral circus.
Rob Richie is executive director of FairVote in Takoma Park, Md. Paul Fidalgo is its communications director.
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.