More Choice in ElectionsBy John Anderson
Published December 9th 2005 in The New York Times
To the Editor:
Re "It Takes a Statehouse Scandal" (editorial, Dec. 2):
As a longtime advocate of public financing of elections, I agree that Connecticut has taken a giant step forward on campaign financing for state elections.
But lawmakers should be ashamed of the prospective law's appalling and likely unconstitutional provisions to prevent independent candidates from securing public financing. You say that "the new rules will in fact create more competition," but legislators seem too fearful of independents and third parties to provide them with an equal opportunity to secure financing.
A strong two-party system cannot rest upon denying the ability of independents to hold the major parties accountable.
It would be far more democratic for lawmakers to change their election laws to accommodate voter choice: for instance, to allow instant runoff voting for executives and proportional voting for legislators. These systems treat voters equally and protect majority rule, two basic conditions of a fair democracy.
John B. Anderson
Takoma Park, Md., Dec. 2, 2005
The writer, the independent candidate for president in 1980, is chairman of the Center for Voting and Democracy.
Re "It Takes a Statehouse Scandal" (editorial, Dec. 2):
As a longtime advocate of public financing of elections, I agree that Connecticut has taken a giant step forward on campaign financing for state elections.
But lawmakers should be ashamed of the prospective law's appalling and likely unconstitutional provisions to prevent independent candidates from securing public financing. You say that "the new rules will in fact create more competition," but legislators seem too fearful of independents and third parties to provide them with an equal opportunity to secure financing.
A strong two-party system cannot rest upon denying the ability of independents to hold the major parties accountable.
It would be far more democratic for lawmakers to change their election laws to accommodate voter choice: for instance, to allow instant runoff voting for executives and proportional voting for legislators. These systems treat voters equally and protect majority rule, two basic conditions of a fair democracy.
John B. Anderson
Takoma Park, Md., Dec. 2, 2005
The writer, the independent candidate for president in 1980, is chairman of the Center for Voting and Democracy.
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.