By Tim Beideck
Published February 23rd 2003 in Guerrilla News Network
Considering all the hoopla surrounding Ralph Nader's presidential
candidacy announcement, and the fact that Howard Dean's downfall was
riddled by voters who doubted his "electability," it's time that we
consider a fundamental change in the way that we vote in a democracy.
Our current "One Choice" voting system has an obvious but completely overlooked flaw that, since its inception, has failed the idea of actual democracy. It has led to immeasurable amounts of unpopular candidates being elected because the current system DOES NOT consider whom the public's PREFERRED CANDIDATE is. We have all heard the incessant malice thrown by Democrats at Ralph Nader for his 2000 presidential run, but never a single word about the system's basic flaw, which in fact, created the unpopular outcome. If we're going to continue with our "winner take all" form of representative government, it's time that the "winner" is the candidate that is preferred by most of the people for that office. When this flaw is amended, we will finally have politicians who represent the actual popular choice. This fundamental correction is dubbed "Preferential Voting." Here's how it would work:
Current system: The "One Choice" voting system
Example: 2000 Presidential election
Joe Voter enters booth and sees his ballot.
Who is your one choice for President of the United States?
Joe casts one vote for his favorite candidate, Ralph Nader
End Election Result: George W. Bush is elected President of the United States
Joe Voter is then asked whom he preferred, Al Gore or George W. Bush. He answers, "Gore over Bush, but Nader over both of them." In this flawed system of ours there is NO ACCOUNT for who the preferred candidate is, often leaving the preferred and most popular person out of office.
Truly Democratic System: Preferential Voting System
Example: Hypothetical 2000 Presidential election
Joe Voter enters booth and sees his ballot.
Who do you prefer as The President of the United States? (Presidential choices listed)
1.
2.
3.
4.
He fills out his ballot.
1 Ralph Nader
2 Al Gore
3 Pat Buchanon
4 George W. Bush
Hypothetical Election Result: Al Gore and George W. Bush receive the most #1 ranked votes, eliminating the other candidates. Now Joe's ballot looks like this:
1. Al Gore
2. George W. Bush
***giving Al Gore ONE more vote since he was Joe's preferred candidate out of the remaining two contenders.
End hypothetical Election Result: Al Gore is the popularly PREFERRED candidate and is elected President of the United States.
This seemingly novel idea was actually first introduced to the French Academy of Sciences in 1770 by Jean-Charles de Borda and has been used since 1919 to elect members of the Australian House of Representatives. Not only does this system make logical sense, it would also eliminate the "spoiler scenario," greatly reduce the need for primary elections, and put an end to the plague of voting for the most "electable" candidate. It wouldn't benefit any particular ideology since in '92 George Bush may have been the preferred candidate over Bill Clinton on many of Ross Perot's nineteen million ballots. Everyone can finally vote for their favorite candidate without worrying about predicting a candidate's "chances of winning." It can even lead to third party candidates being elected since, in our currently flawed system, many people won't vote for a third party because of "chances of winning" worry. Every other multi-participant competition in our society realizes that the only way to decide a legitimate winner is by breaking it down until two contestants are left. There have never been three teams playing in the Super Bowl. There are probably several asinine arguments against amending our rotten voting system in this most logical way, one of which is that the powers that be don't want a true democracy. They'd rather shout insults at good people like Ralph Nader for cutting into their two party pie or cast their vote for John Kerry because he'd look good on a twenty-dollar bill.
Our current "One Choice" voting system has an obvious but completely overlooked flaw that, since its inception, has failed the idea of actual democracy. It has led to immeasurable amounts of unpopular candidates being elected because the current system DOES NOT consider whom the public's PREFERRED CANDIDATE is. We have all heard the incessant malice thrown by Democrats at Ralph Nader for his 2000 presidential run, but never a single word about the system's basic flaw, which in fact, created the unpopular outcome. If we're going to continue with our "winner take all" form of representative government, it's time that the "winner" is the candidate that is preferred by most of the people for that office. When this flaw is amended, we will finally have politicians who represent the actual popular choice. This fundamental correction is dubbed "Preferential Voting." Here's how it would work:
Current system: The "One Choice" voting system
Example: 2000 Presidential election
Joe Voter enters booth and sees his ballot.
Who is your one choice for President of the United States?
Joe casts one vote for his favorite candidate, Ralph Nader
End Election Result: George W. Bush is elected President of the United States
Joe Voter is then asked whom he preferred, Al Gore or George W. Bush. He answers, "Gore over Bush, but Nader over both of them." In this flawed system of ours there is NO ACCOUNT for who the preferred candidate is, often leaving the preferred and most popular person out of office.
Truly Democratic System: Preferential Voting System
Example: Hypothetical 2000 Presidential election
Joe Voter enters booth and sees his ballot.
Who do you prefer as The President of the United States? (Presidential choices listed)
1.
2.
3.
4.
He fills out his ballot.
1 Ralph Nader
2 Al Gore
3 Pat Buchanon
4 George W. Bush
Hypothetical Election Result: Al Gore and George W. Bush receive the most #1 ranked votes, eliminating the other candidates. Now Joe's ballot looks like this:
1. Al Gore
2. George W. Bush
***giving Al Gore ONE more vote since he was Joe's preferred candidate out of the remaining two contenders.
End hypothetical Election Result: Al Gore is the popularly PREFERRED candidate and is elected President of the United States.
This seemingly novel idea was actually first introduced to the French Academy of Sciences in 1770 by Jean-Charles de Borda and has been used since 1919 to elect members of the Australian House of Representatives. Not only does this system make logical sense, it would also eliminate the "spoiler scenario," greatly reduce the need for primary elections, and put an end to the plague of voting for the most "electable" candidate. It wouldn't benefit any particular ideology since in '92 George Bush may have been the preferred candidate over Bill Clinton on many of Ross Perot's nineteen million ballots. Everyone can finally vote for their favorite candidate without worrying about predicting a candidate's "chances of winning." It can even lead to third party candidates being elected since, in our currently flawed system, many people won't vote for a third party because of "chances of winning" worry. Every other multi-participant competition in our society realizes that the only way to decide a legitimate winner is by breaking it down until two contestants are left. There have never been three teams playing in the Super Bowl. There are probably several asinine arguments against amending our rotten voting system in this most logical way, one of which is that the powers that be don't want a true democracy. They'd rather shout insults at good people like Ralph Nader for cutting into their two party pie or cast their vote for John Kerry because he'd look good on a twenty-dollar bill.
