By Lara Stewart
Published October 24th 2004 in The News Standard (NY)
As accusations fly over irregularities in voter registration drives and fears mount over the potential for electoral fraud, democracy advocates point out that even when the system works perfectly, millions of voters are disenfranchised and their voices diluted. But some activists are beginning to realize success at implementing alternatives to the current system and truly make every vote count.
They cite the 2000 election, when more voters chose Al Gore, but Bush won the presidency through the Electoral College, and stress that with the election looking to again be close, history could repeat itself. One candidate could receive the most votes but see his opponent take office.
Another potential and likely scenario is that millions of voters will back their second or third choice candidates instead of their first, in order to prevent a candidate they dislike even more from winning office.
In response, organizations in some states are working to implement election system alternatives, which they say will provide voters with greater empowerment and more choices. When people go to the polls in Colorado on November 2 they will decide whether to adopt a proportional division of the state’s nine electoral votes, an initiative which supporters say will more accurately represent voters’ preferences in that state. And in San Francisco, California, voters will use a system called instant run-off voting to choose seven seats on that city’s Board of Supervisors.
Reforming the Electoral College
Colorado's proposed amendment 34 would make it the first state to allocate its Electoral College votes based on the popular outcome. Democracy activists formed Make Your Vote Count to champion the amendment.
If the initiative passes, instead of the winner of the popular vote in the state being awarded all nine Electoral College votes, the votes will be awarded based on the percentage of the popular vote. For instance, if Candidate A gets 55 percent of the vote and Candidate B gets 45 percent, A will get five electoral votes and B will get four.
"We believe it is more fair and accurately reflects the popular vote," said Julie Brown, Campaign Director of Make Your Vote Count. She added that, even though the state leans Republican, the initiative has support from voters of all affiliations. "In our schools, we're taught one person, one vote," said Brown. "People don't understand why we don't really have that. There is a disconnect between the people and the parties."
The 2000 election scandal brought debate over the Electoral College back into the spotlight. The system, in which each state gets a proscribed number of votes based on its total number of seats in the legislature, was established in 1787. Electoral votes are not automatically awarded after the results of an election come in. Each party chooses electors who will travel to Washington, DC and cast their votes.
Critics of the Electoral College call it an outdated and unjust system that was designed to keep power out of the hands of ordinary voters and in the hands of an educated elite. It was thought that most people were not informed enough to vote directly. They also point out that the system unfairly gives greater voting power to people in small states.
The fewest electoral votes that a state can have is three. Wyoming, for instance, has a population of approximately 500,000 and three electoral votes. Proportionally, a vote in that state is worth nearly four times as much as one cast in California, which has a population of nearly 35 million, but only 55 Electoral College votes.
Opponents of the College system also point out that candidates often ignore voters who do not agree politically with the majority in their state. Kerry wouldn't campaign hard in Texas, nor would Bush in Massachusetts. By that same token, candidates have little incentive to campaign in friendly states, either, since they are essentially guaranteed all of that state’s Electoral College votes.
According to Melissa Harris-Lancewell, a professor at the Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture at the University of Chicago, another effect this has is to reduce the impact of the African American vote.
"Entire groups of voters become effectively disenfranchised simply because they live near large groups of people who are very different from them," said Harris-Lancewell in an Institute for Public Accuracy press statement about whose vote counts. "For example," she continued, "African-Americans are concentrated in states that are safely in the Republican column. The parties, candidates and platforms do not have to respond to their interests."
The system is enshrined in the Constitution, and only a Constitutional Amendment could remove it. After the 2000 elections, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed such an amendment. It is an idea that comes up like clockwork in the federal legislature. This year, Gene Green, a Democratic Congressman from Texas, has introduced it.
Given the difficulty of changing the system through the US Constitution, many Electoral College opponents say any likely change in the near future will have to occur on the state level, with states choosing different ways to allocate their electors within the current system.
Nebraska and Maine are currently the only states that split their votes. There, the winner of the state's popular vote earns two Electoral College votes, and the winner in each congressional district is given another vote.
Forty-eight states are winner-take-all, meaning that whichever candidate gets the most popular votes in that state receives all of that state's electoral votes. But if Colorado’s initiative passes, other states might take notice – especially if the next president is elected by a margin of electoral votes equal to or less than that provided him by Colorado.
Instant Run-Off Ballots
While their counterparts in Colorado seek to convince voters to change the Electoral College, democracy activists tout an electoral reform victory in San Francisco that will change the way people cast their votes in local elections.
They are hoping that San Francisco will serve as a test case for "ranked choice voting," a system allowing voters to indicate more than one candidate in order of preference. After counting all of the number one choices, if no one has earned a majority, the second choices of voters who backed the least popular candidate would be added in. This would repeat until one candidate had a clear majority.
San Francisco voters approved a proposition to implement ranked choice voting, also known as "instant runoff voting," in March of 2002. This election, voters will use the method to choose seven seats on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. In other years, the mayor, district attorney, sheriff, treasurer, city attorney, public defender, and tax assessor will also be elected using the ranked choice mechanism.
Proponents of instant run-off voting say it gives an opening for third party candidates by eliminating what Anthony Lorenzo, founder of Citizens for Instant Run-off Voting described as "the fear factor."
With instant run-off elections, a voter could select a first choice candidate, putting a "safe" candidate as second preference. For example, during the 2000 election, a first choice vote for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader could have been backed up with a second choice vote for Gore.
"We need more choices," Lorenzo said. "Instant run-off voting won't make more choices, but it creates an opportunity to have more choices."
Brown, the Make Your Vote Count director, thinks that there is the most power for change in states where citizens can directly affect their state's constitution through ballot initiatives or propositions. She would like to see reform nationwide. "I think it would be great in every state."
They cite the 2000 election, when more voters chose Al Gore, but Bush won the presidency through the Electoral College, and stress that with the election looking to again be close, history could repeat itself. One candidate could receive the most votes but see his opponent take office.
Another potential and likely scenario is that millions of voters will back their second or third choice candidates instead of their first, in order to prevent a candidate they dislike even more from winning office.
In response, organizations in some states are working to implement election system alternatives, which they say will provide voters with greater empowerment and more choices. When people go to the polls in Colorado on November 2 they will decide whether to adopt a proportional division of the state’s nine electoral votes, an initiative which supporters say will more accurately represent voters’ preferences in that state. And in San Francisco, California, voters will use a system called instant run-off voting to choose seven seats on that city’s Board of Supervisors.
Reforming the Electoral College
Colorado's proposed amendment 34 would make it the first state to allocate its Electoral College votes based on the popular outcome. Democracy activists formed Make Your Vote Count to champion the amendment.
If the initiative passes, instead of the winner of the popular vote in the state being awarded all nine Electoral College votes, the votes will be awarded based on the percentage of the popular vote. For instance, if Candidate A gets 55 percent of the vote and Candidate B gets 45 percent, A will get five electoral votes and B will get four.
"We believe it is more fair and accurately reflects the popular vote," said Julie Brown, Campaign Director of Make Your Vote Count. She added that, even though the state leans Republican, the initiative has support from voters of all affiliations. "In our schools, we're taught one person, one vote," said Brown. "People don't understand why we don't really have that. There is a disconnect between the people and the parties."
The 2000 election scandal brought debate over the Electoral College back into the spotlight. The system, in which each state gets a proscribed number of votes based on its total number of seats in the legislature, was established in 1787. Electoral votes are not automatically awarded after the results of an election come in. Each party chooses electors who will travel to Washington, DC and cast their votes.
Critics of the Electoral College call it an outdated and unjust system that was designed to keep power out of the hands of ordinary voters and in the hands of an educated elite. It was thought that most people were not informed enough to vote directly. They also point out that the system unfairly gives greater voting power to people in small states.
The fewest electoral votes that a state can have is three. Wyoming, for instance, has a population of approximately 500,000 and three electoral votes. Proportionally, a vote in that state is worth nearly four times as much as one cast in California, which has a population of nearly 35 million, but only 55 Electoral College votes.
Opponents of the College system also point out that candidates often ignore voters who do not agree politically with the majority in their state. Kerry wouldn't campaign hard in Texas, nor would Bush in Massachusetts. By that same token, candidates have little incentive to campaign in friendly states, either, since they are essentially guaranteed all of that state’s Electoral College votes.
According to Melissa Harris-Lancewell, a professor at the Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture at the University of Chicago, another effect this has is to reduce the impact of the African American vote.
"Entire groups of voters become effectively disenfranchised simply because they live near large groups of people who are very different from them," said Harris-Lancewell in an Institute for Public Accuracy press statement about whose vote counts. "For example," she continued, "African-Americans are concentrated in states that are safely in the Republican column. The parties, candidates and platforms do not have to respond to their interests."
The system is enshrined in the Constitution, and only a Constitutional Amendment could remove it. After the 2000 elections, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed such an amendment. It is an idea that comes up like clockwork in the federal legislature. This year, Gene Green, a Democratic Congressman from Texas, has introduced it.
Given the difficulty of changing the system through the US Constitution, many Electoral College opponents say any likely change in the near future will have to occur on the state level, with states choosing different ways to allocate their electors within the current system.
Nebraska and Maine are currently the only states that split their votes. There, the winner of the state's popular vote earns two Electoral College votes, and the winner in each congressional district is given another vote.
Forty-eight states are winner-take-all, meaning that whichever candidate gets the most popular votes in that state receives all of that state's electoral votes. But if Colorado’s initiative passes, other states might take notice – especially if the next president is elected by a margin of electoral votes equal to or less than that provided him by Colorado.
Instant Run-Off Ballots
While their counterparts in Colorado seek to convince voters to change the Electoral College, democracy activists tout an electoral reform victory in San Francisco that will change the way people cast their votes in local elections.
They are hoping that San Francisco will serve as a test case for "ranked choice voting," a system allowing voters to indicate more than one candidate in order of preference. After counting all of the number one choices, if no one has earned a majority, the second choices of voters who backed the least popular candidate would be added in. This would repeat until one candidate had a clear majority.
San Francisco voters approved a proposition to implement ranked choice voting, also known as "instant runoff voting," in March of 2002. This election, voters will use the method to choose seven seats on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. In other years, the mayor, district attorney, sheriff, treasurer, city attorney, public defender, and tax assessor will also be elected using the ranked choice mechanism.
Proponents of instant run-off voting say it gives an opening for third party candidates by eliminating what Anthony Lorenzo, founder of Citizens for Instant Run-off Voting described as "the fear factor."
With instant run-off elections, a voter could select a first choice candidate, putting a "safe" candidate as second preference. For example, during the 2000 election, a first choice vote for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader could have been backed up with a second choice vote for Gore.
"We need more choices," Lorenzo said. "Instant run-off voting won't make more choices, but it creates an opportunity to have more choices."
Brown, the Make Your Vote Count director, thinks that there is the most power for change in states where citizens can directly affect their state's constitution through ballot initiatives or propositions. She would like to see reform nationwide. "I think it would be great in every state."