Editorial
One big electoral mess, and all of a sudden everyone wants to abolish
the Electoral College. It's an antiquated relic, they argue. And it's
not democratic, else why would Al Gore, winner of the popular vote, be
in danger of losing the presidential election?
They're right, but why stop there? Let's face it, the American system has a number of antiquated relics. right now, we're all agog to get rid of it, what's next? The US. Senate? You think that's democratic? Hah! What's democratic about a national governing body in which the people of Idaho, population about the same as Greater Sacramento's, have the same number of Senators as California does?
Besides, there are some good things to be said about the Electoral College. Like the Senate, it gives rural states a boost when it comes to competing with their overpopulated counterparts. It was refreshing this year to see Gore and George W. Bush campaigning strongly in states like Tennessee, Arkansas, Iowa and Oregon that ordinarily never see a presidential candidate.
On the other hand, those of us who didn't live in one of the swing states might as well have lived on Mars, for all we saw of the candidates. Besides, all Americans feel a bit uncomfortable with the idea that a presidential candidate win lose the popular vote and still lose the election-- something that has happened only three times in fact. And the Electoral College is strange and archaic, even more so when you think about what happens in case of a tie vote there. (The decision goes to the House of Representatives, where each state has a one vote. Talk about a mess!)
Some have argued against abolishing the Electoral College out of fear that direct popular elections, which could always have a number of third party candidates running, could produce winners coming in with even less--even far less than a majority vote, thereby weakening their mandates. There's a good solution to that, however, one that is in use in Australia and Ireland, and under serious consideration in the states of Vermont, New Mexico and Alaska. It's called "instant-runoff voting," and it allows voters to designate their first, second and third choices. If none of the candidates wins an outright majority, the losing candidates are eliminated and their supporters' alternative votes are redistributed to the top two vote getters, until one has a clear majority. It's the kind of election for which computers were invented.
Had a system been in place this year, it would have forestalled the quandary many Ralph Nader supporters found themselves in. They could have voted for their man without worrying that they were helping elect their least favorite candidate.
If we're going to reform the presidential system, why not do it right?
They're right, but why stop there? Let's face it, the American system has a number of antiquated relics. right now, we're all agog to get rid of it, what's next? The US. Senate? You think that's democratic? Hah! What's democratic about a national governing body in which the people of Idaho, population about the same as Greater Sacramento's, have the same number of Senators as California does?
Besides, there are some good things to be said about the Electoral College. Like the Senate, it gives rural states a boost when it comes to competing with their overpopulated counterparts. It was refreshing this year to see Gore and George W. Bush campaigning strongly in states like Tennessee, Arkansas, Iowa and Oregon that ordinarily never see a presidential candidate.
On the other hand, those of us who didn't live in one of the swing states might as well have lived on Mars, for all we saw of the candidates. Besides, all Americans feel a bit uncomfortable with the idea that a presidential candidate win lose the popular vote and still lose the election-- something that has happened only three times in fact. And the Electoral College is strange and archaic, even more so when you think about what happens in case of a tie vote there. (The decision goes to the House of Representatives, where each state has a one vote. Talk about a mess!)
Some have argued against abolishing the Electoral College out of fear that direct popular elections, which could always have a number of third party candidates running, could produce winners coming in with even less--even far less than a majority vote, thereby weakening their mandates. There's a good solution to that, however, one that is in use in Australia and Ireland, and under serious consideration in the states of Vermont, New Mexico and Alaska. It's called "instant-runoff voting," and it allows voters to designate their first, second and third choices. If none of the candidates wins an outright majority, the losing candidates are eliminated and their supporters' alternative votes are redistributed to the top two vote getters, until one has a clear majority. It's the kind of election for which computers were invented.
Had a system been in place this year, it would have forestalled the quandary many Ralph Nader supporters found themselves in. They could have voted for their man without worrying that they were helping elect their least favorite candidate.
If we're going to reform the presidential system, why not do it right?
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.