By Rob Richie
Published May 18th 2008 in Washington Times
I'm not surprised that some backers of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, such
as Leon Panetta, now wish the Democratic nomination had been contested
under winner-take-all rules as done in most Republican nomination
contests ("Clinton under pressure for June exit with 'dignity,'
" Nation, Wednesday). It can be seductive to know that different
rules would boost your candidate.
However, the primary season has, in fact, shown the value of proportional representation in primaries. Consider that Sen. Barack Obama has won a greater share of the national popular vote and far more states than Mrs. Clinton. Would it really make sense to have Mr. Obama's losses in several big states trump all the votes cast in smaller states? Instead, the Democrats' contest is like a national race unfolding state by state — making sure small states and their voters count as much as those in big states.
Just as George W. Bush was not hurt by a vigorous contest in 2000 while Al Gore waited in the wings, Mr. Obama may well be boosted by the spring campaign. According to Rasmussen Reports, Democrats' advantage in voter self-identification has grown to 10 percent from just 2 percent in December — in part because of their candidates dominating the airwaves. Democrats have built broader donor networks and registered and turned out more voters than Republicans. Democrats have plenty of time to unify by convention time.
Time will tell, but Republicans would do better to accept the Brock Commission's 1999 recommendation to use proportional representation rather than Democrats moving to winner-take-all.
ROB RICHIE
Executive director
FairVote
Takoma Park
However, the primary season has, in fact, shown the value of proportional representation in primaries. Consider that Sen. Barack Obama has won a greater share of the national popular vote and far more states than Mrs. Clinton. Would it really make sense to have Mr. Obama's losses in several big states trump all the votes cast in smaller states? Instead, the Democrats' contest is like a national race unfolding state by state — making sure small states and their voters count as much as those in big states.
Just as George W. Bush was not hurt by a vigorous contest in 2000 while Al Gore waited in the wings, Mr. Obama may well be boosted by the spring campaign. According to Rasmussen Reports, Democrats' advantage in voter self-identification has grown to 10 percent from just 2 percent in December — in part because of their candidates dominating the airwaves. Democrats have built broader donor networks and registered and turned out more voters than Republicans. Democrats have plenty of time to unify by convention time.
Time will tell, but Republicans would do better to accept the Brock Commission's 1999 recommendation to use proportional representation rather than Democrats moving to winner-take-all.
ROB RICHIE
Executive director
FairVote
Takoma Park
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.