When Minnesota Rep. Bruce Vento (D) announced his retirement earlier this year, the chances of a Republican victory in the race for his traditionally Democratic House seat seemed as unlikely as a mild Minnesota winter. With a well-funded, well-regarded nominee, Democrats would seem poised to coast to victory in a district Bill Clinton won by 28% in 1996.

The fact that the race is instead a wild card has national implications about how we should adjust our system to reflect the growing presence of third party candidates in our federal elections. The state that brought us Jesse Ventura may just have another surprise up its sleeve -- and provides an early warning to the major parties about changes in store for our political system.

Ventura's Independence Party has nominated Tom Foley. Of the 4th district candidates, Foley has the most experience, having served two decades as an elected and appointed official, and enjoys high name recognition from his candidacies in Democratic statewide primaries in 1996 and 1998. He retains many close ties to his old party's constituencies and recently won the endorsement of former Senator Eugene McCarthy (I-Minn.).

An August poll found that no candidate was drawing more than 27 percent support, and Foley and the major-party candidates were within single-digit range of one another. It is conceivable that in November, voters could split their votes by roughly thirds - 34 percent, 33 percent, 32 percent, say. The winning candidate would not enjoy a mandate, and as many as 66 percent of voters -? a clear majority -? theoretically could strongly oppose the winner.

Another scenario is that "spoiler" fears will drive voters away from Foley, as so often happens to third party candidates. Creating disincentives to support one's favorite candidate runs counter to the democratic ideal and helps lower voter turnout. It also does not prevent "spoiling." Even if Foley loses, his candidacy could tip the election, just as relatively strong Green Party challenges almost certainly cost House Democrats special-election victories in New Mexico in 1997 and 1998, and a Libertarian Senate candidate hurt Nevada Republican John Ensign's chances in 1998.

Allowing candidates supported by a minority of voters to trump majority views is, quite simply, undemocratic. As more minor parties and Independents run for office, our plurality voting system ensures that the multi-candidate election becomes more like a lottery than a coherent democracy where majorities elect Representatives.

Some may wish third parties would just go away, but they shouldn't count on it. More voters than ever are declining to register as either Republicans or Democrats, and polls consistently show most Americans would like to see more candidates from outside the two parties. A trend of significance for the future is that the younger people are, the more they are interested in Independents. John Naisbitt argued in his book "Megatrends" that we are becoming a multiple-option society: for voters in Minnesota's 4th congressional district, the future is now.

The preference for Independents is not just limited to Minnesota. Glimpses of that future are visible across the country. Prominent Independent politicians abound from Ventura to former presidential candidate Ross Perot to Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders, as well as former Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker and Maine Gov. Angus King.

At a national level, more than three-fourths of states were won by pluralities in presidential elections in 1992 and 1996 -- far more than in any other two presidential elections in the 20th century. This year, there has been much hand-wringing among Democrats over Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, while Pat Buchanan's potential to siphon off conservative votes from Bush is causing concern among Republicans.

In Senate races, there were more plurality wins in the 1990s than had occurred in more than half a century. One in seven U.S. House districts had a plurality election winner in the 1990s. This year the Libertarian Party is running candidates in more than half of congressional races, which may have an impact on Republicans in several races. The Greens have 56 candidates for House and Senate, including challenges to such vulnerable Democratic incumbents as Rush Holt (N.J.) and Mark Udall (Colo.), and a nominee in Debbie Stabenow's (D) open seat in Michigan.

In Indiana, Republican Rep. David McIntosh's open seat features a conservative ex-Republican primary candidate running as an Independent in a three?way race.

The five?way race for Rep. Rick Lazio's (R-N.Y.) seat could be a roll of the dice. The general election features three right-of-center candidates: Republican Joan Johnson, her former Republican primary opponent Robert Walsh on the Right to Life Party line and Conservative Party nominee Richard Thompson. Left of center, Stephen Israel won the Democratic nomination, but his main primary opponent, David Bishop, will appear as the nominee of three minor parties: Working Families, Green and Independence. Lazio's successor almost certainly will have fewer votes than the combined votes of his or her opponents.

So here's the problem. Voters want more choices, and, at least in some races, are starting to get them. But more choices also means a potential fracturing of the vote. As a result, more officials will win without clear majority support and more people who participate in elections will be without Representatives of their choice. It means that a handful of candidates who cut into the support of major parties can swing elections. It means that the "spoiler" conundrum will make many voters cast ballots against their favorite candidates.

There is, however, a fair, tested way to solve this dilemma. It's a simple system known as "instant runoff voting." Voters simply rank candidates in order of preference. In a three?candidate election, if a candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, that candidate is elected. If no candidate receives a majority of these, however, the candidate with the fewest first choices is eliminated, and ballots cast for that candidate are counted for one of the remaining two candidates according to those ballots' second choices.

Instant runoff voting ensures a majority winner. It frees minor-party candidates from a spoiler role. It allows voters to express their true preferences, rather than voting against their fear of the worst candidates, and reduces the number of wasted votes. It also results in more consensus winners and cleaner campaigns, as candidates have an incentive to avoid excessive mud?slinging when they must compete for second choice support as well as their core support.

No constitutional changes are needed to implement instant runoff voting in federal elections. Congress could require states to implement this process with a simple statutory change, or states and localities could experiment with it on their own. Alaska, Vermont, and New Mexico are among the states most seriously considering its use for major elections. In heavily Republican Alaska, the GOP has made it a priority after losing gubernatorial elections for the last two decades -- largely due to splintering of the conservative vote. In Vermont, Gov. Howard Dean (D) and the two other major gubernatorial candidates support instant runoff voting. New Mexico's state Senate passed a bill for its use in state and Congressional elections.

In elections like the one in Minnesota's 4th district, where third and fourth candidates threaten to "spoil" the election, the outcomes this November might be contrary to most voters' wishes. Such skewed results are easily preventable, so it's time we update our democracy by examining and implementing instant runoff voting for a more representative future.