A Dramatic Idea for Election ReformBy Richard Fassett
Published December 11th 2005 in New York Times
To the Editor:
Re "The Number One Reform" (editorial, Dec. 4):
Why even keep districts around? It's time to swallow the pill we've been holding under our tongue for 200 years: we live in a party system. Why not just vote for the party? Each party can have a number of seats in the Assembly proportional to the percentage of the vote it wins.
Maybe other voices could even get heard. New York is unique among states in that it has influential third parties. They rarely get elected to office, however. If the Independence, Conservative and Working Family Parties get a little say in the Legislature, it potentially can bring new ideas to the table. The end consequence might be that new, workable ideas spill into nearby states, and ultimately into national discourse.
As long as there are districts, somebody will try to gerrymander them. For those who are concerned that localities will no longer be represented when districts are gone, there will still be the Senate.
Richard Fassett
Financial District
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.