By Neil Munro
Published February 26th 2004 in Oakland Press
Whatever one thinks of Ralph Nader's new presidential attempt, it may be just what the nation needs.
And that would be a reform of what we do with multicandidate ballots.
Democrats haven't forgotten that Nader's candidacy in 2000 probably cost Al Gore the White House. In Florida, Nader got almost 100,000 votes. The common-sense assumption is that most of them would have gone to Gore.
As it was, the outcome there was so close the U.S. Supreme Court ended up deciding it.
And Republicans haven't forgotten that Ross Perot won enough votes that likely would have gone to then-President George H.W. Bush to allow Bill Clinton to defeat him and win the presidency.
Clinton was the choice of less than half the voters.
If there were three or four presidential candidates of equal strength, we could end up electing someone who was the choice not only of a minority, but of a small minority, of citizens.
This could happen. What if Howard Dean decides to get himself on the ballot in most states?
It makes most of us uncomfortable to think that someone can become president with less than half the votes simply because a Nader or a Perot runs a campaign to "make a point."
The selection of the presidency is too important to be so open to being co-opted by a candidate with a personal ax to grind.
Perot and Nader "elected" the winners in 1992 and 2000, respectively. It's as simple as that.
Something can be done.
We could adopt what's called instant runoff voting. Under it, you vote for a first and second choice and any other in order of your preference.
If, when the votes are counted, no candidate has a majority, the second choices of those who voted for the candidate with the lowest total are added to the totals of the remaining candidates.
When one candidate gets a majority, the election is over.
It is described as an "instant" system because, unlike with typical runoff elections, there is no returning to the polls.
No one would feel cheated, not even the Perot and Nader voters, who would have been able to make their point without, as a result, helping to elect someone they disagreed with.
Instant runoff voting is not something new under the sun.
It is used in Ireland and Australia and in parts of Great Britain. These are countries that share our political heritage.
Many of our states use runoffs, but voters have to return to the polls. Several cities in the West reportedly are planning to adopt the instant system this year.
Right here in Oakland County, the progressive city of Ferndale is strongly considering that type of voting.
The nation certainly should adopt the change. In the meantime, Michigan could be a leader, too. Democrat Gary Peters of Oakland County most likely would be attorney general had it not been for a strong Green Party liberal candidate on the ballot.
It is very difficult not to be uneasy at the prospect of another minority president, no matter who wins, just because Nader wants to strut his stuff.
And that would be a reform of what we do with multicandidate ballots.
Democrats haven't forgotten that Nader's candidacy in 2000 probably cost Al Gore the White House. In Florida, Nader got almost 100,000 votes. The common-sense assumption is that most of them would have gone to Gore.
As it was, the outcome there was so close the U.S. Supreme Court ended up deciding it.
And Republicans haven't forgotten that Ross Perot won enough votes that likely would have gone to then-President George H.W. Bush to allow Bill Clinton to defeat him and win the presidency.
Clinton was the choice of less than half the voters.
If there were three or four presidential candidates of equal strength, we could end up electing someone who was the choice not only of a minority, but of a small minority, of citizens.
This could happen. What if Howard Dean decides to get himself on the ballot in most states?
It makes most of us uncomfortable to think that someone can become president with less than half the votes simply because a Nader or a Perot runs a campaign to "make a point."
The selection of the presidency is too important to be so open to being co-opted by a candidate with a personal ax to grind.
Perot and Nader "elected" the winners in 1992 and 2000, respectively. It's as simple as that.
Something can be done.
We could adopt what's called instant runoff voting. Under it, you vote for a first and second choice and any other in order of your preference.
If, when the votes are counted, no candidate has a majority, the second choices of those who voted for the candidate with the lowest total are added to the totals of the remaining candidates.
When one candidate gets a majority, the election is over.
It is described as an "instant" system because, unlike with typical runoff elections, there is no returning to the polls.
No one would feel cheated, not even the Perot and Nader voters, who would have been able to make their point without, as a result, helping to elect someone they disagreed with.
Instant runoff voting is not something new under the sun.
It is used in Ireland and Australia and in parts of Great Britain. These are countries that share our political heritage.
Many of our states use runoffs, but voters have to return to the polls. Several cities in the West reportedly are planning to adopt the instant system this year.
Right here in Oakland County, the progressive city of Ferndale is strongly considering that type of voting.
The nation certainly should adopt the change. In the meantime, Michigan could be a leader, too. Democrat Gary Peters of Oakland County most likely would be attorney general had it not been for a strong Green Party liberal candidate on the ballot.
It is very difficult not to be uneasy at the prospect of another minority president, no matter who wins, just because Nader wants to strut his stuff.
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.