Knight Ridder
Wire
Look to the States for Real
Reform
By John B. Anderson August 7, 2001
The National Commission
on Federal Election Reform has dutifully made its
recommendations. Co-chaired by former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford,
the commission addressed the electoral malfunctions exposed in
Florida, but present across the nation - sloppy, inconsistent and antiquated
election administration that analysts believe kept millions from
casting a valid vote in 2000.
The commission suggested a
few relatively bold ideas - making election day a holiday, restoring
voting rights to ex-felons who have served their sentence and
preventing early disclosure of east coast presidential results from
affecting turnout elsewhere - but focused on presenting the
developing consensus on improving election administration. If those
improvements are implemented, as many expect, we should see
significant improvement in the casting and counting of
votes.
But we won't have the world's
best electoral process. Florida's problems were the tip of an
iceberg that remains largely unexamined. With nearly two-thirds of
adults likely to abstain from voting in next year's mid-term
congressional elections, we must explore how to encourage new
candidates who can speak for these no-shows and strengthen our
democracy.
Don't rely on the federal
government and standard-bearers of the major parties for innovation,
however. States are more likely to lead the way. Indeed, we are
already seeing movement in states toward two ground-breaking
electoral reforms: instant runoff voting and cumulative
voting.
The case for instant runoff
voting (IRV) is simple: it is the best way to provide for majority
rule when there are more than two candidates. In 2000, the combined
vote for Al Gore and Ralph Nader was more than 50% in both Florida
and the nation. But with our plurality voting rules, the candidate
with the most votes wins, even if opposed by most voters. A minority
can end up defeating the clear wishes of the
majority.
IRV is like a traditional
runoff in which the top two candidates face off in a second
election. But while traditional runoffs create extra costs for
candidates and taxpayers, IRV produces a majority winner in one
round of voting. Voters just have to rank candidates in order of
choice: 1, 2, 3 - a snap with modern voting
equipment.
IRV does not favor any
particular party. If IRV had been used in recent elections, Al Gore
might be president. But Republicans likely would run the U.S.
Senate, as three Republicans have lost in races where Libertarian
Party candidates received more votes than the winning
margin.
The point is not which party
a reform helps: it is how it helps voters. We need new voices and
better choices, as too many people are turned off by the combination
of negative attacks and the nauseating wooing of undecided voters
that comes with a two-party race. Yet we don't want those better
choices to prevent achievement of the popular
will.
IRV is gaining support.
Alaska will vote next year on whether to adopt it for federal and
state elections, and in March San Francisco will vote on whether to
use IRV for mayoral elections. Legislation to implement IRV for
federal offices has passed New Mexico's senate and gained the
support of Vermont's governor and leading civic groups. Thirteen
states considered IRV legislation this year.
IRV won't make lopsided races
more competitive, however, which brings us to a process as broken as
ballot-counting: redistricting. Right now legislators across America
are fighting over who will enjoy "safe seats" in the coming decade
-- meaning "safe" from voters. They are literally choosing their
constituents before their constituents choose them.
My homestate of Illinois has
an answer. Last month a task force headed by former Republican
governor Jim Edgar and Democratic Congressman Abner Mikva called for
reviving cumulative voting for its state legislative elections.
Legislation is gathering support, and supporters may turn to an
initiative.
With a range of choices in
districts with three or more representatives, cumulative voting
represents like-minded voters in more accurate proportion to their
numbers. Before it was a casualty of a 1980 amendment focused on
shrinking the Illinois legislature, it generated more competition,
softened regional polarization and provided a natural means to
represent more women, political independents and racial minorities
-- speaking to issues familiar to states across the
nation.
The federal government must
strengthen our electoral foundation, but look to states, our
laboratories of democracy, for real reforms like instant runoff
voting and cumulative voting.
Chair
of the Center for Voting and Democracy, John B. Anderson served in
Congress for two decades and ran for president in
1980. |