Baltimore SunChange Elections to
Instant Runoff Voting By Rob Richie and
Steven Hill WASHINGTON -- Americans
are assessing the aftermath of a presidential roller coaster ride.
Election 2000, in which George W. Bush was elected president despite
losing the popular vote by more than 300,000, bolsters long-standing
calls for changing how we elect our president.
According to a recent
Washington Post-ABC News poll, about six in 10 Americans say they
want to abolish the Electoral College and select the president by
direct popular vote. But this will be difficult to accomplish, since
it requires a constitutional amendment and support from
three-quarters of the state legislatures and two-thirds of the U.S.
House and Senate. Perhaps the most
realistic proposal would be to require that the winner of a state's
electoral votes must have the support of a majority of voters in
that state. States have the power to legislate this reform
themselves. That would fix the current problem whereby the
presidential winner of a particular state is not even required to
reach a majority of the popular vote to win that state's electoral
votes. Indeed, the winner of more than half of the states decided in
the last three presidential elections was opposed by a majority of
voters in that state. Without a majority
threshold, popular majorities can be fractured by the presence of a
third-party candidate in any state. Just as Ross Perot cut into
George Bush's support in 1992 in key states, Al Gore was hurt in
Florida more by the tens of thousands who supported Ralph Nader than
any ballot irregularities. Requiring the winner of each state to
reach a majority would fix this sort of mischief.
One approach to produce
a majority winner in each state would be a two-round runoff, like
that used in primary elections of most Southern states. But a second
round of voting in each state would be expensive both for candidates
and taxpayers. The campaign season would drag out, and many weary
voters often don't turn out for the second election.
A more efficient and
inexpensive method would be to use instant runoff voting. This
system, which has been used for decades by the Australians and the
Irish for national elections, and now to elect the mayor of London,
simulates a two-round runoff election in one round of voting. It
corrects the defects of traditional runoffs and improves their
benefits. At the polls, people
would vote for their favorite candidate but also could indicate a
second or runoff choice in case their favorite runs poorly plus a
third choice in case their second choice also loses. If a candidate
receives a majority of first choices, he wins all the electoral
votes for that state. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is
eliminated, and ballots are counted again in a second round.
Rounds of counting
continue until there is a majority winner. It's like conducting a
series of runoff elections, but without voters returning to the
polls. Rather than tinkering
with the Electoral College, some reformers would like to muster
support and pass a constitutional amendment to do away with this
18th-century anachronism. All of our other elections are by a direct
vote of the people. Why not the president? But problems could
arise with a national direct election. For instance, what if the
highest vote getter only receives 35 percent of the vote in a
multi-candidate race? That possibility presents problems of
legitimacy. Consequently, some reformers call for a second national
runoff between the top two finishers if no candidate receives at
least 40 percent of the vote. But 40 percent is too
low for winning our highest office. To avoid minority rule, the
president should be required to command majority support. And
instant runoff voting would be the most efficient way to reach that
majority. If Election 2000 showed
us anything, it's that standardizing voting machines, recount
procedures and design of ballots are essential to the integrity of
our elections. But let's not stop there. More than voting equipment
needs to be repaired to protect voters' rights to elect the
candidate of choice. If we cannot muster the
political will to abolish the Electoral College, we should require
that presidential winners of each state win a majority of the
statewide popular vote. "Majority rules" is a
basic tenet of democracy, and the antiquated 18th-century
institution of the Electoral College fails this test.
Rob Richie and Steven Hill of the Center for Voting and Democracy are co-authors of "Reflecting All of Us" (Beacon Press, 1999). |