By Rob Richie and Steven Hill
Published July 4th 2004 in Fort Worth Star Telegram
Every presidential election matters, but 2004 has particular
significance. Re-election of George Bush with the return of Republican
majorities in the U.S. Senate and House could tip the ideological
balance of Congress, the Supreme Court and federal courts for a
generation. A win for John Kerry could reverse key elements of Bush's
policy agenda.
So everyone should be involved, right? Isn't democracy as simple as one person, one vote?
Well, no, not in our elections for president. We cling to a thoroughly outmoded Electoral College that divides us along regional lines, undercuts accountability, dampens voter participation and can trump the national popular will.
Instead of a simple national election, we hold 51 separate contests, with each state plus the District of Columbia having a number of electoral votes equal to its number of U.S. senators and House members (ranging from three votes in the states with the fewest people to California's 55 votes). States generally award all their electoral votes to the candidate with the most votes. To win a candidate needs to receive the right number of votes in the right combination of states.
This system awards more electoral votes per capita to low population states, but at the same time, gives more power to voters in large population states because they can swing more electoral votes. Yet no state, large or small, gets attention if not competitive.
The Electoral Colleges perverse incentives are painfully obvious from this years campaign. Because most states are predictably safe for one party in a nationally competitive race, the candidates and their allies focus their time, resources and even their policy proposals on the relatively few undecided swing voters in 18 battleground states. If you feel like your issues and concerns are being ignored, chances are you're right and its because you live in the wrong state or are not an undecided voter.
The Electoral Colleges democratic deficit is compounded by the use of plurality elections, where the candidate with the most votes wins all the electoral votes from that state, even if less than a majority. Plurality elections mean that a popular majority can be fractured by the presence of a third-party candidate. Al Gore was hurt more by the nearly hundred thousand voters in Florida who supported Ralph Nader than by the notorious butterfly ballot, just as George Bush lost millions of votes to Ross Perot in 1992.
So what can be done? Over the years, leading national political figures like Strom Thurmond, Orrin Hatch, Ted Kennedy, Kweisi Mfume, Hillary Clinton and John McCain have supported amending or scrapping the Electoral College. The most obvious solution is direct election, just as we elect our governors and members of Congress. Every voter would count as much as every other voter. All would have the same incentive to vote, no matter their postal address.
Of course there are important questions to resolve for a nationwide direct election. One is to confront our antiquated plurality tradition where the highest vote-getter wins, even if opposed by a majority. This has happened in several gubernatorial elections, with two governors ultimately ousted from office Evan Mecham from Arizona and John Rowland from Connecticut elected with less than 40 percent of the vote.
To prevent non-majority winners caused by spoilers and to encourage winners to reach out to more voters, we should establish a requirement that winners gain at least 50 percent of the vote. Traditional two-round runoffs accomplish this goal, but pose new problems. Candidates would have to scramble for extra cash to run a second campaign, and running a second nationwide election could cost close to a half billion dollars. And voters would have to trudge out to the polls a second time.
A better approach is instant runoff voting. IRV simulates a two-round runoff in one election by allowing voters to rank their runoff choices along with their first choice, 1, 2, 3. Instead of having a second election, ballot-counters use the rankings to determine the runoff choices of those voters whose first choice failed to advance to the runoff. The system is used for major elections in Great Britain, Australia and Ireland, and this
year by Utah Republicans to nominate congressional candidates at their state convention and by voters for San Francisco's city elections.
In 1787, our constitutional founders did not get everything right. They opposed direct election of senators, universal suffrage and abolition of slavery. The Electoral College is one more anti-democratic anachronism that undercuts the health of our democracy.
So everyone should be involved, right? Isn't democracy as simple as one person, one vote?
Well, no, not in our elections for president. We cling to a thoroughly outmoded Electoral College that divides us along regional lines, undercuts accountability, dampens voter participation and can trump the national popular will.
Instead of a simple national election, we hold 51 separate contests, with each state plus the District of Columbia having a number of electoral votes equal to its number of U.S. senators and House members (ranging from three votes in the states with the fewest people to California's 55 votes). States generally award all their electoral votes to the candidate with the most votes. To win a candidate needs to receive the right number of votes in the right combination of states.
This system awards more electoral votes per capita to low population states, but at the same time, gives more power to voters in large population states because they can swing more electoral votes. Yet no state, large or small, gets attention if not competitive.
The Electoral Colleges perverse incentives are painfully obvious from this years campaign. Because most states are predictably safe for one party in a nationally competitive race, the candidates and their allies focus their time, resources and even their policy proposals on the relatively few undecided swing voters in 18 battleground states. If you feel like your issues and concerns are being ignored, chances are you're right and its because you live in the wrong state or are not an undecided voter.
The Electoral Colleges democratic deficit is compounded by the use of plurality elections, where the candidate with the most votes wins all the electoral votes from that state, even if less than a majority. Plurality elections mean that a popular majority can be fractured by the presence of a third-party candidate. Al Gore was hurt more by the nearly hundred thousand voters in Florida who supported Ralph Nader than by the notorious butterfly ballot, just as George Bush lost millions of votes to Ross Perot in 1992.
So what can be done? Over the years, leading national political figures like Strom Thurmond, Orrin Hatch, Ted Kennedy, Kweisi Mfume, Hillary Clinton and John McCain have supported amending or scrapping the Electoral College. The most obvious solution is direct election, just as we elect our governors and members of Congress. Every voter would count as much as every other voter. All would have the same incentive to vote, no matter their postal address.
Of course there are important questions to resolve for a nationwide direct election. One is to confront our antiquated plurality tradition where the highest vote-getter wins, even if opposed by a majority. This has happened in several gubernatorial elections, with two governors ultimately ousted from office Evan Mecham from Arizona and John Rowland from Connecticut elected with less than 40 percent of the vote.
To prevent non-majority winners caused by spoilers and to encourage winners to reach out to more voters, we should establish a requirement that winners gain at least 50 percent of the vote. Traditional two-round runoffs accomplish this goal, but pose new problems. Candidates would have to scramble for extra cash to run a second campaign, and running a second nationwide election could cost close to a half billion dollars. And voters would have to trudge out to the polls a second time.
A better approach is instant runoff voting. IRV simulates a two-round runoff in one election by allowing voters to rank their runoff choices along with their first choice, 1, 2, 3. Instead of having a second election, ballot-counters use the rankings to determine the runoff choices of those voters whose first choice failed to advance to the runoff. The system is used for major elections in Great Britain, Australia and Ireland, and this
year by Utah Republicans to nominate congressional candidates at their state convention and by voters for San Francisco's city elections.
In 1787, our constitutional founders did not get everything right. They opposed direct election of senators, universal suffrage and abolition of slavery. The Electoral College is one more anti-democratic anachronism that undercuts the health of our democracy.
