A Reform Proposal
While we're talking about proposals to reform this or that, let's turn our attention back to the Electoral College. Is it finally time to put this ancient vestige of federalism into the garbage heap, and elect our President by direct voting?
While I say 'no' to such a proposal, I'm not deaf to the cries of those who say that the current winner-take-all method serves to rig the process against third parties and independents. So let me throw out a reform proposal that, I think, keeps intact the brilliance of the federal system while allowing a greater enfranchisement for more diverse viewpoints.
I call it Electoral Runoff Voting (ERV). It would go something like this: everyone would vote for President on the first Tuesday in November, just as before. But it differs in that, should a candidate receive a plurality and not a majority of the votes in a given state, she would not receive the total of that state's votes. Instead, she and the second-place finisher would face off again in another election two weeks later. Whoever received the majority in this election would then be certified as the official winner, entitled to receive the electors of that state.
This, to my mind, would solve three problems. First, the 'spoiler' effect of the third-party candidate, who often takes votes from his ideological kin and costs them the election (Nader, anyone?). In my scheme, the third rail would be cast out in the second round, leaving the two most viable candidates.
Secondly, it would solve the problem of third parties' permanent ineffectiveness. For example, if this system had been in place in 1992, Maine voters in the second round would have had the choice between Perot and Clinton! The likelihood of third parties receiving electoral votes therefore increases, meaning different viewpoints and programs could no longer be ignored. The national dialogue would be broadened.
I will admit that the scheme will need refining, since right now it's simply a bolt of inspiration. So take from it what you will. But I think it shows promise. Constructive comments are welcome!
posted by Joshua @ 5:56 PM
3 Comments:
Two weeks? Waiting months for a new episode of Lost is bad enough.
Your idea sounds similar to Instant Runoff Voting, which I'm sure you're already familar with but have found lacking. IRV also could be kept in the Electoral College framework for a tip of the old tricorn to Federalism. But it won't take a fortnight before the news comes down the post road to tell who be ye new His Excellency in ye Executive Manse.
Your idea, however, would be easier for the actual electorate to grasp, since they wouldn’t be spending most of their time thinking through imaginary runoffs. ("Hey, Earl, I distinctly 'member voting for Nader over Buchanan and Buchanan over Hillary. Who's this President Vilsack feller?") I do think the time delay is a makes it a non-starter, though. Trying to slow the 24-hour news cycle would, at this point, be like banning pizza.
My favorite is weighed list or Borda voting. They use it in Slovenia! And for the baseball MVP and college basketball polls. So Ljubljanians and sports fans would get it.
The upside is that it can be easily gamed to give third parties inordinate power. It could mean big things for the Slightly Silly Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Ranked_voting_methods
There's also something called Cordorcet voting but it involves too much math and sounds French. It'll never sell. But it’s not unlike the website from the “Hours of Fun” post.
I really don't like Instant Runoff Voting. Aside from the fact that it involves the voter in multiple calculations ("well, do I prefer this guy over that woman in this instance but not if this guy's going to win...?"), it dilutes individual voter preference.
For example, what I only like one out of the five candidates? Should I leave my other four rankings blank, because I dislike those candidates, or should I rank them somewhat arbitrarily, to avoid losing a percentage of my vote? Furthermore, what constitutes a majority of support?
The reason I prefer my suggested method is precisely what you feel to be the defect: the delay. Rather than have to weigh a hypothetical matchup, as in instant-runoff, voters can consider which of the two remain candidates deserve their support. I'd even be willing to extend the timespan from a fortnight (ha!) to a month, so candidates can campaign in the particular states. Wouldn't that just put the independents in play?
As for your notion that this would mean wacky things from wacky third parties, I disagree. This is where federalism acts as a brake! The odds of the same third party making it into the second round in multiple states is quite small. Maybe the Greens would make it into the second round in California, but the Libertarians would make the second round in New Hampshire, while Alabama sees a religiously-themed movement come in second.
This wouldn't mean that (like in a Parliamentary system) a third-party could get 10 percent of the vote and wind up in charge. It would mean the winning Presidential candidate wouldn't be a party hack, since she'd have to take into account the aforementioned libertarians, greens, and what-have-you.
I think we agree about IRV, it's too conceptually difficult.
What I like about weighted lists is everybody can figure it out: "I like GHW Bush best, Perot second-best, then the whatever nutty libertarian is running third". Or, "Gore, then Nader, then anyone but Bush". It still has the problem you point out with IRV, that you have to like three candidates enough to vote for them all. You also have to have enough of a preference to rank them. Although, "none of the above" or write-ins might be an acceptable way out.
My point about 3rd parties was referring to Borda voting, not your plan.
Weird things might happen with third parties under Borda, but I think it could be a plus that minor parties would have more power as larger parties tried to game the system. Meaning, (if I understand that wiki page I quoted properly) parties would do well if they were a few degrees of separation from each other. People would tend to list their top three candidates in quasi-slates that formed coherent interest blocs. So third parties would be encouraged to distinguish themselves in clear and limited ways (new party: "Pretty much Dems, but against NAFTA"), rather than the big, broad strokes that third parties have to paint in today (Reform Party: "We're kinda like Republicans, except we're fucking nuts").
So, in fictional weighted list scenarios: the candidates involved in a 1) Dem 2) "Protectionist Dem" and 3) "Labor Union Family Party" quasi-slate or a 1) Repub 2) "Shareholder Protection Party" 3) "Fiscal Conservative Green Party" quasi-slate both would tend to do better than candidates from a 1) Dem 2) Green 3) Socialist quasi-slate. Votes (albeit from lower positions on a list) and federal funding would be chiseled off of the major party duopoly to other independent parties whose platforms could be tailored to slices of the electorate, like individual candidates try to do today.
The downside is these new parties could become puppets of the Big Two, or that you end up with “Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry Party”. But that risk may be preferable to the third parties’ current sole role as spoilers for their ideological kin.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about the time delay in real, non-instant runoffs. I think taking off work for an extra election, essentially to rule out third parties would annoy even me, a political junkie. But reading the bottom of the lists after the election to find out if the Dominionist Christian Party beat out Lesbians for Military Victory would be a fun way to waste an afternoon.
(I think I stopped making sense a few paragraphs ago. Oh, well. Time to hit submit and change for dinner. Happy Thanksgiving)
Post a Comment
<< Home