Electoral System Reform
Electoral System Reform
Unfortunately, the potential for undemocratic outcomes in US elections is extraordinarily high. In fact, in races with more than two candidates garnering votes from significant slices of the electorate, undemocratic outcomes are the norm. Since third-party contenders inevitably peel votes away from one of the two major-party candidates, they often meet resistance and opposition from people who would otherwise look favorably on their campaigns. The way to end the "spoiler" role altogether is by enacting instant-runoff voting (IRV). In this process, voters select not just their favorite candidate but also their second, third and possibly fourth choices as well. Then, if no candidate captures a majority of voters' first-round choices, the system eliminates the candidate with the fewest votes and tallies again, this time counting the second choices of the voters whose first-choice candidate was eliminated. While the current system allows candidates opposed by a majority of their constituents to win elections, IRV insures that at least 50 percent of the voters cast a ballot for the winning candidate, even if he or she was not their first choice. While some countries use a two-phase runoff system, IRV eliminates the main objection to that--the high cost of holding another election--by using the runoff process in a single election. Instant-runoff elections in the United States would foster a more positive campaigning environment (by forcing candidates to vie for second- and third-choice votes), insure majority rule and increase turnout by giving voters more options. San Francisco's city elections are operating on an instant-runoff system this November; as a result, the candidates have run more positive, issue-oriented campaigns--thus providing a strong testament to the merits of IRV. Outside the US, IRV is currently in use in Ireland for presidential elections, in Australia for House of Representatives elections, and in London for city elections.
Even in states without districts plagued by gerrymandering, most people wind up voting with no legitimate hope of influencing elections. The most reasonable solution to this is to move to proportional representation, a system that is currently in place in Germany, Portugal, Switzerland and Greece, among many other nations. In such a system, voters would elect several representatives from larger Congressional super-districts, instead of just one from each of the current, smaller districts. A change to proportional representation would insure that voters--not just those who support the favorite--have some say in who represents them in Congress. For example, under the current system, one party can hold six adjacent Congressional seats by routinely carrying each with, say, 50 percent of the vote. In the meantime, the second-largest party, which carries, for example, 33 percent of the vote in each district, gets no representation, and neither does the third, despite carrying 17 percent. If turned into a six-member super-district under a proportional system, the representation would break down more fairly, with three seats going to the largest party, two to the second-largest and one to the third. Proportional representation in the United States would allow more people to play an active role in the selection of their representatives--even those who do not necessarily vote with a majority of their fellow constituents. PR systems are currently working in many countries. In fact, the Center for Voting and Democracy reports that of the forty-five countries that have both a population of more than 2 million and a high average freedom score (as measured by a widely accepted Freedom House study), thirty-seven use systems with some form of proportional representation. Even in the US, numerous school boards and municipalities now use this process to insure better representation for voters and more accountability for elected leaders.
Fusion voting is another voting method that increases elected officials' accountability and fosters the development of a competitive, multiparty system. With fusion, candidates can run on more than one party line--an option that allows minor parties to grow and develop even without a full slate of its own candidates. Ten states, including New York, Mississippi and Utah, currently allow fusion voting, which the Working Families Party has used to grow its organization. When political parties capitalize on it, fusion gives voters more options, more of a voice in their government and in the end, better representation. For example, in Suffolk County, New York, in 2001, Bill Lindsay ran for the county legislature on both the Democratic and WFP lines. On election day he squeaked out a 50.6 percent-49.4 percent victory, with 3 percent coming from the WFP. Without "spoiling" the election for Lindsay, their preferred candidate, WFP voters made their presence known and affected the election while continuing to a build their party.
The amount of money in politics is, without a doubt, excessive and unfairly distributed. In 2000, presidential and Congressional candidates spent a combined $3 billion on the election, with incumbents dominating in the race for cash. And the situation is only getting worse. In fact, this presidential race is, by far, the most expensive in American history. Campaigns for the House and Senate require raising exorbitant amounts of money as well--roughly $5 million, on average, for a Senate run, and around $900,000 for a House bid. The obvious consequence is that only people with money or with access to money can make serious runs for public office. And instead of responding to the needs of their constituents, many elected officials respond first to the wishes of campaign contributors and lobbyists, whose support they must maintain to stay competitive in the next election cycle. In Arizona, the Clean Elections system--passed by voters in 1998 in an effort to take the corrupting influence of money out of politics by allowing candidates to receive public funding for statewide campaigns--has led to more competition among contenders, greater diversity in candidate fields and higher voter turnout. Political leaders throughout the country should view the Arizona reform as a successful start and begin to give serious consideration to the idea of public financing for all elections. There are also other reform measures that could give candidates with fewer resources a fairer shot. These include, but are certainly not limited to, free radio and television air time for political candidates and increased public-affairs programming. Such measures would allow more candidates--especially those without great wealth or huge campaign chests--to present themselves to the public and voters to decide on the issues. By discriminating against large groups of people and diminishing the power of the vote, the US election system has pushed voters and potential candidates away, sacrificing the possibility of a genuinely representative government. As a result, of all the countries that hold national elections, the United States ranks 139th in voter turnout since 1945. The reforms mentioned above, while certainly not a complete list, would each go a long way in helping reform the US election system and insure better representation for the American people.