Instant Run-Off Voting Can Help Independants
Posted: 08-24-2008 04:03 PM
We have a 2-party system that is not constitutionally mandated, but that evolved as a natural and functional effect of our type of government. Multi-Party systems can exist in Parliamentary systems, but not in our "seperation of powers" system. But, I've been hearing about a plan that could make it possible for 3rd parties and independants to flourish.
Air America talk show host Thom Hartman described a system of instant run-offs that, I think, are already being utilized in a couple of smaller states. Here's how it would work:
Let's say "Jane" decides she might like to vote for Ralph Nader. As it stands now, a vote for Nader would be a vote for McCain, just as a vote for Barr would probably be a vote for Obama. Nader will be forever villifed, because the votes he drained from Gore in Florida, tipped the election to Bush. The result is, that Nader is responsible for all of us, all of the World, in fact, having suffered through 8 years of Bush. Think of the possible 1 million who have died in Iraq simply because of Bush, but indirectly because of Nader. Think of the jobs that have been outsourced, the outrageous oil prices, and the collapse of the US Dollar, all of which could have been avoided if Nader had stayed out of the race. The world's greatest consumer advocate has become a political pariah, but it need never have happened.
Here's how an instant run-off could work. Let's say"Jane" lives in Florida. She doesn't really like Obama, but would certainly prefer him to McCain. But, she really likes Nader, and agrees with him 99% of the time. She decides to stand on principle and casts her vote for Nader. McCain wins Florida by a small margin, and as in 2000, McCain wins the presidency by a margin that would have changed to Obama, had Florida's electoral votes gone to him in the absence of Nader from the ballot.
Now, in the Instant Run-Off, Jane is given a 1st, and 2nd choice. Now, she can register her "protest" vote for Nader, but also vote for Obama as her 2nd choice. You could even work it so there would be a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice, but let's keep it simple. If Nader does not place 1st or 2nd in vote totals, Jane's vote is automatically transferred to her 2nd choice, which, in this case, is Obama. Now, the Nader voters have the opportunity to freely vote for their first choice without helping their very last choice. Obama now carries Florida and wins the election.
But wait..."David" is also in Florida, and wants to vote for Bob Barr, but doesn't want to cause the election of Obama. He's torn, but in my scenario, he can vote for Barr, and if Barr doesn't finish first or second, his vote can automatically be transferred to his 2nd choice, which would be McCain.
Do you understand how this works? If people felt free to vote for 3rd party candidates or independants, knowing that they would not inadvertantly help their very last choice, more would vote that way. And, even though the votes for minor candidates would be tranferred, with more people feeling free to cast their votes based on their true preferances, many of these minor canddates would rise to prominence, and some might actually WIN!
Keep in mind, that under my plan, in 2000, Nader's votes would probably have overwhelmingly gone to Gore, and we'd never have had Bush. In 1992, Perot's voters when polled split evenly between Clinton and GHW Bush, so the results of that election would probably have been the same, with Clinton elected. Either way, it's a much fairer system.
Questions, anyone?
Air America talk show host Thom Hartman described a system of instant run-offs that, I think, are already being utilized in a couple of smaller states. Here's how it would work:
Let's say "Jane" decides she might like to vote for Ralph Nader. As it stands now, a vote for Nader would be a vote for McCain, just as a vote for Barr would probably be a vote for Obama. Nader will be forever villifed, because the votes he drained from Gore in Florida, tipped the election to Bush. The result is, that Nader is responsible for all of us, all of the World, in fact, having suffered through 8 years of Bush. Think of the possible 1 million who have died in Iraq simply because of Bush, but indirectly because of Nader. Think of the jobs that have been outsourced, the outrageous oil prices, and the collapse of the US Dollar, all of which could have been avoided if Nader had stayed out of the race. The world's greatest consumer advocate has become a political pariah, but it need never have happened.
Here's how an instant run-off could work. Let's say"Jane" lives in Florida. She doesn't really like Obama, but would certainly prefer him to McCain. But, she really likes Nader, and agrees with him 99% of the time. She decides to stand on principle and casts her vote for Nader. McCain wins Florida by a small margin, and as in 2000, McCain wins the presidency by a margin that would have changed to Obama, had Florida's electoral votes gone to him in the absence of Nader from the ballot.
Now, in the Instant Run-Off, Jane is given a 1st, and 2nd choice. Now, she can register her "protest" vote for Nader, but also vote for Obama as her 2nd choice. You could even work it so there would be a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice, but let's keep it simple. If Nader does not place 1st or 2nd in vote totals, Jane's vote is automatically transferred to her 2nd choice, which, in this case, is Obama. Now, the Nader voters have the opportunity to freely vote for their first choice without helping their very last choice. Obama now carries Florida and wins the election.
But wait..."David" is also in Florida, and wants to vote for Bob Barr, but doesn't want to cause the election of Obama. He's torn, but in my scenario, he can vote for Barr, and if Barr doesn't finish first or second, his vote can automatically be transferred to his 2nd choice, which would be McCain.
Do you understand how this works? If people felt free to vote for 3rd party candidates or independants, knowing that they would not inadvertantly help their very last choice, more would vote that way. And, even though the votes for minor candidates would be tranferred, with more people feeling free to cast their votes based on their true preferances, many of these minor canddates would rise to prominence, and some might actually WIN!
Keep in mind, that under my plan, in 2000, Nader's votes would probably have overwhelmingly gone to Gore, and we'd never have had Bush. In 1992, Perot's voters when polled split evenly between Clinton and GHW Bush, so the results of that election would probably have been the same, with Clinton elected. Either way, it's a much fairer system.
Questions, anyone?