And Now For Something Completely Different

If I was a book in a library, then I'd finally be free

Some More Thoughts On IRV

with one comment

Recently in The Nation, Katarina Vanden Heuvel has spoken about electoral reform. Much of it has to do with what I view as absolutely critical, but relatively peripheral issues—public financing, ballot technologies, media coverage and the like. At one point, she does take up the concrete question of the electoral process itself (how a vote is conceived to measure political will). It’s a long article, most of which I’m not discussing at this point, so I’ll just quote at length.

For the first time in nearly a century more than a quarter of American voters are not registered as either Republicans or Democrats. During the 2004 presidential campaign, one poll suggested 57 percent of voters thought candidates besides Bush and Kerry should be included in the debates. In the latest biannual survey from Harvard’s Institute of Politics of 18- to 24-year-olds, 37 percent of young voters agreed that there was a need for a third party.

If majority rule is to be more than a hollow slogan and third parties more than “spoilers,” we need to experiment with more accurate ways to represent the diversity of backgrounds, perspectives and opinions of the American people. Proportional representation–in which 10 percent of the vote wins 10 percent of the seats–is one way. But the United States is an outlier when it comes to PR. We’re one of the few “advanced” democracies that don’t use it in national elections. But PR isn’t as alien as it might seem: Cambridge, Massachusetts, has used a proportional voting scheme to elect its City Council for seven decades. Illinois used a similar system to elect its lower house from 1870 to 1980, and it enjoys broad bipartisan support. As opposed to our winner-take-all system, in which a mere plurality of voters can carry an election, full representation allows for the expression of a broader range of interests.

The Democrats’ use of proportional representation in their nominating process gives a sense of what it means: every vote counts, no matter how lopsided the result might be in any district or state.

Although not as radical a departure as proportional representation, instant runoff voting (IRV)–in which low-scoring candidates are eliminated and their supporters’ second-choice votes are added to those that remain, until one candidate wins a majority–is another way to challenge the duopoly while protecting majority rule for all.

Backed by groups like FairVote and the New America Foundation, IRV also has the support of McCain and Obama, along with Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean and third-party candidates like Libertarian Bob Barr, the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.

And instant runoff voting has begun to catch on with the public. IRV has won thirteen of the last fourteen times it appeared on a ballot, winning landslides in cities like Oakland (69 percent), Minneapo-lis (65 percent), Sarasota (78 percent) and Santa Fe(65 percent). San Francisco just held its fourth IRV election, and exit polls have found it popular there with every measurable demographic. This fall, Pierce County, Washington, with a population of nearly 800,000, will use it for the first time for a hotly contested county executive election. And new cities voting to adopt it will include Glendale, California; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Memphis, Tennessee. A bill instituting IRV for Congressional elections in Vermont was vetoed by that state’s Republican governor but will be back next year.

Finally, fusion voting has the weight of long experience behind it. Before the twentieth century, it was a frequent tool of emerging parties, until major parties started banning it. Fusion allows two or more parties to nominate the same candidate on separate ballot lines. That simple change permits people to vote their values without “wasting” their vote or supporting “spoilers.” The positive experience of New York’s Working Families Party in the past decade shows you can build a viable minority party this way. And fusion has also helped progressives focus on the challenge of building majorities in a winner-take-all system. These options would dramatically open our electoral system to more choices, ensuring the representation of diverse views instead of seeing them co-opted or suppressed by the “least worst” options presented by the duopoly.

 
Heuvel doesn’t tout its advantages as well as she could, nor really the problems it helps to mitigate. The dominance of two-parties is, on the face of it, a problem, but when you consider how it arises from our electoral process itself, you realize it is actually a response to the deeper insufficiencies of that process. As a response, it is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s comparable to the nasty symptoms you get when you have a cold or the flu: they suck, but their absence despite the presence of infection would probably mean worse things.

IRV doesn’t simply remedy the two-party system (a symptom) any more than a decongestant remedies a cold (a deeper problem). IRV remedies the way our political choice appear to us from without—notably in the media, but also in the sense that makes “Candidate A stole votes from Candidate B” meaningful, as if the votes belonged to them. In this sense, our vote is not our own, but almost literally the property of the candidates. When our political choices appear to us to come from sources other than us, the electorate, then our political will is effectively not our own. Worse yet is the triangulation that takes place between us, the politicians, and the supposed place where we meet to tell them what to do. We end up compromising with the politicians and media, rather than amongst ourselves, which is both the source and the end of political polarization from Nixon onward.

What’s at stake in calling for IRV is not simply the “freedom of choice,” if that at all, but the ability to take political responsibility. In this sense, it is not only demands that we change how we look at politicians (“now with more choices!”), but how we look at our own political responsibilities. It’s easy to, taking a cue from the above mentioned the implicit politicians vs. the people relationship demanded by our current voting system, view our political impasse as a failure of the gub’mint and not a conflict born of the electorate’s own inability to articulate its political will. Opening the conversation of electoral reform to include this thought will be a key transformation in the process that changes anything.

Like any Twelve Step program: admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

Advertisements

Written by Joe

July 7, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Posted in Elections, Politics

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Number of “approved” parties, required for “SUFFICIENT CHOICE OF CANDIDATES” NEEDED FOR A REAL DEMOCRACY. Here a few possibilities.

    1) Two Parties !
    2) Too Parties ! (USA’s present election system)
    3) Five Hundred Parties !

    No matter the number, of Parties allowed to compete effectively, none will work without the provision of
    a) a “clear”, candidate to voter, communication
    channel(candidates speak to the people)
    b) finances needed to purchase that channel

    What “comm channel” is presently available to the candidates ?
    Answer: Television Ads paid for by Bullionaire “observers, suppliers, and patriots” via donations to THE BULLIONAIE’S “FAVORITE” CANDYDATEs.
    SUCKA… er SUCHA — system of manipulation,
    by the SWELLS, of the American, DUPPED PEOPLE,
    Calls the Seriousness of Our Democrazy (SOD)INTO QUESTION.
    HERE’S A FIX, IF YOU CARE(DARE) TO ACT !
    1) A NATIONAL “GOVTV” FEDERAL ELECTION TV NETWORK (“GOVTV”) – to Provide VOICE to the INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL CANDIDATES for following phases of the Election System
    A) TV Speech-Time , for each candidate.
    1) Nation-Wide broadcast for
    Presidential Candidates
    2) State-Wide broadcast for
    Congressional Candidates
    B)TV Debates, among candidate for particular
    Elective Offices[White House or Congress]
    on a National, or State, Level as
    appropiate for the elective office
    Under this GOVTV ELECTION SYSTEM, “THE WEALTH” MAY STILL DONATE ALL THE $$$ THEY WISH, TO THEIR SELECTED CANDIDATE – AND THE “PEOPLE” WILL – NOW – BE ABLE TO “HEAR” FROM ALL CANDIDATES, NOT JUST THE BUTT-BOYS OF “THE WEALTH”.

    LET’S DO IT!
    *RESTORE “DEMOCRACY TO THE PEOPLE”.
    *USE SOME OF THAT,LEGACY-ENHANCING,FED MONEY”,
    NOW, WASTED, TO,
    1) BUY “THE BUSHOWITZ LEGACY” and
    2) FUEL THE ZIOCONS “DREAMS” in IRAQ

    TO INSTEAD,IMPLEMENT THE
    ——————————
    ***GOVTV ELECTION SYSTEM***
    ——————————

    ClintonInnaFiteHauss

    July 13, 2008 at 9:46 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s