About
Academics
Multisport
Photography
Writing
Home

 

In the wake of the 2000 presidential election disaster, a small window opened and mainstream Democrats allowed themselves to publicly utter the most ignored question in US democracy. Why keep the antiquated electoral college system? Why not revise the constitution to allow for a direct election of the US president?

Of course, the window closed as fast as it opened, and any serious momentum for a constitutional amendment never gained traction. Asking for broad reform of a system that generally works just fine (most of the time) for the two main parties in power is certainly a daunting task. Yet, in reality, perhaps it is a task that is not even necessary (at least for the time being.) The most important place to start for democratizing American presidential elections involves a much simpler step: the implementation of Instant Runoff Voting.

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is already used in many elections, from the 2004 Utah Republican Party convention to city council elections to state primaries, and has been used in presidential elections, for example, in Ireland. IRV is a simple way to ensure that the winner of an election wins with a majority (i.e. greater than 50%) of the votes, and eliminates the "spoiler" effect that occurs when more than two candidates appear on the ballot.

With an IRV ballot, voters rank the candidates. If three candidates appear on the ballot and none receives more than 50% of the first choice votes, then the candidate with the least number of votes is dropped and the second choices from those ballots are distributed to the two remaining candidates. As a result, the choice of the majority of the people wins. Third party and independent candidates can take part by doing what they do best--adding diversity to campaign debates and increasing choices come election time--without putting voters into the dilemma of choosing between the "lesser of the two evils."

Many in America agree that the stakes are high for the 2004 presidential elections. So high, in fact, that some Democrats are placing more energy on impeding the campaign of Ralph Nader than countering the campaign of George W. Bush. In Arizona, Democrats filed legal action that effectively thwarted the signature drive by the Nader campaign to gain ballot access in the state, and a similar challenge by Democrats is mounting in Illinois. In a July 9 press release, the Nader campaign condemned Democrats for undertaking "big money efforts to block the Nader/Camejo campaign right to ballot access" and specifically cited efforts by Howard Dean to keep Nader from gaining ballot access in Oregon.

"Across the country, with the blessing of the Democratic National Committee, Democrats are promising to line-up law firms to litigate our ballot access on frivolous technicalities. Democrats are harassing our petitioners," said Nader.

It's important to keep in mind the big picture behind all this political maneuvering by Democrats and the Nader campaign: the current system that can penalize a main party candidate when a third candidate appears on the ballot. Yet, intent on minimizing a loss of votes to a so called "spoiler", the Democrats have taken a rather undemocratic approach. Limiting ballot access to diverse voices and further entrenching the two-party stranglehold on electoral politics is counterproductive and short sighted for American democracy.

The Nader campaign, the Green Party and the Democratic Party all have one common goal this November: to end the reign of the Bush administration. They also should share a common long term goal for American democracy, a goal shared by all democrats with a small "d", including Republicans: fair elections that adhere to the principles of one person, one vote and majority rule. Democrats would make better use of their energy by vociferously working for state laws to institute IRV rather than impeding ballot access of attractive candidates who do a better job of speaking to their own base. While both approaches may help Democrats gain more votes come election time, IRV is the only true choice for strengthening democracy.

Quick Facts on Instant Runoff Voting Instant runoff voting can be implemented right now by individual states for deciding how their electoral college delegates are decided. Many city governments, colleges, and political parties have already used IRV for elections. To be used in presidential elections, all it takes is legislation at the state level. Frequently Asked Questions About Instant Runoff Voting Flash Animation Illustrating IRV IRV Brochure (PDF) Endorsement by Senator John McCain of Arizona Endorsement by Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean For full information on IRV, see FairVote.org.