Welcome to the 21st-century United States of America, where a minority voice is based on restricting the access of others and where the minority voice often rules.
Unlike most democracies, the U.S. electoral system narrows down voters’ choices and democratic voices automatically. If you’re not already familiar with the system of state primaries, candidate selection based on electoral votes and the great potential for minority representation, go to the public library. Every single citizen should be intimately familiar with a process that allows for the majority to select a president. Our democracy depends on each and every one of us to be informed, engaged and on the front lines.
Just as important as the narrowing down of “eligible” voters and major party candidates, this so-called “plurality voting” system does not favor third-party, fourth-party and independent candidates. By making any voices other than that of the dominant social class out to be “spoilers”-based on the logic that if additional candidates didn’t run, then one or the other two-party duopoly candidate might win more electoral votes-we condemn an important and necessary part of the democratic process. Because of this spoiled system the United States is using, non-corporate candidates often create as much character assassination and “spoiling” talk as they do genuine discussions of the valuable issues they raise.
Have you ever wondered how strange just two choices really is-how weird it is that only two special people are allowed to run? Come on, you know this. The people want more choices. Whenever additional voices are let into the presidential debates, viewership goes up. And today, more than 25 percent of the electorate isn’t registered as a Democrat or Republican.
The people want options.
In most democratic countries of the world, open-election processes necessitate listening to, consulting and voting for many different voices and insights that candidates such as citizen activist Ralph Nader offer. But instead of embracing fairness and openness, the U.S. election process systematically vilifies anyone with the courage to run for office without the requisite sanitizing and filtering effects of the two party duopoly. Our great democracy could and should accommodate everyone with visions to lead our country.
Perhaps the most shocking element of these important electoral issues is that-are you sitting?-Utah is fashionable. That’s right-Utah is actually starting a trend. I know, it’s crazy. But believe it-Utah is helping to lead a movement in this country which is good for the people. And it’s catching on.
It’s called “instant run-off voting” (IRV) and it’s good for representative democracy because it accommodates significantly more voter choices and does not permit minority rule. IRV efficiently represents the will of the people without reducing our choices to “evil and lesser evil”-with IRV, there can be goods, too. Just go to Ireland, Australia, London and dozens of other democratic places around the globe and you’ll see that IRV is a time-tested and well-liked system.
IRV is awesome for a variety of reasons. How it works is simple: You vote for your favorite candidate with a “1,” your second favorite with a “2” and so on, until you reach “W” (some versions, called “truncated,” limit the voter to the top five choices, in which case “W” wouldn’t be used).
The candidate that receives a majority of “1” votes wins. If no candidate is voted in by a majority of “1” votes, then the next round begins.
The second round is just as simple as the first. To begin with, the candidate with the fewest “1” votes is eliminated. Next, your “1” vote is still cast for your highest ranked candidate still in the race. This process continues until the majority rules.
Some of the coolest things about IRV are that it takes only one vote per citizen and each voter’s voice is always represented. What’s more, IRV increases voter turnout by broadening the field of candidates-better choices equals more participation. Also, IRV promotes campaigns that are issue-based, not accusatory. And of course, your vote is never wasted-it always contributes to electing the winning candidate. And the benefits don’t stop there.
The Electoral College can still be used (it’s perfectly constitutional), but receipt of a state’s electoral votes is contingent on receiving majority support. IRV fairly accommodates all available voices and rejects the “spoiler” concept. IRV allows voters to stimulate important discussions by incorporating all of the important voices, which, in turn, attracts new voters.
IRV allows citizens to vote with their individual interests in mind and not cast a ballot based on fears of the greatest evil. Indeed, according to the Center for Voting and Democracy’s John Anderson, with IRV, voters can “vote their hopes, not their fears.” And perhaps most importantly, IRV systematically recognizes the great democratic creed of democratic, majority rule. Of course, with the majority rule comes a better opportunity to build coalitions and accomplish meaningful policy initiatives (which the voters have already indicated).
The only true disadvantage of IRV is that it alone cannot reconstitute American democratic principles. Instant run-off voting will simply not solve all of our problems. To get just U.S. elections back on track, we need to adopt several more important measures. These include measures such as proportional representation, sincere public funding for elections, Election Day voter registration, Election Day as a federal holiday, demanding that the people’s airwaves are leased only to those broadcasting entities that offer true, public affairs programming and enshrining the right to vote in the U.S. Constitution.
If any of these initiatives are unfamiliar, or you’d simply like to know more, then go to the public library right away. An informed and engaged citizenry is as important and urgent as anything under our democratic sun.
Many more steps should be taken in the pursuit of fair elections and this is just the beginning. Nevertheless, these principles are a good start, and they do great things. But, even once we achieve these democratic inroads, fundamental democratic crises will exist and need to be changed.
If equality and justice are to prevail, it is we the people who need to change the status quo. It’s not easy, but the most important thing we can do is be informed and build progressive movements like those that brought voting rights to all citizens. If we are to ensure that our democracy is truly representative-and not moving ever closer to two-party dictatorship-it is we the people that need to come together and march and demand that our democratically elected leaders follow our steps.
