As we discussed earlier, this year’s presidential election is more of a “vote against” than any in recent history. There’s some logic that the first-past-the-post voting system we have was part of why Donald Trump got the GOP nod, even though a majority of Republicans voted against him (for the first time in a very, very long time).
Those considering a third-party vote aren’t fools to write it off: there are strong strategic incentives for a tactical vote (the Wikipedia article explains in detail why the incentives are twisted) in order to prevent the candidate you like least from getting elected, rather than voting for the person you’re most excited about.
If it feels like the way we vote is pretty messed up, you’re not crazy. If you aren’t happy with Clinton and Trump, or your Congressional candidates, as options, there are ways to change this.
I try to avoid advocating for particular policy positions, but I’ll take a break from that because I want to talk about a policy about elections, rather than about political preferences. There are two policy positions I’d like to advocate, and if you agree with them, I encourage you to get involved.
In Wedged, we briefly discuss the power of open primaries in helping prevent the most hardcore partisans from dominating the primary system. Such domination leads to two candidates that most Americans aren’t that excited about, and sets up incentives for them to only represent their party’s die-hards.
Open Primaries would let any voter cast a ballot in either party’s primary. It means that each party would have to reach out to the entire population to move onto the final round (the actual election), therefore being far more representative of their districts–even in districts that have most people registered as one party.
You can get involved at openprimaries.org, either as an advocate, op-ed writer, or donor.
The first-past-the-post voting system we have means that only two parties will ever really be in contention. This structure is governed by what’s called “Duverger’s Law,” which is a political science concept rather than legislation.
If you want more competitive parties, you need to change the voting structure. One option–which might come into play in Maine–is Ranked Choice Voting, AKA Instant Runoff.
Here’s how it works: you rank N candidates from 1 to N. 1 is your top choice, followed by others. So let’s say you prefer Jill Stein, but really don’t like Johnson or Trump. You could vote Stein #1, Clinton #2, Johnson #3, Trump #4. It goes other ways, as well.
When the votes get tallied, they count up all the #1’s. Whoever has the least of these initial votes is removed, and their ballots are reprocessed for the #2 choices. This keeps going until someone has a majority of votes.
The upshot is that voting for your top choice isn’t a half-vote for your bottom choice: if your top choice is eliminated, your #2 vote goes towards your second-favorite candidate. You can see how the incentives would change: people would be able to vote for who they wanted most without fear of electing the party they don’t like, so there is less reason not to vote for a 3rd party. The choice in the election would increase significantly.
Of course, it’s the kind of thing that Republicans and Democrats in legislature are less-than-likely to support. So it’s gotta happen from the ground up.
The organization that I know best (and really like) that does this is called FairVote. They’re pushing RCV/IR in Maine, and might be successful. They can also teach you more about how it works, and where it’s being used.
They also are working on multi-candidate Congressional districts with RCV rules, which would have a similar effect.
You can donate to them, and tell your friends to do the same. They’re a take-action kind of group, and I like that.
How you vote is actually determined by the rules of your state. This means that your power for change is much higher, for two reasons. First, you’re a bigger portion of the electorate in that state. Second, your legislature is likely less dysfunctional than the US Congress.
So if you’re looking for ways that you can make a serious difference in the gridlock and polarization of the country, these are two ways to do it. I hope you’ll join me in getting involved.
–Erik
Ukrainian victories on the ground have been swift, dramatic, and devastating. And each win seems…
The Russians just got whipped. What the heck happened?
Mark Schauss is the host of Russian Rulers History and Battle Ground History. Known for…
https://play.acast.com/s/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62f43f685dc1ea00136539f2 Hot Updates Severodonetsk fell slowly as expected, but then Lysychansk fell quickly because Russian…
https://embed.acast.com/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62d0a6529385dd0012e405d1 Lots of ways we can split this. Much has been discussed about decoupling of…
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the…
View Comments
New Zealand has a runoff voting system like you have described, and has many more parties than America (some more popular than others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand) The unintended consequence is the opposite of American voting.
In the US, our voting system is biased in favour of polarization. Radical partisan candidates have a better chance over milder moderate candidates, and our votes are extremely polarized by party membership.
By contrast, in New Zealand, no one's top choice ever wins. The system rewards average, middle-of-the-road candidates. Candidates who are radical or ambitious will win their party's votes but likely get bumped off by other voters. Consequently, you get sort of a "milquetoast effect," where the winning strategy is to have no strong convictions, ruffle no feathers, and not have any policies that are too ambitious or controversial, even if they're good and necessary.
It's not necessarily a better or worse system, just something to think about.
coffee working autumn
healing music
piano jazz music
soothing music
sleeping music
Christmas Jazz Music
cozy jazz