So, my history class the other day featured a discussion of the "Reverend Wright Controversy" and the current election, in which it came up that I, a self-described left-winger, didn't like either of the frontrunner Democrats. After class, I spent a while talking to my history teacher about American politics. The following points came up:
1) The electoral college system, despite being theoretically fair, is in need of an overhaul.
2) While the electoral college is a fair (i.e. okay) representation of the country's vote, it gives people the impression that their vote is lost.
3) This country is missing out on a real left-wing party that can compete on the national level. Democratic candidates, whatever they would have you believe, end up selling their soul to center-left thinking to win the moderate vote. The real left-wing Democrats get ignored or ridiculed.
4) Third party candidates (and indeed, a number of candidates from the two main parties) are ignored by both the media (the source of the problem) and the general public, outside a select few people.
We also talked about the inordinate amount of control that the media has over an election, but that's a topic for its own post. These four points are related, especially [1 and 2] and [3 and 4] (bracketed to prevent ambiguity), and these are my thoughts on them.
Points 1 and 2: the Electoral College
The original purpose of the electoral college, just to refresh our memories, was to ensure that even the smaller states would have a voice on the national stage. If the election was a straight popular vote, odds are most candidates would focus only on the large swing states. By creating a system of proportional representation, the election was made more fair and balanced between large and small states. Compare this to the two-senators-per-state decision. The basic idea of this is good, and valid. However, the electoral college has two problems; the second stems from the first. The main problem with the electoral college is that it is winner-take-all. The second problem stems from this: voters in non-swing states who are against the trend (e.g. Republicans in Massachusetts) feel that their vote doesn't count, because the majority group will take all the votes anyway.
There is a simple solution to this problem: change the electoral college from winner-take-all to winner-take-proportion, like the delegate system in many primaries. If, for example, in Massachusetts, Republicans get out enough of the vote to win two electoral points, why shouldn't that be reflected? If the Democrats win one of Wyoming's votes, who's to deny them that? This system is more representative of the popular vote and in my view encourages candidates even more than the current system to consider voters in non-swing states. There you have it: a simple solution to one problem that is often complained about.
Points 3 and 4: Third Parties and Independents
Now we're going to go in a slightly different direction: third parties. Most Americans consider third parties to be a waste of time. Under the current system, that is probably accurate. Best case scenario in this two-party system is that a lucky third-party candidate can be blamed or blessed for taking some small percentage of the vote from the main candidates. People who vote for third party candidates are accused of "throwing their votes away", and in a way, their accusers are correct.
Let's introduce a new term into this mix: Single Transferable Vote. Single Transferable Vote, or STV, is a preferential voting method used in Ireland, Australia, and various other places around the world. STV works like this: when confronted with a ballot, say the candidates in the 2004 election, the STV voter will see this:
__George Bush
__John Kerry
__Michael Badnarik
__David Cobb
__Ralph Nader
__Michael Peroutka
(That's not a full list, depending on where you are, but it's enough to get the idea.) Now, the STV voter will look at this and, rather than checking off one candidate and being done, will place a number next to each: 1 next to his first choice, 2 next to his second, 3 next to his third, etc.
Voting proceeds in rounds. In the first round, first choices are tallied. If one candidate comes above the threshold needed to win, that candidate is elected. If there is more than one seat to fill, or if no candidate is elected, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The ballots that voted for him move down to the second choice candidate, and are tallied again. Rinse and repeat until either a candidate is elected (if there is one seat/position to fill) or all seats are filled (for a multi-seat election).
I hope that makes sense. The point of this system, as I see it, is to minimize wasted votes (which can still happen if the next candidate down the preference list has already been eliminated), which would basically deal with the perceived problems of third parties. By creating a system where you can vote for a third party without "losing" your vote.
And it doesn't have to be STV—there are numerous other preferential systems that would help alleviate this problem. But the current plurality system is problematic.
The main problem with a preferential system for national elections, is that, unlike the electoral college, it would not be a quick solution: implementing a different system would be a significant undertaking and require a lot of effort. The logistics threaten to blow my mind. But with some work, it could happen.
I hope I've made you think.
And one final thought: the single-winner version of STV is called instant runoff voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
"While the electoral college is a fair (i.e. okay) representation of the country's vote, it gives people the impression that their vote is lost."
Usually you're right. 2000: not so much.
STV sounds swell and all, but i could just as well dig proportional districts, ya know.
I've heard the wasted vote theory and i just can't subscribe to it. I submit to you that people who don't vote their conscience waste their suffrage, because they send the candidate who most represents their own beliefs to Ignoreland.
They're bought by the media and industry, who impact the primaries in the early stages.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
"'While the electoral college is a fair (i.e. okay) representation of the country's vote, it gives people the impression that their vote is lost.'
Usually you're right. 2000: not so much."
It is for cases like 2000, and to satisfy the general anti-EC complaints, that I think a better system of proportional representation can be implemented within the existing system.
"STV sounds swell and all, but i could just as well dig proportional districts, ya know."
STV and IRV (the single-winner version I mentioned above) can easily be used within the existing system of districts. It's just a different method of electing candidates within the districts. However, I personally think the district system is flawed for a number of reasons, including the arbitrary nature of the districts and the oft-abused possibility of "redistricting". It would make much more sense to me to tweak the districts so that there were fewer districts that each had multiple seats, which is really where STV thrives (multiple-seat races).
"I've heard the wasted vote theory and i just can't subscribe to it. I submit to you that people who don't vote their conscience waste their suffrage, because they send the candidate who most represents their own beliefs to Ignoreland."
I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, I'm tempted to dismiss this the same way you do. On the other hand, I think there's some legitimacy to the claims of the wasted vote crowd; thus, my post.
"They're bought by the media and industry, who impact the primaries in the early stages."
That's a whole different issue, which probably deserves its own topic.
Yep i see some legitimacy in the thundering voices that blame greens for Florida. But then i think, hey if Al Gore wanted my vote and the vote of other progressives he could get us.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
But then he'd lose some of overwhelming independent vote. My point is that the current system is all or nothing when it doesn't have to be.
The Constitution allows the States to determine how their electoral votes are assigned. Most, but not all States, have gone with the winner take all approach. I think one or two states do allow proportional representation. Maine has a high-bred approach where the electoral votes associated with its Representatives (I'm not sure how many) are awarded proportionately and the electoral votes associated with its Senators (exactly two) are awarded winner take all.
The winner take all system works really well for small states like Wyoming because it slightly amplifies our diminutive (but slightly over-represented) voice in the whole process. I would certainly oppose a change in the Wyoming system even though I hate the Republican candidate who is not nearly conservative enough and plan to vote third party.
The winner take all system also works really well for swing states because it ensures that they will be the focus of a huge amount of attention in the Presidential candidates. States like Florida and Ohio will be extremely resistent to any efforts to change their system because all of that attention (and money spent and political favors granted) would vanish if their electoral votes were split proportionately rather than awarded to the winner as a rich pot.
Big states like California, New York and Texas which lean overwhelmingly one direction or the other would be well served by changing their systems to proportional because suddenly it would be worth a Republican's time to compete in California and New York for a portion of their electoral pie and likewise worth a Democrat's time to compete in Texas. They would get a lot of the attention that is currently being spent in the swing states.
Since states get to make this decision and since states have different interests, I don't think you are going to see a nationwide change. You will more likely get a hodge podge of reforms with some states not reforming at all.
I sure hope California is foolish enough to go proportional.
But when the non-swing states suddenly become swing states, doesn't that take focus off the swing states anyway? So what would be the point for them, after a few elections? I suppose they could try to keep up their reputation, but...
Unfortunately, this is all far too hypothetical, and I doubt anything will be done about it.
(Maine has 4 electoral votes, by the way, so 2 proportional and 2 winner-takes-all. Nebraska does the same.)
I suppose that would be true. But some states like Ohio and Missouri have been swing states for a long, long time.
I hope your right that nothing will be done about it because I think the founders designed a great system that insolates us from the stupidity of the voters and I think the voters are as stupid as ever. There are quite a few informed people and vast numbers who are not. Any random media "man on the street" interview reveals shocking ingnorance.
...but that's why I went further into a system that encourages third party voting, because a multi-party system (not just two), with a larger field of candidates, encourages people to be more informed about more candidates.
Yes, there will still be ignorant people, but my hope is that with more options there will be more people who actually look at their options.