Background
Despite the evidence so far in this election that the
American People are rejecting “politics as usual,” pundits, politicians,
elections officials, political parties, etc. continue to live under the
outdated framework of a two-party paradigm, the “left” versus the “right.” Already, the People see how the two-party
infrastructure has relied upon contrast, conflict, and campaigns to sustain a government
stalemate, in lieu of compromise, governability, and sustainability. Despite its perverse effects in
disproportionally empowering corporate interests in the US political process, the
“Citizens United” decision by the US Supreme Court had the unspoken benefit of
unshackling our political system from the two political party establishments. Money now flows freely between super-PAC’s,
candidate PAC’s, industry advocacy groups, unions, etc. without the intervention
and influence customary to the two major political parties.
This has opened up the domain of the political space from a line
between a “left” and a “right” side, to a more complex and multi-dimensional
space. Is it rightly “conservative” to
advocate for government intervention in intimate family decisions such as
marriage and childbearing? Is it rightly
“progressive” to rely on cheap imports to enable cost effective deployment of clean-energy
solutions that can compete with conventional, fossil fuel technologies?
Trump has upended the convention of the Republican Party as
we know it. Furthermore, in the likely
event that moderates coalesce around a “reasonable” nominee like Kasich or Jeb
Bush, Trump will likely defect to wage an independent campaign. This would present a grave potential for “spoiler
effect,” effectively splitting the votes among the base. Many would argue that this amounts to a
tyrannical strategic move that would hand the election over to the unified
opposition.
However, the rise of Bernie Sanders against the favored
frontrunner Hillary Clinton challenges this calculus. With Trump’s independent campaign in play, no
matter who wins the Democratic nomination, there is the unique opportunity here
to wage a third-party campaign oriented to the “left,” without the spoiler
effect concern that typically prevents such strategic action. If both Bernie and Hillary ran –- one as the
official Democratic nominee and the other as an additional third-party bid in
addition to Trump’s – this offers a 4-way race in the general election.
 |
| This election's calculus yields more than 2 possible answers. |
To prevent the further chaos and division that such a
general election dynamic may present, I would like to propose 3 easy steps to
reforming American elections. These
three steps would benefit all voting citizens of the US (whether they identify
as “left” or “right”):
- Automate the drawing of electoral district boundaries.
- Establish instant runoff voting as a means to foster third-party development and to give people more choice
- End the Electoral College.
Automate the
drawing of electoral district boundaries.
In today’s data-driven age, when it’s easier than ever to
compile data from devices and social networks to pinpoint who lives where
within a few meters, why haven’t we figured out a way to institutionalize an
automated process for drawing electoral district boundaries? Thanks to institutionalized gerrymandering,
our democracy has devolved to the point in which voters no longer select their
politicians; rather, politicians select their voters. In the meantime, optimization software has
already been developed that will draw district boundaries, even while
respecting as best as it can local boundaries defined by townships, cities,
counties, etc. (think of it as a “snap- to-grid” function for the electoral
map). It does this through an algorithm
whose logic can be made accessible to the public, so as to prevent any attempt
at quietly hijacking the procedural steps for any one entity’s benefit. I propose we banish all factors that have
traditionally been used to administer electoral district boundaries (yes, this
does include minority and other demographically defined districts), and replace
it with a computer process that is simple to understand. It will save lots of money, and it will
eliminate the human and special interest element altogether from this mapmaking
equation. Plus, the maps will be
prettier.
 | |
[Source: Brian Olson, “2010 Redistricting Result” website: http://bdistricting.com/] |
Instant runoff
voting
Allow for voters to select multiple candidates, in ranked
fashion, for each position. One way to
implement this is the instant runoff election.
In this process, the ballots are collected, and the votes tallied. With these totals, an iterative counting method
is used in which the first candidate to receive a majority of the votes is
declared the winner. With this method,
first, the #1 selection from each voter is counted and totaled. If a candidate receives more #1 selections
than 50% of the total number of voters, then they win. If not, then the last-place candidate is
eliminated from the race. If you voted
for the loser candidate, I’m sorry. But
the candidate you chose for your #2 selection (if you chose one at all) will
now gain a vote from your ballot. This
occurs for all ballots who voted the loser #1.
If a candidate receives enough of those “loser runner-up votes” to put
their total above 50%, then they win. If
not, then this process repeats, traversing up the ladder of remaining
last-place candidates until somebody finally surpasses the 50% mark. The important thing to note here is that, at
no point, was there a “wasted vote” doomed to “not count.” Additionally, this system does not penalize
voters who may only want to vote for one candidate. Each voter still counts equally.
Because an instant runoff ballot would allow individual
voters to vote for multiple candidates, it does not require the voter to choose
“the lesser of two evils” in their candidate choice. In many cases, especially in a close general
election under the present-day two-party system, voters might be compelled to
vote for their preferred mainstream candidate instead of a candidate from a
similar minor party, with whom they may share more views in common. This happened in the 2000 election, when many
Green Party voters faced the choice of whether to vote for Ralph Nader or to
vote for Al Gore out of fear of a George Bush win under the “spoiler
effect.” In fact, it’s still unclear as to
the extent of this effect on the razor-thin margins between Gore and Bush.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the Tea Party didn’t have to fight
with the Republicans, but could actually work alongside each other, as one
would expect with folks with similar philosophies? Similarly, wouldn’t it be nice if similar
conflicts didn’t have to exist between environmental progressives and labor
unions within the Democratic party? A
few simple but fundamental electoral reforms, like those outlined above, could
make this reality. And if we could
eliminate issues related to primaries that are skewed by low overall voter
turnout, then hey, we can save some more money by eliminating primaries
altogether, since minor party candidates can now be represented in a big-tent
general election with ranked ballot choices.
In Conclusion
I would recommend that folks from both sides work together
on framing and implementing these electoral reforms, with the dual purpose of
allowing more diversity in our political discourse, but without the
divisiveness and destructive rhetoric that has characterized this election so
far.
I'm Mike George, I am a maverick, and I approve this message.
No comments:
Post a Comment