11/10/2016
3RD PARTIES NOW CAN BAT IN THE PINE STATE
As Kenneth Arrow proved in his "Impossibility Theorem" it's actually impossible to have a 100% fair voting system. However, there are many systems that are far more representative than the one we have now. A system that better ensures the most preferred candidate is the one who wins. And one that allows 3rd parties a fighting chance while not giving fringe parties or candidates a voice disproportionate with their actual support.
Maine just passed ranked choice voting, a method that (among other things) means people can vote for their candidate of choice without worrying they are "throwing away" their vote. Or that they are hurting their second choice candidate and helping to elect their least favorite.
Most elementary school children quickly figure out that the electoral college is unrepresentative and distorts the vote - a methodology made worse by states who *choose* to cast their electoral votes 'winner-take-all.' One improvement to improve fairness would be for states to apportion their electoral votes proportionally - similar to how Maine and Nebraska do now. But that's unlikely. Battleground states relish the attention to their issues (and the money) the winner-take-all model brings. Safe states, by definition, lean to one party, so they don't want to dilute their votes for their party.
Advocates for a National Popular vote or those who recommend a modification to electoral college voting wherein states promise to cast all their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote choose this method because it *seems* fairer. It can be. But the way most elections are currently run, it can also create giant-sized distortions resulting winners that do not remotely represent the preference of the people.
The easy fix, and fairest of systems, is a Popular Vote that that incorporates Preferential Voting, also known as "Ranked Choice Voting" or "Instant Runoff Voting." On November 8, Maine became the first state to implement it. Ranked choice is going to make elections more representative in Maine - and would certainly improve primaries and general elections nationwide.
Ranked choice/Instant Runoff voting encourages voters to rank the candidates in order, based on the voter's preferences. After all 1st place votes for all candidates are tallied, the candidate with the least first place votes is removed and their votes are reallocated - with their voters' 2nd choice votes now being re-cast as their first choice. It's the same as if every voter went back to the polls and recast their ballots without that candidate in the mix.
If there are more than 3 candidates, this process is repeated there are two candidates left - and then one candidate emerges with a majority.
Ranked choice also permits voters to vote for 3rd parties without worrying about 'wasting' their vote or hurting their 2nd choice candidate.
Consider how most states currently run their elections - in a hypothetical election for 'dessert' where 60% prefer chocolate and 40% prefer butterscotch. Candidates A and B are chocolate. Candidate C is butterscotch. Candidate A & B split the chocolate vote. Candidate C wins with 40% of the vote - even though 60% of voters would have preferred EITHER of the chocolates to butterscotch.
That model is how Maine (and most states) ran its elections before passing ranked choice. Indeed, Maine has not had a first-term governor with majority support since 1966.
In a ranked choice election for dessert, if candidate A got 27%, candidate B got 33% and candidate C got 40%, candidate A would lose round one and have its votes re-allocated. Since candidate A's voters still prefer 'any kind of chocolate' to butterscotch, they would have marked candidate B as their 2nd choice - which now becomes their first choice. When the votes are retabulated, candidate B has 60% and candidate C has 40% - just as it would be if people had physically gone back to the polls and voted again.
In years past it would have been hard to implement 'instant runoff' voting, as the task of tallying and reallocating votes would have been too onerous. But now, a laptop could handle the task.
Despite that, to this day, many countries waste time and money on physical runoffs if no candidate polls a majority. Frequently, the top two vote-getters from *all* the candidates square off in a run-off. That's both antiquated AND unrepresentative.
Consider an election for dessert where 70% of the population really wants pie. The candidates are Apple Pie, Apple-Cherry Pie, Cherry Pie, Pumpkin Pie, Pecan Pie, carrots, and sugar cubes . Each pie gets 14% of the vote - Carrots and sugar cubes, the fringe candidates, receive 15%. Carrots and sugar cubes run off for winner even though up to 85% of the population will be unhappy with the victor.
Yes, we're a republic. That doesn't mean we don't deserve national, state and/or local elections that represent the actual preferences of the voters.
Ranked choice voting is logical, fair and easily implementable. Push for it in your state. Unless your state is Maine. Then have a lobster roll and congratulate your state for its wisdom.
