I, like many Americans, think it is a shame that third-party candidates often act as ‘spoilers’ in elections. In the 2000 election, Nader voters were told that their votes were more of a vote against Gore than they were a vote for Nader. In the coming election, the same dilemma will apparently exist.
This problem comes from the way American elections are run. We have what is known as a plurality system, in which each voter must pick only one candidate to support. In a lot of cases, the voter is forced to vote strategically. An example would be a Nader supporter that voted for Gore in order to block Bush, even though that wasn’t his favorite candidate.
There are several other election systems available that might alleviate this problem. Three major ones are Approval Voting, Instant Runoff Voting, and Condorcet Voting.
In Approval Voting, voters can vote for as many candidates as they please. In 2000, someone could vote for both Nader and Gore, which would show they approve both of those, and don’t approve of Bush and Buchannan (and others). No ranking among candidates is recorded (i.e. the tally doesn’t show whether this is a Nader voter who thinks Gore is merely good enough, or vice versa).
In Instant Runoff Voting and Condorcet Voting, voters rank some number of candidates. The specifics can vary from numbering all candidates (giving each a number–1 for most-preferred, 2 for next most-preferred, etc.) to picking only the favorite and second-favorite. The two methods only differ in how the winner is determined when the votes are counted.
In Instant Runoff, all the favorite votes are totalled, then the loser’s votes are converted to those voter’s second-favorites. Things are added up again, and the new loser’s votes are converted. Eventually, a clear winner emerges. In this case, a person who voted Nader first and Gore second would have their vote converted to a Gore vote after it was determined that Nader wasn’t winning in one of the rounds of totalling.
In Condorcet, all candidates are paired in as many 1-on-1 races as necessary to compare every candidate with every other one. If a voter ranks one candidate above another, that candidate gets the vote in that pairing. A winner comes when a candidate wins against all other candidates in every pairing. If no candidate wins all pairings, there are a few methods to resolve the ambiguity.
I’ve only read a few things on this subject. If I’ve mis-described any of the methods above, please correct me. The best site I’ve found in my few searches is www.electionmethods.org, though it is not impartial. (it favors adopting Approval Voting as soon as possible, then transistioning to Condorcet. It is strongly against Instant Runoff Voting.) It also features a few other methods.
Personally, I think it would be great if my state were to go straight into Condorcet. However, I know the major parties would be against any change, as each of these changes would strengthen third (and fourth, fifth, etc.) parties.
Would you support a change in American voting methods? Which method would you support?
Do you think the American political landscape would ever allow such a change? What would have to happen?
By the way, this debate is on a change in how elections are run in the U.S., not on changing our political system entirely. I know some people will want to suggest changing to proportional representation, but that’s not what were going to discuss. That would require a Constitutional amendment and would totally alter the way Congress operates after the election. Changing election methods could be done at the state level, and Congress would function as usual once the seats were determined.
Also, keep in mind we’re talking about the unspecified future. The changes we’re discussing will not be a factor in the 2004 presidential election, by any stretch of the imagination.