Power to the People: Three Election Changes to Pull Us Together

Photo by Edward Kimmel from Takoma Park, MD, 2018. CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

For those of us who are concerned with the ability of our democracy to continue to be a going concern regardless of political parties and individuals, there is some hope of progress these days. In fact, three voting changes could be made to our electoral system that would help pull us back together as a country. We might even possibly see more compromise, more across-the-aisle camaraderie, and more satisfaction with government.  None of these voting ideas are new. You have likely heard of all three of them. But to me, the key is putting them together to make a cohesive whole.

Sherman, set the way way back machine…

Back in my college days, I took a course on Constitutional Design. For the semester, the professor only handed out a single grade for the final paper you were to turn in.  While that may sound horrible, I can guarantee you every person in that class loved it.  In this paper, we were to take a fictionalized set of Pacific Islands that was setting out to create its own constitution and based on the demographics and culture of the various islands, write a constitution for them and justify why it made sense for that people. The only thing that would virtually guarantee a failing grade was to simply plop down the U.S. Constitution as an answer. I say “virtually” because he made it very clear that unless you had the most convincing arguments justifying it that have ever been made, you would get an F.

The class was a wonderful semester of looking at the way an electoral system works as a whole. It forced us to think about competing priorities, competing cultures, and shared values. The professor forced us to really dig in and identify how a constitution guides the direction day-to-day politics will actually take a country. He made us figure out what forces each piece of a framework would push people towards, and what it would do as a whole when put together.

With that, let’s get to the election changes that, when taken together, will make our system much more rock solid. Again, these are not new ideas in and of themselves. The secret is in the blend.

Right Round

First off, from a self-governance point of view one thing should be crystal clear: political leaders should not be deciding their own constituents. All you get are districts drawn to maximize the power of one group and minimize the power of another.  That is anti-democratic. With today’s technology, we should be relying on independent, non-partisan commissions to draw districts that have clear non-partisan definitions on how they are defined. Legislators should not get a say. Governors should not get a say.  State constitutions should have a definition for how districts shall be drawn in a non-partisan way, and any redistricting should follow that definition.  I’ll say it again. Legislators should not be picking their own voters.

1 2 3 4 5…6 7 8 9 10…11 12!

What is the most common refrain you hear from discouraged voters?

• “It’s a choice between the lesser of two evils?”
• “Is this really the best we have to choose from?”
• “We really need a third party to step up!”

On that last point, let’s be clear. Third parties try. But our system of “first past the post” (i.e., whoever wins a plurality wins, or top X of the vote-share move onto a runoff) virtually guarantees that no third party will be a serious contender. This was actually highly debated in the aforementioned Constitutional Design class. But everyone finally came to the same conclusion: the math pushes our system to a “top two” format. Anything that splits the vote enough that the loser isn’t close to 50% will eventually have consolidation. A large minority will coalesce to try to counter whatever the majority is. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and all that jazz.

There is nothing in our Constitution or system of laws that say we have to have two parties. But the system as designed pushes us to that conclusion. In a perfect world, the two parties are nipping at each other’s centrist members, trying to get just enough people to switch sides to swing an election. Unfortunately, as we have seen, the primary system we have in place encourages each party to nomination the most extreme, yet still electable candidate. In places where one party dominates, the party primary is the de facto general election.  Thankfully, Ranked Choice Voting (sometimes known as Instant Runoff Elections) is one of the answers to this problem

Ranked choice voting, or RCV, is getting a lot of attention these days. New York City is using it for its mayoral election right now. Alaska has put it in place for its Senate election next year. If you haven’t encountered it before, here is the quick rundown:

A voter ranks all candidates on a ballot, 1 to X, based on their own preference. Let’s say George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Franklin Roosevelt are all running for office. I rank Roosevelt#1, Washington #2, Lincoln #3, and Reagan #4.  After election day, Lincoln has 35% of the total vote, Washington has 30% of the vote, Reagan has 20% of the vote, and Roosevelt has 15% of the vote.  Under our current system, depending on the office, Lincoln would win with 35% of the vote, or Lincoln and Washington would go to a runoff that almost certainly will have fewer voters. A lot of people who voted for Reagan and Roosevelt just won’t bother showing up, as well as just some portion of all voters regardless of preference. Runoffs are not the marquee, and they don’t get as much press. Therefore, lower turnout and results that reflect less of the will of the people than otherwise.

With RCV, votes for candidates who receive the least amount of votes are reallocated to their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc…preference until one candidate has 50%+1 of the vote. In this fictional general election, my vote for Roosevelt would not be wasted. I wouldn’t have to take time off work to go vote again in a runoff. My preference has already been recorded. If Roosevelt cannot win, I’d prefer Washington. And so my vote would be reallocated to Washington. Let’s say Roosevelt’s split was 10% to Washington, 3% to Reagan, and 2% to Lincoln. So now the split is Washington 40%, Lincoln 37%, Reagan 23%. Now Reagan’s votes would be reallocated. Let’s say the split for Lincoln voters (including 3rd choices if they were originally a Roosevelt voter) was 12% Washington and 10% Lincoln. After being reallocated, Washington now wins with 53% of the vote compared to Lincoln’s 47%. Everyone has their say. This gives broadly acceptable candidates a chance to win. It gives voters a chance to vote for a candidate they are passionate about without the guilt of being a “spoiler,” which in effect will give those candidates a greater chance of winning (or at least show a more accurate picture of their vote share). Ranked choice voting pushes election results away from candidates who are extreme and have just enough devoted following to keep them high up the rankings, who then go on to win because they split the votes of the majority of voters who don’t like them.

Welcome to the Jungle

And the final piece of the puzzle: Jungle Primaries! You’re probably thinking “What?! No!! Those are crazy!!” In a vacuum, I agree. But hear this out. This is where the electoral ingredients come together to bake a delicious cake.

In a jungle primary, top two (or three or four) finishers make it to the general election regardless of party. This is used in places (most notably California) with localities where the top two finishers are almost always Democrats or Republicans, shutting the other party out of the general election. You might be questioning how that will help us get to a system where moderation and compromise are the natural outcome. Well, two wrongs may not make a right, but three left turns do.

If you have compact, non-partisan districts, you are overall going to represent the will of the local population better. While there will still be cases where compact districts overwhelmingly favor one party over another, that will be because the area is naturally that way.  Overall, you would see fewer “safe” seats in Congress. This is especially true with state level legislatures where districts are generally sliced into smaller numbers of voters than Congress.

Then, add in jungle primaries and general elections where ranked choice voting is used. For instance, in a jungle primary where the top four finishers make it to the general, you are likely to have at least one Democrat or Republican running in the general election, and possibly even one or two third party candidates. This will motivate supporters of both major parties and the third parties. This will give those third parties a larger voice. Then in the general, people have a choice. A real choice. And can vote with their hearts without worrying about “throwing away” their voting on a candidate who “can never win.” Sometimes those candidates will actually win, because there won’t be a penalty for voting for them. But even if they don’t, those voters can then fall back to the more acceptable candidate of their choice among the other candidates.

Either way, you end up with elected officials that will trend more toward the center because they don’t want to alienate supporters of other candidates who may agree with them others. If you are following the New York mayoral race, you will have seen that this weekend when two opponents, Andrew Yang and Kathryn Garcia actually campaigned together at one point. The intention was to show the voters of the other candidate that they were worth supporting as second choices.  More of that will come. More appeals to a larger base of voters vs trying to turn off voters from voting. Less animosity on the campaign trail. More willingness for actual compromise because you win when you actually appeal to a larger set of voters.

Wouldn’t it be nice…