The problem is the voting system
Published on February 23, 2004 By O G San In International
Last week I wrote a blog urging American progressives to get behind John Kerry in spite of his right-wing tendencies. Should leftists hold their noses and vote for the unrepentant “new Democrat” from Massachussets in order to beat Dubya, or should they throw in their lot with some valiant no-hoper who better reflects their views? This has been a hotly-debated topic, especially since the great white hope of the anti-war movement started yelling out the states of the union in Iowa last month.

The issue has been brought into even sharper relief by Ralph Nader’s decision to once again run for president. Last week “The Nation” ran an editorial pleading with him not to run. A new website www.ralphdontrun.net was quickly established. The erstwhile consumer advocate has chosen though to ignore the advice of the Anyone But Bush brigade. Speaking on “Meet the Press” Nader vowed to use his candidacy to attack the “corporate occupation” of Washington. Perhaps more interstingly, he also justified his decision to run by reference to the concept of democracy itself. “More voices, more choices” was his constant refrain.

Watching him, I felt it impossible not to agree with what he was saying. Yes, Democrats care more for Wall Street than Main Street. Yes, people should have choice in a democracy. Nevertheless the fact remains that a Nader candidacy will help Bush. Every vote for Nader is in turn one less potential vote for Kerry which is in turn one less potential vote to beat Bush. No, it’s not fair but it is true.

The real problem is not Ralph Nader, it’s the system itself. The US is one of the few democracies in the world which persists with the first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system. This crude, winner-takes-all system is a pre-mass-literacy dinosaur which should be made extinct. It is quite simply grossly, grossly unfair. In Britain, one of the few other hold-outs, FPTP gives the Labour party 70% of the seats in the House of Commons with only 43% of the vote.

In America the problem is not so much lack of proportionality as lack of choice. The system perpetuates the two-party duopoly by making it extremely difficult for a third party to win representation at any level. Votes for third parties are seen as “wasted” since they don’t count in the Republican .v. Democrat arm-wrestle. Because third party candidates have no chance of winning, they are portrayed as spoilers, as Trojan horses for one’s ideological opponents.

Those who sympathise with the Greens feel a strong urge to vote Democrat in order to keep out the Republicans. This phenomenon of tactical voting is the curse of all FPTP systems. Right-wing Democrats have traditionally exploited this. Their message to progressives is always the same: “You don’t like us but you have to vote for us or else someone even worse will get elected”. Clinton, Gore, Kerry et al have used the two-party duopoly to ignore the concerns of the poor, the unions, the environmentalists etc.

A system of Single Transferable Vote (STV) would be much fairer. This system is usually used with multi-member constituencies but, as the link at the bottom of this blog shows, it works just as well in presidential elections. Without going into too much detail it works like this: The voter selects candidates 1,2,3 etc in order of preference. A quota is set (for presidential elections it would be 50%) and votes are counted. If no candidate reaches the quota on first preferences then the bottom candidate is eliminated and their votes redistributed. This process is repeated until a candidate makes the quota and is elected.

The beauty of this system is that it removes the need for tactical voting. For example, leftists can vote Nader 1 to show their true feelings and then vote Kerry 2 to keep out Bush. Assuming that the electoral college was ditched and all votes were countednationally, here’s a hypothetical result:

Bush: 45%
Kerry: 45%
Nader: 10%

No candidate makes the quota of 50% so the bottom candidate (Nader) is eliminated and his votes are distributed. If 90% of Nader voters give Kerry a second preference then the final result would be:

Bush: 45%
Kerry: 54% (45+9)

Kerry would be elected but only with the support of Nader voters. What’s more, progressives would have something to build on at the next election. STV makes it possible to break the two-party duopoly. If the Democrats don’t address their liberal voters then someone else will. STV empowers voters because it undermines the “least worst option” argument.

What’s sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. I used the example of Nader but I could just as easily have chosen a non-Republican conservative. Someone on the right who disagrees with some of Bush’s policies, Pat Buchanan for example, would also be empowered by this system. By voting Buchanan1 and Bush 2, disgruntled conservatives could express their unhappiness with the current administration without actively helping to elect a Democrat.

Adopting STV would open up American politics by giving political oxygen to tendencies outside of the mainstream. Choice, isn’t that what democracy is all about?

Comments
on Feb 23, 2004
STV would be an interesting electoral reform choice for the United States; however, it's not one that I see as likely occur. I agree with the premise that Nadar's candidancy presents a challenge for the Dems; yet, I am very intrigued by Nader's "too damn bad" attitude on this one, and possibly willing to concede that he's got a point! Nader contends that he is not necessarily taking votes away from the Dems, rather he is enfranchising a group of voters who otherwise would avoid the polling station in November. While, I'm sure that it cannot be said that 100% of Nader's supporters are first time voters in presidential elections, I would be interested to know what percentage are, in fact, election virgins.

Along the same lines, election reform is necessary, but so is getting out the vote. A perfectly functioning and representative democracy is no good to anyone if only the educated, wealthy, ethnic majority are voting. Voter turn out is embarrassing in the United States, a case that is only highlighted by the recent addition of the "Voting is for Old People" t-shirt to the merchandise collection at Urban Outfitters. In order for STV, or any election reform system to be truly useful, there needs to be a fundamental shift in attitudes. The American public needs to stop taking for granted their rights to democracy, and start exercising them.
on Feb 23, 2004
I applaud your article, especially since it delves into the core of the issue, and not the surface debate. As an add-on, I must say that even *if* Nader takes away some of the might of the Democrat punch, he places the issues on the dinner plate for all to see. Whether or not we eat from that plate is another matter, but a fast-growing force of citizens in the United States are educating themselves on the state of the Union, and more and more are finding a new voice that is not satisfied by either the Republican or Democratic parties. Nader happens to answer the call of some of those disenchanted voices, and every running happens to make more heads turn. He knows his chances, but pushes the agenda, and that makes him a man of integrity. Simply running over and over again, and working hard to refine his platform, Ralph Nader is making the doorway to 3rd party nominations a very growing reality for future candidates. I do believe within one more generation, a third party leader will make a very serious running, and the issues will make him or her a leader worth listening to. The issues actually do define our direction; sometimes it takes a little time, a lot of effort, and the willingness of people to make a stand.
on Feb 24, 2004
indeed, good article.

as i've said before. democracy and capitalism are held up as golden rings in our society without a whisper at to their quality. yes, there is a quality associated with democracy and capitalism.

one could argue that a democracy with two choices is not far off from a democracy with one choice... which is not democracy at all but communism!

by the same token capitalism has no quality if huge monopolies exist without competition and without regulation to ensure the benefits of the system come to pass.
on Feb 24, 2004
What crap on what crappy television are you watching to even be able to put John Kerry and "right-winged" in the same context? Even the hardest dope couldn't do that. To the victor go the spoils. Sound familiar? We don't want to hurt the second place guy, so we'll call him first runner-up. Still a loser. The reason for a two party system is there isn't a third party worth noting. There was a time when there were at least four parties. There just aren't enough wackos on the same side to get another party going. Besides, there isn't enough aluminum foil in the world to block the satellites from reprogramming your little brain.



-Al Gore
on Feb 24, 2004
voodoostation,

i suggest looking around at 80 other democratic countries in the world and deciding whether more than two parties is possible or beneficial.

let haiti be a warning. here is a democratic country in name only. because any choice has first been chosen first by the those in control of wealth. a country where five percent of the population control 95 percent of its wealth. and now after decades of "democracy" the people are fighting back!

on the topic of kerry... we all know that the right wing influence got him to where he is now. all because dean scared the hell out of them! national healthcare!? corporate taxation!? if dean wasn't going to go down "legally" then i'm sure a bullet to the head would have been the last option...
on Feb 24, 2004
I'm of the belief that third-party candidates don't have a chance because most people don't want them in office. Although there are problems with the two major parties, I think they represent most Americans. For those that would rather vote Nader or etc., they should vote that way because if the Democrats really want their votes, then they'll adopt the views of Nader, etc. Otherwise, they're idiots.
on Feb 24, 2004
Actually, they'd probably just adopt enough to win back those voters. otherwise they'd risk alienating the voters they already have.
on Feb 24, 2004
To look for alternate solutions to a stalemated-[controled] situation does not make a person stupid,and if all the people using this same situation as an excuse for not voting will vote Nader will make a showing that will scare the pants off both Dems.and Repbs.As it should.---- Charlie Poore
on Feb 25, 2004
"What crap on what crappy television are you watching to even be able to put John Kerry and "right-winged" in the same context?"

He's a new Democrat, he's pro-NAFTA, pro-PATRIOT, pro-Iraq war. I consider that to be right-wing. He is certainly on the right of his own party.

"The reason for a two party system is there isn't a third party worth noting"

No, you're confusing cause and effect. The reason for the two-party system is, as I outlined, that your voting system encourages the formation of large catch-all parties. The system scares people from voting for a third party.

"There isn't a third party worth noting because of the two-party system" is more accurate.
on Feb 25, 2004
Oh, and one more thought. Consider the multi-party facets of many European countries. Some have over *TWELVE* contributing parties that make conglomerations hither and thither as they see fit to overcome obstacles to their country, politics, and agenda. I very well think it's possible to have parties in the form of labor unions, environmentalists, consumer advocates, business expansionism, laissez-faire, etc, etc, groups that can pool resources in the events that change our lives. With so many new and pressing issues, a two-party system cannot answer them all, and in effect, keep the populace straddled on the fence, which VERY effectively buries the 'minor' issues that very well may be eating away at the core of our nation. In retrospect, we, as a nation, seem to be doing alright, but progress must never be lazy. Just a thought.
on Feb 25, 2004
"'There isn't a third party worth noting because of the two-party system' is more accurate."

Yes and no. It's the chicken or the egg situation. Does the lack a multi-party system come inherently from the way that the founding father's drafted the consitution, or did a two-party system survive because the "other" parties weren't strong enough to weather political pressure?

Over time, third parties have had a major impact on presidential elections, in particular. Eighteen US elections third party candidates have prevented the winner from receiving 50% of the votes.

In some instances, third party performance has been stronger than others. In 1860, there were four presidential candidates representing the Republican Party, the Democrats (northern wing), the Democrats (southern wing) and the Constitutional Union party. Lincoln, the second Republican candidate to run for President, won. Interestingly enough, the Constitutional Union party won three states. Stephen Douglas, the Democratic (northern wing) candidate came in second in terms of popular vote, but last in the electoral college.

There are also the cases of Teddy Roosevelt and Martin VanBuren. Roosevelt ran under the Bull Moose party in 1912, managing to beat Taft, but losing the general election to Woodrow Wilson. VanBuren was the 1848 Free Soil candidate and polled 10% of the votes. The Free Soil party was later absorbed into the Republican party.

Moreover, it is hard to say that a third party candidate has no chance, when Ross Perot pulled off 19% of the vote in the 1992 election. For a system that "scares people" away from third parties, that's a pretty strong showing.

Yet, with all of that considered, there is a line of academic research that asserts that the American two-party system was an inevitable result of the American Revolution. At that time, there were only two sides: Patriots and Loyalist. This duality continued as the constitution was drafted and the argument broke off into Federalist and Anti-Federalist. This, coupled with the tendancies for the larger parties to absorb the smaller ones, supports your assertion that the two party system eliminates the need/ability of third parties.

One final point--it can be (and has been) argued that the two party system has created stability in the American political system, and that upheaval and instability are often (not always) associated with multi-party systems.