Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Restoring American Democracy: A Proposal

It may come as a shock to most Americans to learn that they do not have a right to cast a vote for "President". Under the US Constitution and amendment 17, the people may vote for US Representatives and US Senators --but not the "President" or the Vice-President.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….

--The Constitution, Article II, section 1, clause 2

As the US Supreme Court observed in the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker:

“The constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket, nor that the majority of those who exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors.” …

“In short, the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.”

In 2000, the US Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore reiterated the principle that the people have no federal constitutional right to vote for President or Vice President or for their state’s members of the Electoral College..
“The ... citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”
The right of the people to vote, to express their preferences, does not itself make a government legitimate. In my view, a government is legitimate only if it represents what is commonly called the "will of the people". The history of western struggles for Democracy are best understood in terms of how best to determine and to achieve the "will of the people".

Traditionally, the will of the people is associated with the right of the people to vote and have it counted. It only sounds simple. It is the implementation that is complicated. In the US, for example, the campaigns are too long and too expensive. The primary system is designed to exclude candidates and works against popular participation and consensus. Absurdly long and boring, it turns voters off. It makes the cost of seeking the presidency the preserve of the very, very rich and well-connected. It's time for a change.

How is the "will of the people" to be accurately identified or assessed? At a time when Europe was ruled by Monarchs, France became the first country to examine the issue in depth. Pragmatic, utilitarian England and America, for example, favored "the greater good for the greater number", in effect, majority rule. As they are inclined to do, French thinkers complicated the issue with nuance and they were right to do so. They denied, for example, that the "will of Parliament" always reflected the "will of the people". They denied that a "collective will" is always known with a simple majority vote. Thus, a mathematical quest began for a voting scheme that would accurately reflect the wishes of a given electorate.

The quest is not consigned to the salons of 18th Century France. On election day in modern America, an increasingly smaller percentage of American voters show up to cast their vote for President. The shrinking turnout is due to the fact that an increasingly larger percentage of American voters have lost faith in the system. There is the growing belief that at the end of obscenely expensive campaigns, smears, and red, white and blue ballyhoo, your vote doesn't really count. It was a feeling often expressed long before the GOP brazenly stole at least two presidential elections. A centuries old French quest is more relevant than ever.

Aside from technical problems, ballot design, voter intimidation, or GOP interference with recounts, the US election of 2000 pointed up basic problems perhaps inherent in the system itself. In the end, Bush cannot be accurately said to have been elected. A court-mandated recount had not been completed when the US Supreme Court returned the infamous, legally untenable Bush v Gore, the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott. In another system, say, an "instant runoff" the Nader vote would have gone to Gore. Other problems are associated with other elections. Is there a single system that will address every problem in every scenario. Nobel prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow thinks not!

Even before the infamous 2000 "election", it was said: "The plurality vote is the only procedure that will elect someone who’s despised by almost two-thirds of the voters." Tragically for American Democracy, the "election" of 2000 didn't even put that statement to the test, let alone, to rest. Everyone talks about reform. That nothing is ever done proves talk is cheap. American elections are expensive and getting more so.

Assuming the American people had both the means and the will to effect reforms --what kind of reform? And how? Optimistically, there are several alternatives to the present system and all require abolishing the much despised electoral college. There are several systems by which the people may elect their President directly. The top two alternatives to the plurality or one-person, one-vote system, are approval voting and a preference system called the Borda count.

In the US various methods of "approval voting" are termed an "instant runoff". The term "ranked choice" is also used to denote a Borda count specifically. In the UK, the term AV, or "Alternative Vote" is used. In Canada, the term is "preferential ballot".

Approval voting differs from the current plurality voting method in which voters pick a single candidate that they feel is the best for the job. Thirteenth century Venetians used approval voting to elect their judges. Simply, a voter casts a vote for every candidate that they like or think most qualified. For example, you could pick a favorite mainstream candidate as well as a dark horse like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. But, you are not limited to any number. In a field of ten, for example, you might check all ten. Under such a system, the winning candidate is simply the one who gets most votes.

Approval voting has several compelling advantages over other voting procedures:

  • It reduces negative campaigning
  • It increases voter turnout
  • It helps elect the strongest candidate
  • It gives voters flexible and simple options
  • It gives minority candidates equal visibility

  • --Approval Voting Home Page
There is yet another method by which the "will of the people" may be gauged more accurately. Again, the source is France. It was in 1770 that Jean-Charles de Borda proposed to the members of the Paris-based Academy of Sciences what is now known as a Borda count, a "preference" voting system. It is an approval" method in which the voter does not merely select all his/her favorite candidates but ranks them in order of preference. If there are ten candidates, for example, a first choice gets ten points, second choice nine points, and so on. In the end, the points are totaled and the winner is the candidate getting the highest score.

The leaderships of both major parties will oppose this and other reforms. Approval and/or preference voting systems strike at the strangle-hold major party leaderships exercise over the election process. Secondly, approval voting enables moderately publicized candidates to amass popular support. At last, any truly democratic system interfere with the ability of entrenched political parties to raise millions for campaigns.

It is my hope that the benefits to society will outweigh the objections. Our democracy, perhaps democracy itself, is at stake. There are tangible benefits to reform. Under the current system, the GOP has all but perfected the art of political assassination by "negative campaigning". Approval systems mitigate against the "swift boat" hit job and against the same tactic by any other party. Disgusted voters would simply withhold their votes from the offending candidates and parties.

If change is in the wind, we may have Bush's criminality, his incompetence, and his habitual problems with truth to thank. A recent Gallup poll indicates more Americans now identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans —a shift that may give Democrats a long term edge. But will Democrats use that edge to make of the US a better, more democratic nation? Or will the Democrats become as bloated, as arrogant, as ideological, as crooked as the GOP?

Elsewhere there is evidence that the GOP is running scared while GOP positions are often conflicting and hypocritical. Overriding everything else, however, is Bush's catastrophic war on Iraq, supported by almost every American member of the GOP. Bush's tar baby is their tar baby and rightly so. A top-down party should be held to account for goose stepping into quagmire! The war against the people of Iraq is a war crime of unimaginable proportions and, by law, those supporting it materially and from leadership positions are just a culpable for Bush's crimes as were the Nuremberg defendants after World War II. I say: let's have that trial now!

It has been some time now since Bush lead Democrats on the issue of "terrorism". It is clear to all but a few diehards, like the Heritage Foundation who attacked me recently, that the war against Iraq has made terrorism worse, just as GOP regimes since 1980 have always made terrorism worse.

It been about a year since a TIME Magazine poll headlined: 3 in 5 Americans now say the nation is headed in the wrong direction. Certainly, nothing has changed for the better since that time. Certainly, if anything, things are made worse by Bush's perpetual war crime in Iraq. The time has come for a fundamental change. The question is: will the American people seize perhaps the last opportunity they will have as a nation to bring about a "rebirth of freedom".

An update:

Direct Election with Instant Runoff Voting:

Instant runoff voting (IRV) could be used for Presidential elections with or without the Electoral College. With a direct vote, voters would rank their preferences rather than marking only one candidate. Then, when the votes are counted, if no single candidate has a majority, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. The ballots are then counted again, this time tallying the second choice votes from those ballots indicating the eliminated candidate as the first choice. The process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority, reducing time and money wasted in a normal runoff election.

Instant runoff voting on a national scale has the potential to solve many of the current dilemmas introduced by the Electoral College as well as the problems introduced by some of the other alternatives. It would end the spoiler dynamic of third party and independent candidates and consistently produce a majority, nationwide winner. It also allows voters to select their favorite candidate without ensuring a vote for their least favorite (as often happens when the spoiler dynamic is a factor and a voter prefers a third candidate the most).

Individual states can also adopt instant runoffs without a Constitutional amendment. Unlike proportional allocation, which could be unfair if only used in some states, IRV would not have negative consequences if only adopted by a few states. Each state’s electors would still be appointed through a winner-take-all method, but the IRV states would now be guaranteed to have a winner with majority approval. IRV would be best instituted without the Electoral College though, so that the winner would not just enjoy a majority within any state, but within the entire country.

FairVote: The Center for Voting and Democracy strongly supports abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with direct elections and instant runoff voting. See our web page on Instant Runoff Voting for more descriptions and visual examples and our page refuting arguments against direct election with IRV.


Bush Sr: No Clue! Like Father, Like Son!

Additional resourcesDiscoveries





Why Conservatives Hate America



Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

9 comments:

Christopher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christopher said...

Since, as you say, both major parties would reject out of hand the “approval rating” system and the “Borda count”, the most feasible possibility left is a run-off vote between the two top presidential candidates if neither had received more than 50% of the popular vote the first time around.

What this has against it is that having suffered the trauma of having voted a week or so before, people would again have to drag themselves to the voting booths. But I’m sure Americans would be up to it, since, if the French can do it, why not Americans?

Of course, choosing a president by popular vote can be a two-edged sword depending on who you like. If a Republican, your candidate, George Bush, would have lost in 2000. And, if a Democrat, your candidate, Kerry, would have lost in 2004, no questions asked, since Bush received 3 million more votes than did Kerry. A recount in Ohio wouldn’t have put much of a dent in this popular-vote margin of victory.

A run-off between the two top candidates can also cut two ways, depending on which party you favour. Since Ross Perot in 1992, with his 19% of the vote, probably took more votes away from daddy Bush than Clinton, daddy Bush would likely have won in a two-man runoff.

As to the electoral college, the planned ballot initiative in California next year, which proposes the presidential electoral votes in that state be apportioned according to the popular vote, must be causing Democrats to sweat just a little, since approval of this initiative would almost certainly mean the near impossibility of a Democrat ever again becoming president.

However, a nation-wide popular-vote election, would remove this spectre.

Unknown said...

Christopher I said...

Since, as you say, both major parties would reject out of hand the “approval rating” system and the “Borda count”, the most feasible possibility left is a run-off vote between the two top presidential candidates if neither had received more than 50% of the popular vote the first time around.

I should have been a bit more specific. All candidates of all parties would be on all ballots in all states and precincts. In a simple "approval ballot", the voter checks all "acceptable" candidates. In the "Borda Count" specifically, the candidates are ranked and scored. No run-off.

What this has against it is that having suffered the trauma of having voted a week or so before, people would again have to drag themselves to the voting booths.

No runoff. That's why it's called an "instant runoff".

Of course, choosing a president by popular vote can be a two-edged sword depending on who you like.

That's Democracy for you.

If a Republican, your candidate, George Bush, would have lost in 2000. And, if a Democrat, your candidate, Kerry, would have lost in 2004, no questions asked, since Bush received 3 million more votes than did Kerry. A recount in Ohio wouldn’t have put much of a dent in this popular-vote margin of victory.

In a Borda count, Gore would have won decisively. Such a system would, of necessity, eliminate the Electoral College, which empowers state "machines" --machines which steal elections. A national popular vote by "preference" methods would breathe new life into American democracy, a prospect which scares hell out of the establishment.

A run-off between the two top candidates can also cut two ways, depending on which party you favour. Since Ross Perot in 1992, with his 19% of the vote, probably took more votes away from daddy Bush than Clinton, daddy Bush would likely have won in a two-man runoff.

Instant run-off.

As to the electoral college, the planned ballot initiative in California next year, which proposes the presidential electoral votes in that state be apportioned according to the popular vote, must be causing Democrats to sweat just a little, since approval of this initiative would almost certainly mean the near impossibility of a Democrat ever again becoming president.

The electoral college is a relic. It's hard to imagine how Madison, brilliant in every other respect, could have gone along with such a scheme.

However, a nation-wide popular-vote election, would remove this spectre.

It would, indeed! The best point in favor of such a system is simply this: no more wasted votes. Third Party candidates would cease to be spoilers and votes for them would cease to be wasted. Implicit in the current system is the fact that any vote for any candidate other than those getting the big bucks from the big lobbyists and campaign contributors (usually the same folk) is wasted. Ballots may get longer ---but that could be a good thing. It might even spark a debate beyond the narrow paradigm, beyond the Clintonesque "center" that has all but sucked the life blood out of American political debate.

Anonymous said...

Range Voting, the simplest form of which is Approval Voting, is simpler and greatly superior to Instant Runoff Voting in several ways, not the least of which is that it allows more than two parties to flourish (whereas IRV has a long history of resulting in two-party duopoly in all four countries where it has seen long-term widespread use).

The ultimate objective measure of this is called "social utility efficiency", and is an objective economic metric of how well a voting method satisfies voter preferences. So YOU, Joe Voter, will be happier on average with Range Voting than with IRV. And the difference is huge.

Also, you mentioned Arrow's Theorem, but forgot to point out that it only applies to ordinal (rank-order) voting methods, like IRV - not to cardinal methods, namely Range Voting and Approval Voting. Arrow's theorem is one of the most widely misunderstood and misquoted things in the discussion of election methods. And it's arguably less significant than the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, which also applies only to ordinal methods.

Clay Shentrup
San Francisco, CA
clay@electopia.org
415.240.1973

Unknown said...

Thanks for the links BROKEN LADDER...

My brief overview was intended to merely raise awareness of 1) the limitations of our present system and 2) the possibilities for true Democracy os alternative systems by which the "will of the people" may be determined.

I am not committed to a particular system at this time while leaning generally to any system which "ranks" selections as opposed the simple approval voting.

I will check out all our links and urge the readers here to do likewise. I would appreciate your views on the "Borda Count" as opposed to simple "approval" methods.

Again ...thanks.

Nancy Hanks said...

Great post, EC -- As an independent voter, I completely support all the variations you point to for Instant Runoff Voting. I came by your blog by way of Steve Rankin at Free Citizen and I'm of a mind to link you to my blog The Hankster! Thanks to both of you...

As to "A recent Gallup poll indicates more Americans now identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans —a shift that may give Democrats a long term edge," I would add, as a political independent, that current polls are showing that 40-43% of the American electorate identify as independent, regardless of party registration, meaning that they choose the candidate they vote for based on issues over party label. The numbers are sometimes surprising: 32% Dem, 31% Repub, 37% independent for local registration...

Lest we forget, it was independent voters who put the issue of the war in Iraq on the national agenda (and I would say that was because of independents' willingness to approach the problem with "fresh eyes" -- not reactive to a long-term partisan strategy to keep the politicians employed...) and it was independents who "swung" Dem to create the change-over in the 2006 elections. This is also indicative of a move to the left by independents. A good thing for our country!

Thanks, Nancy

Anonymous said...

Range Voting, and its simplified form of Approval Voting, are both robustly superior to Borda - although Borda is arguably better than Instant Runoff Voting.

http://rangevoting.org/BordaExec.html

Unknown said...

thanks, NC

I had just recently become interested in Borda Counts just prior to the "election" of 2000. Sure enough, the election itself justified my interest. Discover Magazine, I believe, had published an excellent article at about that at the time and, since, my friend Dr. John Lienhard of the U of H broadcast an excellent albeit brief analysis of alternative polling systems. One of his commentaries can be found here

I think what it needed at this point is a system --perhaps "range voting" --that addresses Kenneth Arrow's critique. It will probably require either a national referendum or a new Constitutional Convention (we have that right, btw) to effect any meaningful changes. And, of course, any change will be opposed vociferously by both major parties eager to protect their turf and big contributors.

Unknown said...

BROKEN LADDER said...

Range Voting, and its simplified form of Approval Voting, are both robustly superior to Borda - although Borda is arguably better than Instant Runoff Voting.

Range Voting


Thanks for the link. What we need now is some political "clout". The various state legislatures are unlikely to "mess" with the system that put them in power. What any alternative method needs now is enough clout to overcome the very method it intends to replace.