Changing the Way We Vote

When Obama promised change I'm sure he didn't mean in the way we vote but that is what it is going to take for change you can believe in. Like so many things in our political life, it's about time this revolution got rolling.

Voting is now seen by many as not worth the bother. Voter turnout is down to 50 to 55 percent in presidential years, with 2008 an anomalous 63 percent, and 36 to 38 percent in congressional years. This is embarrassing. In Europe and even in many emerging countries, the rates are between 75 and 95 percent. American voters are effectively disenfranchised and this action shows they know it.

The voters are disenfranchised because the voting outcomes are perverse, not what was intended or voted for. The Supreme Court had to appoint George Bush president. Bill Clinton won the presidency, without a majority, only because Ross Perot was a spoiler. Many people, liberals and libertarians alike, are excluded because they are not at home in either major party.

Something is clearly wrong. Congress may have approval rating down around 15 percent but 85 percent will still get reelected! The outcomes of Congressional elections depend on proper gerrymandering, that is, denying your opponent a fair vote. Following the Texas example, it is now all right to reapportion congressional districts every time the state legislature changes hands. The US Senate can't act without a super, filibuster-proof majority.

Spoilers and tactical voting which are designed to thwart the public are rampant. The conservative candidate turned out a Republican in upstate New York and gave the race to the minority Democrats. The votes and money that Alvin Greene got for his U.S. Senate race in South Carolina stink of tactical voting and a spoiler.

So, with all that, what has the voting system got to do with it? Voting fairness and efficiency are at the heart of any political system. Unfortunately, it is simply not possible to come to the outcomes we prefer with the voting system that we have.

That system, which is a combination of ”winner-take-all,”“one person, one vote,” and plurality voting, simply does not work; its effectiveness collapses in the face of normal voting procedures.

When “winner-take-all” rules apply, there's no room for a third party to succeed. For minorities to be heard or take part there has to be room for them. That can come only through proportional representation of one form or another

Plurality voting means that the candidate with the most votes is elected even if that is only 10 percent of the total votes. Winner-take-all means that there is just one winner and he or she isn't necessarily the person the majority would prefer. Ninety percent of the electorate may be dead set against the candidate with the most votes but the election stands.

The solution is probably some kind of weighed or cumulative proportional representation. This alternative to winner-take-all is already a part of the American political scene. Maine and Nebraska divide their electoral vote proportionately according to the vote in the congressional districts. The Democratic Party uses proportional representation in its convention delegate count. Five US states have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that would lead to proportional voting in the electoral college and, in effect, the popular election of the president.

Change is coming. Consider the case of Great Britain and get your hopes up. The Commons, the lower house of Parliament, intends to: lower the number of its members from 652 to below 600; even out the number of voters in each constituency; establish a fixed term of five-years; move toward electing the House of Lords; introduce aspects of proportional voting and subject all of this to a referendum. This is happening only because a third party broke into the power set.

Some form of proportional voting is essential if we are going to represent the disenfranchised, force competition into congressional politics and in general fix our broken political system. The number of available systems is almost infinite, including weighted, cumulative and preferential voting. There is no doubt that proportional representation can get complicated but the fact that virtually all of the rest of the world is using it says the problem is solvable.

Unless we get some form of proportional representation, my conservative friends will never see smaller government, control of the deficit and a stricter adherence to the Constitution (as they see it) because they will be marginalized by the Republican Party. Similarly, my liberal friends will never see a single-payer health system or banks that are too big to fail, compliments of the Democratic Party. And your congressman will bring home the bacon, get reelected and vote against you.