Major Parties and the Blame Game: Of Scapegoats and Spoiler Effects

Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Instant Runoff Voting

Much speculation and analysis has been made about the 2000 Presidential Election. The bitterly contested election is still the subject of much fervent debate, especially among Democrats. Given the wide dissatisfaction felt for the current administration, especially among those who supported Al Gore in 2000, it's no surprise that the subject of the would-be Gore presidency in 2000 still stirs such anger and controversy. Some good has come from this debate, as old ideas such as the necessity for the Electoral College in a modern age of universal suffrage and new ideas such as electronic voting have been called into question and analyzed. As voting is one of the few means we, as citizens, have for directly influencing the government, it is important that the aspects of voting be closely monitored, analyzed, and understood.

While I, too, would have much preferred a Gore presidency over the current administration, there is one aspect of the debate where my fellow Gore supporters have erred: the false belief that Ralph Nader "robbed" Al Gore of the election. A minority of Democrats feel that Mr. Nader's and the Green Party's platform of strong environmental protection too closely encroached on Mr. Gore's strong environmental policy, thus "splitting" the votes of environmentalists, a group that traditionally votes with the Democrats. Due to the extremely slim margin needed for Gore to win Florida, a shift in a small number of Green Party voters would have given Mr. Gore the presidency.

This idea has been recirculating among Democrat and liberals as of late. Most recently, DailyKos has seen a few front page articles regarding this belief. For instance, a recent front page post on DailyKos reads:

Furthermore, today's Open Thread on DailyKos included a link to the following blog post:

In 1992, the same principled, intelligent concern for the environment
that won Gore his standing today got him hooted at as "Ozone Man" and
"Far Out Man" by the current incumbent's graceless daddy; eight years
later, a third political party that was supposed to based on ecological
issues decided that it would not be as cool to try to join forces with
the best presidential candidate for their side who had ever come down
the pike than to thrown their founding principles over the side and
allow a famous crank to pimp them out as his customized soapbox, a
decision from which that party will never recover.

Once more, the third parties have become the subject of disdain and utter hatred by one of the two major parties. Similar trends appeared during the 1992 and 1996 election when Reform Party candidate Ross Perot "siphoned" votes away from Republican candidates. Both parties have been guilty of making the third party candidates out as "scapegoats" for their losses. This "stealing" of votes by an ideologically "similar" third party candidate, which is perceived to "cost" a major party candidate victory, is known as the "Spoiler Effect". The Spoiler Effect is, however, a symptom of a broken electoral system and should not be used to discourage citizens from voting for third party candidates. Discouraging voters with the Ghost of Elections Past amounts to nothing but fear mongering and bullying by the major parties. Instead of prophesizing another lost election, we must realize that the root cause is our broken electoral system. The solution is not to merely avoid voting for minority candidates, but to foster a voting system where no votes are "wasted".

Since United States relies on a single seat executive consisting of the president (unlike the multi-member Federal Council which represents the executive branch in Switzerland), we can never assure that all the voters' views are represented in the executive branch. In fact, in cases like the 2000 election, the majority of voters did not vote for the candidate that became president, and the majority's views were consequently not represented by the individuals who ended up running the executive branch. In lieu of completely rewriting the Constitution to appoint some multi-member executive council, our options for creating an equitable voting system are severely limited.

A Solution: Instant Runoff Voting

There does, however, exist one voting system which does allow for the minimization of "wasted" votes in single member elections. The system is known as Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV. In IRV, voters rank candidates in order of preference, typically marking their first, second, and third choices. Votes are initially tallied using only the voters' first choice, essentially replicating the current First Past the Post (FPTP, or winner-take-all) system. If a candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round, that candidate is declared the winner, just as in FPTP, and the election ends. If no candidate receives a 50% majority, then (depending on the system) the last place candidate is removed from the tally. His or her votes are then distributed among the remaining candidates using the voters' next choice. After the votes are redistributed and tallied, if no candidate receives the majority of the votes, the process repeats. If a candidate does receive 50% or more of the vote, the process ends and that candidate is declared the winner.

Note that this system does not in any way violate the Constitution (since individual states determine how their votes are to be tallied) and IRV can be used in conjunction with the Electoral College. IRV is merely another way for states to determine the winner in presidential elections, just as FPTP is used today. Also note that IRV doesn't foster or nurse third party candidates: it doesn't give them any advantage or increased odds of winning over any major party candidate. It does, however, decrease the perception that voting for a minority party is a "waste" and assures third party voters that in the event that their candidate loses, they will still have a choice between the remaining candidates, reducing the likelihood that their "least favored candidate" wins. Also note that IRV doesn't require voters to vote for more than one candidate. If a voter feels that he or she can only support one candidate, the voter merely does not select a second or third choice. IRV should also be differentiated from two round voting, where two separate elections are held: one for all the candidates, and a second election for the top two candidates (if neither receives the majority of votes in the general election). IRV has the advantage of only requiring one election, thus reducing the time and money needed to conduct a follow-up runoff election.

As such, I believe that IRV is the best form of voting that we can have for single member elections. Single member elections are, however, inherently problematic and can never assure minority groups a voice in politics. We must realize that it is mathematically possible for a single party to win every House and Senate seat, as well as the presidency in the US while only receiving 50%+1 votes in each of those elections, effectively silencing the voice of 50%-1 of voters. This should never be possible, and illustrates the major flaw of relying on single member districts. In future pieces, I will further analyze single member elections and demonstrate how multi-member districts can be used to eliminate the two party system and once more foster a government where everyone's voice is heard.