1519 hearts IRV

Today I am announcing FifteenNineteen’s first official endorsement. Not of a candidate, not even of some divisive policy issue. Since this blog’s primary concern is the electoral process and how it is used, maneuvered through, and exploited, this first endorsement is for a reform of that very process. FifteenNineteen endorses the nation-wide implementation of instant runoff voting.

Instant runoff voting (or IRV), if you haven’t heard of it yet, is a voting system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than selecting only one candidate. It is actually a very simple and brilliant idea, though for me to try and explain it may make it seem complicated. Let me give it a shot.

Let’s use a fantasy presidential race between Abraham Lincoln (R-IL) and Franklin Roosevelt (D-NY). Those on the left of the political spectrum don’ t think FDR is liberal enough (as-if), so they form a new party, the Civil Rights for Microorganisms Party, and nominate Eugene V. Debbs. Likewise, some on the right are not convinced of Honest Abe’s conservative bona fides so they form their own party, call it the Drown the Government in a Bathtub Party, and nominate G. Gordon Liddy.

So we have four candidates now, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Debbs, and Liddy. As you can guess, the only two with any realistic chance of winning are Lincoln and Roosevelt. The way our system works now, Debbs would siphon votes that would otherwise go to FDR, and Liddy would do the same with votes that would probably otherwise go to Lincoln (of course some Debbs voters might otherwise vote for Lincoln, and some Liddy voters might have voted for Roosevelt, but a tiny, tiny amount).

What we get, then, is what is sometimes unfairly called the “spoiler effect”. Let’s assume Lincoln and FDR have been polling dead even, and on election day Debbs doesn’t really pull too many votes, a little under 1% of the total. However, Liddy has started a movement, and winds up with 3% of the vote. In the end, we have Lincoln with 47.5%, FDR with 48%, Liddy with 3% and Debbs with 1%. Even though more voters wanted a president who was right-of-center, FDR wins the election without a true majority.

Now, let’s assume we have instant runoff voting for this fantasy election. If we have the same numbers, we can assume that the typical Liddy voter would rank Liddy as his first choice, and Lincoln as his second. Likewise, Debbs voters would probably rank FDR as their second choice. Since in this first round of voting no one has garnered over 50%, there is an instant runoff. No one has to vote again. Instead, the least of the vote-getters (in this case, Debbs) automatically gets eliminated, and their second choices are given what were once Debbs votes. That gives FDR just about 49%, and doesn’t really move Lincoln’s numbers, so we still don’t have a majority. So we eliminate the next-lowest vote-getter, Liddy. Most of Liddy’s votes go to Lincoln, very few to FDR, and so Lincoln ends up with 50.5%. That’s a majority, and Lincoln wins the election.

The point of this is not that IRV helps one party or one ideology over another. In 2000, it probably would have given Gore the presidency, but in 1992 it might have kept George H. W. Bush in office. Even that, though, is highly debatable, because with IRV no one has to worry about voting for a “spoiler” who will “steal votes” from a more viable candidate. With that kind of freedom to vote one’s conscience, it’s impossible to say exactly how people would end up casting their ballots. Certainly, Nader would have gotten more first preference votes in 2000 than he ended up with had IRV been in place, possibly higher than the 5% he was polling at at the time, but it’s hard to imagine most of those people placing Bush as their second choice. My point is, though, we can’t say for sure.

What we can say for sure is that with IRV, we can have a more open contest, and therefore, a more open and vigorous debate. Major party candidates no longer have to fear their third party rivals, but still keep the incentive to woo their supporters and address their issues in order to win their second-preference votes. Ralph Nader, a good, honest man who was eviscerated by many on the left in 2000 and 2004 for deciding to run for president, need never have been blamed or have his integrity or motives doubted. He would still hold the high place in people’s minds as he always has, and added something valuable to our political discourse at the same time.

Imagine the televised presidential debates! No more will we have to suffer through two be-suited men squirming around their positions, both trying to slither into the same popular stances, trying hard not to disagree too much, or look too confrontational. Instead, we’d have a stage of four, five, or six candidates, all with strongly held views, debating them with passion and genuinely trying to persuade voters to see things their way, and to trust them with their support. Surely, the American people would be more engaged and interested in the political process if this were to be the case.

And in the end, no matter who wins, that person will have a majority of the nation’s support. Even if they weren’t everyone’s first choice, we can feel secure than they were at least the first or second choice of most of the nation, and anyone who can win that way will reap the political benefits of being acceptable to the majority of the American public.

With instant runoff voting, everyone wins. Except, of course, the guys who lost. But you get the idea.

If you want to learn more, and I bet you do, check out the links on the right-hand sidebar. Then get involved, contact your lawmakers, and call the President. Make your voice heard so your voice can be heard.

Then maybe we’ll take another look at this Electoral College thing.

If you like this piece, I hope you’ll tell your friends, other bloggers, and anyone you pass on the street. You can also take a second and Digg it. I, as always, would really appreciate it.