Nov 14, 2023·edited Nov 14, 2023Liked by Susan Rogan
This is my big actionable issue to reform fundamental political structure:
In a one-winner election the ideal result is a winner that the majority (i.e., at least half) of the voters agree with. With our one-choice-only voting system this is guaranteed only when it is a two-person race. (In the rare case of an exact tie, some arbitrary device like the flip of a coin will be necessary, but the winner will have at least half the votes.) With more than two candidates the one-choice-only system will often fail this ideal. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) guarantees a majority requirement for the winner.
The only “complication” with the RCV system is that, with more information from the voter, RCV facilitates instant run-off counts if no one gets a majority on the first count. This complication is entirely on the tallying side of the electoral process. All the voter has to do is rank the candidates. Who is his favorite candidate? --his first choice. If he can’t have that person, who is his first alternative? —his second choice. If he can’t have that person, who is his next alternative? –his third choice. Etc. Rather than being a complication for the voter, it simplifies his choice by eliminating the “wasted vote” dilemma: if his favorite candidate is someone who clearly will not win, will he settle for his “lesser-of-two-evils” among the winnable candidates so his vote is not “wasted”, or does he set calculation aside and vote for his actual preference?
With RCV the voter, having made his "lesser-of-two evils" his second choice, and no one having attained 50% of the vote: the candidate with the least vote count would be eliminated; his name would be struck from all ballots where his name occurred (in any rank); and everyone below him on these ballots would move up one position. (In particular, on voter’s ballots where he was first choice, the second choice would elevate to first choice for the recount. If no one attained 50% of the vote on that count, the process would have repeated, eliminating the new low man.) The process iterates until someone has accumulated 50% of the votes and been declared the winner. The flaw in the one-choice-only voting system would be eliminated--the spoiler effect destroyed.
With a mere-plurality winner allowed with the-one-choice-only system, lower-ranked candidates with political positions similar to higher-ranked candidates will share the same portion of the electorate, drawing votes away from the higher-ranked candidate. So, if 65% of the voters support position "A" while 35% support "not-A", but the "A" voters have two comparable candidate choices, while the "non-A" votes are united behind one candidate, the two "A" candidates may "spoil" each other to the extent that neither has 35% of the votes--say, 33% vs. 32%). The minority "not-A" voters (35%) win over the majority "A" voters (65%). This is the spoiler effect: it is not merely a "Feature"--it is a "Bug". (The toxicity of the spoiler effect can be made deadly with deliberate political gamesmanship. Political corruption was unleashed by the Supreme Court abomination called Citizens United that declared money to be free speech (Citizens United should be wiped out when Congress is able to do that.) What the smart political operators realize is that funding spoilers who benefit candidates they prefer is a more effective use of their money than directly funding their chosen candidates. And Citizens United helps them to operate in secret, so that oligarchs, fossil fuel billionaires for example, can today fund organizations like No Labels that threaten to divert votes from Joe Biden in swing states and return Donald Trump to the White House. RCV, by eliminating the spoiler effect, would render this contemptible behavior impossible.)
Consider the result of the 2000 Presidential Election: George W. Bush vs. Al Gore, with Ralph Nader the main alternate choice. The second choice for most of the Nader voters would fairly clearly have been Al Gore, but they were denied the opportunity to express their second choice. With RCV they could have made their first choice Nader and second choice Gore. With Florida not yet determined, no one had an Electoral College majority and the Florida vote was razor-thin. With major interference by the Supreme Court, our one-choice only voting system made Bush the winner. With RCV Gore would have easily won.
The spoiler effect does not favor Republicans over Democrats. In 1912 Theodore Roosevelt chose to run again for President. The incumbent was his former Vice-President, William Howard Taft. Roosevelt was the favorite of the Republican electorate, but the party bosses chose Taft. Denied the Republican nomination, Roosevelt ran as an independent, the “Bull Moose” candidate. Roosevelt won more votes than Taft, but with the Republican voters divided, the spoiler effect gave the election to Woodrow Wilson. With RCV in effect the election would have gone to Roosevelt.
Why did the Founding Fathers allow the clearly flawed one-choice-only voting system to become the default? Because RCV was not conceived until the nineteenth century. The Founding Fathers expressed their dislike of political parties, but with one-choice-only voting in effect, political parties were the inevitable (but inadequate) defense against the spoiler effect. But with the spoiler effect operating, it became the enforcement mechanism for two-party duopoly: Federalist vs. Democratic Republican --> Whig vs. Democrat --> Republican vs. Democrat. Parties were dropped and replaced, but always, two were standard. This is the logic of spoiler effect enforcement.
The Duopoly system has now degenerated into political warfare (At the risk of seeming partisan, this is primarily the fault of the Republicans. Consider the “Hastert Rule”.) and the spoiler effect has become even more toxic. The political parties (and a particular orange fascist cult-leader) maintain their orthodoxy by “primarying” elected members who stray (like Lynn Cheney for her principled stand against an attempt to overthrow a Presidential election). With RCV the threat of primarying elected members loses its power. The member could run as a third party or independent candidate and have a real chance of staying in office, because the “wasted vote” situation would have been abolished. And the necessity of gathering second choice, third choice, etc. votes to accumulate a majority via the instant run-off counts requires being moderate, friendly, and conciliatory. Firebrands lose!
FairVote.org, the main repository for information about RCV, seems to be entirely focused on converting to RCV using the state-by-state path. But language in the Constitution seems to clearly give Congress the power to mandate RCV in all federal elections. It could be done all at once when the Democrats regain control of the U.S. government. (See Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators”. The key term in the Constitution's text is "Manner". The Manner at issue is RCV vs. one-choice-only.)
The spoiler effect gives incumbents an electoral advantage, so when that chance arises, citizens may need to unite to pressure Congressional members to act like statesmen and mandate RCV. Nothing the electorate could do would be more important than that!
Included the Ohio action into today's Healthcare Advocacy. Thank you.
This is my big actionable issue to reform fundamental political structure:
In a one-winner election the ideal result is a winner that the majority (i.e., at least half) of the voters agree with. With our one-choice-only voting system this is guaranteed only when it is a two-person race. (In the rare case of an exact tie, some arbitrary device like the flip of a coin will be necessary, but the winner will have at least half the votes.) With more than two candidates the one-choice-only system will often fail this ideal. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) guarantees a majority requirement for the winner.
The only “complication” with the RCV system is that, with more information from the voter, RCV facilitates instant run-off counts if no one gets a majority on the first count. This complication is entirely on the tallying side of the electoral process. All the voter has to do is rank the candidates. Who is his favorite candidate? --his first choice. If he can’t have that person, who is his first alternative? —his second choice. If he can’t have that person, who is his next alternative? –his third choice. Etc. Rather than being a complication for the voter, it simplifies his choice by eliminating the “wasted vote” dilemma: if his favorite candidate is someone who clearly will not win, will he settle for his “lesser-of-two-evils” among the winnable candidates so his vote is not “wasted”, or does he set calculation aside and vote for his actual preference?
With RCV the voter, having made his "lesser-of-two evils" his second choice, and no one having attained 50% of the vote: the candidate with the least vote count would be eliminated; his name would be struck from all ballots where his name occurred (in any rank); and everyone below him on these ballots would move up one position. (In particular, on voter’s ballots where he was first choice, the second choice would elevate to first choice for the recount. If no one attained 50% of the vote on that count, the process would have repeated, eliminating the new low man.) The process iterates until someone has accumulated 50% of the votes and been declared the winner. The flaw in the one-choice-only voting system would be eliminated--the spoiler effect destroyed.
With a mere-plurality winner allowed with the-one-choice-only system, lower-ranked candidates with political positions similar to higher-ranked candidates will share the same portion of the electorate, drawing votes away from the higher-ranked candidate. So, if 65% of the voters support position "A" while 35% support "not-A", but the "A" voters have two comparable candidate choices, while the "non-A" votes are united behind one candidate, the two "A" candidates may "spoil" each other to the extent that neither has 35% of the votes--say, 33% vs. 32%). The minority "not-A" voters (35%) win over the majority "A" voters (65%). This is the spoiler effect: it is not merely a "Feature"--it is a "Bug". (The toxicity of the spoiler effect can be made deadly with deliberate political gamesmanship. Political corruption was unleashed by the Supreme Court abomination called Citizens United that declared money to be free speech (Citizens United should be wiped out when Congress is able to do that.) What the smart political operators realize is that funding spoilers who benefit candidates they prefer is a more effective use of their money than directly funding their chosen candidates. And Citizens United helps them to operate in secret, so that oligarchs, fossil fuel billionaires for example, can today fund organizations like No Labels that threaten to divert votes from Joe Biden in swing states and return Donald Trump to the White House. RCV, by eliminating the spoiler effect, would render this contemptible behavior impossible.)
Consider the result of the 2000 Presidential Election: George W. Bush vs. Al Gore, with Ralph Nader the main alternate choice. The second choice for most of the Nader voters would fairly clearly have been Al Gore, but they were denied the opportunity to express their second choice. With RCV they could have made their first choice Nader and second choice Gore. With Florida not yet determined, no one had an Electoral College majority and the Florida vote was razor-thin. With major interference by the Supreme Court, our one-choice only voting system made Bush the winner. With RCV Gore would have easily won.
The spoiler effect does not favor Republicans over Democrats. In 1912 Theodore Roosevelt chose to run again for President. The incumbent was his former Vice-President, William Howard Taft. Roosevelt was the favorite of the Republican electorate, but the party bosses chose Taft. Denied the Republican nomination, Roosevelt ran as an independent, the “Bull Moose” candidate. Roosevelt won more votes than Taft, but with the Republican voters divided, the spoiler effect gave the election to Woodrow Wilson. With RCV in effect the election would have gone to Roosevelt.
Why did the Founding Fathers allow the clearly flawed one-choice-only voting system to become the default? Because RCV was not conceived until the nineteenth century. The Founding Fathers expressed their dislike of political parties, but with one-choice-only voting in effect, political parties were the inevitable (but inadequate) defense against the spoiler effect. But with the spoiler effect operating, it became the enforcement mechanism for two-party duopoly: Federalist vs. Democratic Republican --> Whig vs. Democrat --> Republican vs. Democrat. Parties were dropped and replaced, but always, two were standard. This is the logic of spoiler effect enforcement.
The Duopoly system has now degenerated into political warfare (At the risk of seeming partisan, this is primarily the fault of the Republicans. Consider the “Hastert Rule”.) and the spoiler effect has become even more toxic. The political parties (and a particular orange fascist cult-leader) maintain their orthodoxy by “primarying” elected members who stray (like Lynn Cheney for her principled stand against an attempt to overthrow a Presidential election). With RCV the threat of primarying elected members loses its power. The member could run as a third party or independent candidate and have a real chance of staying in office, because the “wasted vote” situation would have been abolished. And the necessity of gathering second choice, third choice, etc. votes to accumulate a majority via the instant run-off counts requires being moderate, friendly, and conciliatory. Firebrands lose!
FairVote.org, the main repository for information about RCV, seems to be entirely focused on converting to RCV using the state-by-state path. But language in the Constitution seems to clearly give Congress the power to mandate RCV in all federal elections. It could be done all at once when the Democrats regain control of the U.S. government. (See Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators”. The key term in the Constitution's text is "Manner". The Manner at issue is RCV vs. one-choice-only.)
The spoiler effect gives incumbents an electoral advantage, so when that chance arises, citizens may need to unite to pressure Congressional members to act like statesmen and mandate RCV. Nothing the electorate could do would be more important than that!
Thank you, Don. Rogan's List has been advocating for Ranked Choice Voting since 2017. We all need to keep advocating for it.