Several months ago, I found the website of the Center for Voting and Democracy (CVD) at www.fairvote.org. If I had to sum up their program in once sentence, they want every US citizen to be able to cast a vote that matters. One of their reform ideas, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), is being supported by influential people like Howard Dean and John McCain.
In IRV (also called STV), you can vote for a candidate you really like without fearing to waste your vote, because you can mark candidates as being your first, second or third choice (or even more). If your first choice candidate ends up getting few votes, your vote will be transferred to your second choice candidate. If that candidate has also got only a few votes, it will be transferred to your third choice. When one of the candidates has more than half of the votes, the procedure ends, and that candidate is elected. (This could also happen in the first round of counting) IRV has been shown to change the way campaigns are made where it�s already in use. Currently you have to prevent other candidates to be chosen as voters� first choices, so you must attack all other candidates. With IRV you can appeal directly to the voters with your program, getting second choices is good, and attacking other candidates might deny you their voters� second choice. Other points are a constitutional right to vote (currently excluding someone from voting is illegal if it�s because of e.g. race or sex, but not if it�s because of other reasons) and an end to gerrymandering (multi-member districts seem to be a popular solution) in house and winner-takes-all in presidential elections. But you�d better go to their site yourself, I�ve probably forgot something here. Now the problem is, most of these goals can only be reached by constitutional change, which needs the support of 2/3 of Representatives, 2/3 of Senators and � of the states. Some however need just a change of laws: for electors and Senators this would be state laws, for Representatives federal laws. Now I�d like to know what you think of my following reform proposal (based in part on CVD ideas): Short-term (law changes): Senators and electors get elected with IRV; this eliminates the �spoiler� problem House gets enlarged to 600, allocation method switches to Adams (the enlargement benefits the large states, the switch the small ones) The states now draw district borders for multi-member districts, instead of the current single-member ones. Inside these districts seats get distributed by Proportional Representation. Due to this, the minority in the district gets represented fairly, while now only district majorities get represented. Due to the enlargement, the fairer representation won�t automatically endanger the current Representatives. I think these changes would make voting fairer, and increase turnout since the minority (in a district/state) now has the chance to get represented. Fringe parties are unlikely unless the number of Representatives in a districts gets really large. However, a third party could get Representatives through if they get enough support. A party split however will likely hurt both factions, and likely would deny the weaker faction a seat (again, unless the number of Reps/district gets large). Long term (constitutional changes): Right to vote and easy access to getting registered to vote US citizens don�t live in the 50 states, and are not registered in any of them get treated as if they are living in an additional state. (This way, they get represented in Congress) The President gets elected directly, with IRV. As a compensation, all states get 2 representatives extra (so the smallest one would have 3, and the minority there is represented in the House) The primary system gets changed. (This is a long proposal, because it doesn�t produce one winner, but several candiates) Currently it throws out candidates of the two strong parties, who might win the election if they were nominated, but allows candidates of weaker parties in who don�t have any chance to win. Also, some states always get the advantage of having their primaries first, while others only have theirs when there is already a winner. Party conventions have become meaningless, they only have to cheer. I propose an open system: #1: First, the order of primaries in the states is determined by random draw. Primaries are held in rounds: in round 1, one state holds a primary, in round 2 two, and so on. #2: Then, candidates have to collect a number of signatures nationwide (not necessarily in every state) to get on a list of preliminary candidates. This list is used for each of the primaries. #3: Then, in a primary, voters can vote for up to 3 candidates from the preliminary list (each can get only 1 vote). #4: Then votes are counted. Percentages are calculated by dividing the number of votes for one candidate by the number of all voters. If the best candidate gets over 50%, all candidates with at least 25% qualify, if the best gets under 50%, all candidates with at least half of that percentage qualify. (2004, Bush and Kerry both got at least 25% in every state) #5: Then it is counted in how many states candidates qualified (all states are equal now). The candidate who has qualified in the most states gets the #1 spot on the Presidential ballot, and all who have qualified in at least half of that number of states get on the Presidential ballot. #6: Finally, the candidates choose their running mates. Two candidates from the same party might choose to run as one ticket instead of against each other. (Additionally, a candidate could get on the ballot if he got support from members of Congress from at least half of the states � useful in case the top candidate dies or has to step down because of a scandal � but such a candidate would probably be less popular since he didn�t run in the primaries, and appear on the bottom of he ballot) (What if the state election results of 1968 and 1992 were primaries results in this model? 1968: Nixon qualifies in 47 states, Humphrey in 48 and DC, and Wallace in 10. 1992: Bush qualifies in 50 states, Clinton in 50 and DC, and Perot in 22. I think Perot would have made it on the ballot with the option of voting for more than one candidate, but otherwise only Democrats and Republicans. In 2000 John McCain could�ve been on the Presidential ballot against Gore and Bush; and with IRV he could have won, being popular on both sides) I think the change in the Presidential primary and in additional House seats might get support from small states, of course only if the general public would like it at all... Comments? Critique? A better proposal? (PS Yes, I�ve also thought about how the German voting system with closed lists could be changed. Right now, most parliamentarians are in effect chosen on state party conventions, not really by the people who mostly just decide how many seats the parties get. But I don't think many here would be interested in that) -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com Read or the owl will eat you +++ NEU: GMX DSL_Flatrate! Schon ab 14,99 EUR/Monat! +++ GMX Garantie: Surfen ohne Tempo-Limit! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
