"Power never concedes anything without a demand; it never has and it never will."
- Frederick Douglas
I have believed for some time that one of the essential reforms needed to Save Our Democracy -- and therefore the American Dream -- is a multiparty political system in this country. We are too big and diverse for being restricted to "Coke vs. Pepsi" choices at election time when so many people may demand tea, or coffee, or some other "beverage" to quench their thirst for a responsive representative democratic system.
I engaged in a recent Facebook exchange on the recent election, and the question of the impact of third party candidates was broached, them being accused of "messing up" the election (for Dems).
With all due respect, we really need to stop with the third party blame game. I have grown so weary of Dems and Dem supporters wining about third party candidates (i.e. Nader, Greens) of spoiling their time. It is borne out of a rather arrogant and elitist attitude that someone their (major) party candidates automatically "own" or are "due" the votes from people who hold certain view or values (which mean they are reinforcing one of the key problems with the existing two party system). Furthermore, they essentially are complaining at fellow voters for not voting for their Dem candidates. Well, if you want someone to vote for your preferred candidate, my first response to that is: that's is the purpose of the campaign! You have your chance to convince people that your candidate is worthy of their vote. I say, take advantage of that opportunity (and frankly, for the two major parties, this is much easier than third parties). It you can't or won't, that's your own fault. If your candidate is essentially unworthy, blame them. It is unfair to scold people for voting for candidates that they actually like, and candidates for running on values and issues that are underrepresented.
If there is blame to be cast in this electoral system, the blame falls on the Reps and Dems for continuing a system that excludes third parties when they easily could allow us to rank candidates 1, 2, 3 (and thereby eliminate "spoilers.") The truth is that third party candidates wouldn't run if the major party (candidates) actually stood up for what the people wanted. And what better way to force major parties to rethink things than to deny them a seat that they somehow think that they own.
The sad fact is that we might wish third parties candidate to be able to "compete" first, but history and facts show that they will never be able to really compete in the system as it stand today, with the rules stacked against them. Also, in "safe" races third party candidates are seen as irrelevant by both the two major parties and the media.
The rules must change. But the Reps and Dems won't change a system that serves them well. They must perceive it's in their interest to change. I see the only way that that may happen is if third party candidates "spoil" their elections enough so that they will change the election rules to prevent it (by instituting Instant Runoff/ranked preference/choice voting). It may mean short term pain, but it is in the service of reform for the long term.
I am speaking as someone who has been on both sides, actively campaigning for third party as well as Democratic candidates. My conclusion is the same. Even having served the campaign of a Dem I understand the desire to vote third party. Even after dedicating my life for a time to getting a Democratic governor and congressional rep elected. Don't get me wrong; I believed strongly in my cause. At that time I tried my best to convince everyone -- including those considering third party candidates -- to voter our way. However, in the end, I do not "blame" anyone for voting third party. If I failed to convince, that's on me. If there are legitimate criticisms of my candidate(s) from the left, I have to acknowledge them and not cast stones. Anything else on my part would be sour grapes.
One benefit of third parties on the left is that is makes the Dems listen to progressives (and counter our overall rightward slide in this country). The recent gubernatorial election is a case in point. Strickland pulled out the rug from progressives when he torpedoed the ballot initiative for sick days in Ohio. He didn't pay attention to progressive forces (who helped get him elected the first time), leaving people to turn to third party candidates, or not vote at all out of lack of enthisiasm, or outright disgust (believe me, I talked to dozens of such people at the doors of their homes as part of my campaign job.) A strong third party in Ohio on the left might have helped wake Strickland up (and save him from himself electorally.)
Historically, third parties have also served an important purpose in our democracy, of being the originators of many reforms that are eventually adopted/coopted by the two major parties (witness Social Security and other reforms from the Socialists, and others from the Populists).
If those who whine about third parties (or actively try to illegitimately torpedo their efforts, as the Dems did to Nader in Ohio in '04) would spend their time pushing their candidates to listen to progressives, and get out there trying to convince voters that their candidates are worthwhile, we'd all be a lot better off.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Voting instant runoff voting does NOT eliminate spoilers! It only kicks the can down the road.
Here's a simple example. Start with two candidates, A and B. B is winning, 55% to 45%.
Now, add a third candidate, C; someone who is more-appealing than B to most of the B voters, but a few think he goes too far and would rather have A than him. (In other words, a more popular Nader.)
Here's how the IRV votes might break down:
45%: A > B > C
10%: B > A > C
15%: B > C > A
30%: C > B > A
Who wins this election? It's not the original victor, B. And it's not the new candidate, C. It's A. Which means C spoiled the election for B.
Third parties tend to grow slowly over time, but spoiling an election is what kills them. Under instant runoff, they will get to grow larger, but they will still become spoilers before they can get over the hump and become winners. Which means they will still end up being devastated.
But there ARE election methods that really don't have spoilers: approval voting and range voting. Any third-party advocate should put all their effort into these reforms.
First of all, I appreciate your taking the time to comment.
You do point out a possible scenario where the majority preference would not be the winner. (Though if candidate B gets the fewest first-choice votes, and would be third in a first past the post system, it begs the question: who is the "third party candidate" in this scenario).
No alternative voting system is perfect, IRV or otherwise. I note that a Condorcet calculation with your example does result with B as the winner. I also tend to agree with the assessment and analysis by Fairvote that favors IRV over other options:
http://www.fairvote.org/how-instant-runoff-voting-compares-to-alternative-reforms/
http://www.fairvote.org/single-winner-voting-method-comparison-chart
I know that there is an ongoing debate (sometimes heated from my observation) among alternative voting system advocates about which is superior. I have no interest in engaging in such debates. My point is that the existing system is unjust and unfair (in many ways) and that systems exist that could ameliorate some of the worst. Approval and range voting may be viable options as well.
While I recognize that point, I do take some issue with the claim that spoiling is what "kills" third parties. In the case of Nader, "spoiling" did harm him personally, but he was really more an independent than a third party standard bearer. Historically, third parties were more likely died out when their ideas were taken up by one of the major two parties (or they replaced them, in the lone case of the Republicans and the Whigs). Also, electoral rules are also very responsible for marginalizing third parties, more so than spoiling I believe.
Regardless, I think we both agree that voting system reform offers hope for helping create a multiparty system.
I would characterize all of FairVote's "scholarly" assessments of IRV v. it's competitors as suspect. They're all based on a belief in the made-up notions of "core support" (which is what causes IRV to miss Condorcet winners so often) and other post-hoc justifications like "later-no-harm".
For instance, even though approval, technically, fails the Condorcet criteria, simulations show that it is more likely to elect the true Condorcet winner in the presence of tactical voters (i.e., real voters) than any Condorcet method. That little green "yes" and red "no" don't tell the whole story.
And even though they (with no justification) claim IRV is "highly" resistant to spoilers while approval and range are "moderately" resistant, I can easily construct a case (like I did in my first post) where I can add a new candidate who is a spoiler to an IRV election. Meanwhile, doing so is impossible under range and approval: unless you add a new candidate and also modify the voter's ballot with regards to the existing candidates, you can't create such an example. So what do "high" and "moderate" even mean in their chart?
Anyway, I don't just want to rant against FairVote's IRV stance. If you want that, then please, check out rangevoting.org as well as my blog, The Least of All Evils, leastevil.blogspot.com, if only to get the other side's perspective.
--
As for Nader, and spoiling:
Sure, Nader's brand was harmed, but you'd have to agree that so was that of the Green party by his alleged "spoiling".
I've come to regard election/ballot-access laws not as causes of two-party domination, but as a result of misguided (but perhaps not ill-meaning) efforts to avoid the likelihood of spoilers. If we're stuck on a system that performs SO poorly with three strong choices, it (almost) makes sense to put up barriers to make it as difficult as possible for that to happen. (Although it's just a theory at this point; I haven't seriously dug in to teasing out cause from effect.)
Dale, once again, I appreciate your comments.
It's clear that our current system, which does not offer us many choices, and can easily produce winners who are no favored by the majority, is broken. I am in favor of whatever voting system can be determined the "best" under agreed upon criteria. At this point, what we need to advocate for is that our government -- at all levels -- look into various alternative methods, and choose something better than we have. I would leave it to those who know the details better than I -- such as yourself, it seems -- to help ferret out what that might be in the end.
And while the existing rules may prevent spoilers (sometimes), I honestly don't think it was devoid of "ill-meaning." At least, in the sense that the two major parties have stacked the rules against other parties intruding into their oligopolistic system. They have been selfishly interested in preserving and proping up a system that serves them -- and may or may not serve citizens well. If avoiding spoilers is on their minds, it's borne much less out of some concern for helping to insure more democratic elections for the citizens, and more for protecting their own power.
Post a Comment