I’m Not The Only One

by Daniel Cuevas

Originally published on Political Storm on November 7, 2007.

Have you ever had a co-worker or perhaps the office intern tell you he was on his way to the deli and ask you if you wanted anything? You probably gave him a dollar and asked for a Vanilla Coke. If he’s especially thoughtful he might pause and say, “Well, what do you want if they don’t have Vanilla Coke?” You reply that you want 7UP if Vanilla Coke is unavailable. But why offer a second choice if your first choice was Vanilla Coke? Because you are thirsty and if the store was all out of Vanilla Coke, you don’t want your co-worker to come back empty-handed, thus wasting his trip to the deli.
While stating a second preference is how most Americans would handle a drink order, we don’t apply this method when selecting our leaders. When Americans thirst for quality leadership, whether it be a Councilmember, a Member of Congress or President, we often only make available two choices for office, no matter how horrible these two candidates are. The result is that Americans vote for the person they feel is the least unfavorable, or “the lesser of two evils.”
The current voting system in America is highly flawed because it narrows all candidates down to two choices with third or fourth candidates either running on a minority ticket which guarantees failure or choosing not to run at all. The voters are faced with the dilemma of either choosing between two major candidates they may not care for, or voting for a third party candidate who will most likely lose, thus throwing away their vote.
Our voting system has shut out candidates like Howard Dean and John McCain from running for President, two people I believe more accurately represent the ideologies of their respective parties than either George Bush or John Kerry, and who therefore were far more qualified to run for the White House.
However, Dean and McCain could not run under their parties banner, because under our current voting system, in order to offer as few choices as possible, there can be only one Democrat and one Republican. Their only other options would have surely guaranteed their defeat.
President Bush certainly benefited from the current election system in 2000, when his smear campaign against McCain ensured he would not be running against this highly decorated war hero. Hillary Rodham Clinton won the New York Senate seat thanks to this flawed system when Long Island Congressman Rick Lazio replaced Rudy Giuliani as her Republican challenger. Giuliani would’ve actually given Hillary a run for her money had he not dropped out
of the race due to being diagnosed with cancer.
Rick Lazio was no match for Hillary, and since he was already in the House of Representatives, his Senate run didn’t seem to make much sense. In my eyes, Lazio was nothing more than an unprepared, unmotivated understudy for Giuliani. And since the New York GOP hastily fumbled to find a short notice replacement for Giuliani, the voting system made sure that if New Yorkers were to vote for a candidate with any chance of victory, it would have to be either Hillary Clinton or Rick Lazio, making this an easy victory for the former First Lady.
In this last election, I feel many Americans did not vote in support of Bush or Kerry.  Conservatives who may not have agreed with Bush’s actions may have voted for him anyway because they detested Kerry even more. I know many people who supported Kerry because they couldn’t stand Bush.
This system instigates division among Americans because the public usually ends up voting for someone they do not like, and was the case in the 2004 Presidential election. It fosters a two-party stranglehold over the electoral system which guarantees defeat for anyone not running under the Republican or Democratic banners. With the exception of Presidential elections, the two-choice system only creates voter apathy and low turnout at the polls, as is the case in many state and local elections.
There is a viable, more democratic, more practical and cheaper alternative to our current voting system, a system which has been in use for many years in various countries and U.S. cities called instant run-off voting (IRV).
Instant run-off voting has already found a welcome home in many national elections in Ireland and Australia, in many U.S. cities and in some of this country’s most prestigious universities. San Francisco and Louisiana elect their leaders this way, and since Robert’s Rules of Order highly recommends the IRV system, scores of nonprofit and civic organizations swear by it when picking their leaders. Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, John Hopkins, Cornell and a host of other notable institutions use IRV to pick the leaders of their student governments/councils.
IRV follows the same principle as my Vanilla Coke analogy, allowing Americans who they’d like to be their next President, and that if they have any second or third preferences, in case their first choice didn’t win a majority of first-choice votes. This eliminates the chance of
having spoilers in any election, and guarantees that whoever is elected was the preferred choice of most Americans.
With IRV, voters are not asked to simply select one candidate, but instead, to pick at least three or more candidates in order of preference. In other words, if a conservative voting in 2000 liked John McCain but would settle for George Bush, they would select McCain as their first choice and Bush as their second. A system like this would’ve been a godsend for the Democratic Party, which initially had about half a dozen nominees for President, most of whom were better qualified than John Kerry.
After several candidates have made it on the ballot for the Presidential race, only one, not two elections would be held to select a candidate. If no candidate is voted as the top choice by more than 50 percent of the electorate, the candidate who received the fewest number of first choice votes would be eliminated from the ballot. If the candidate eliminated was your first choice, your vote is automatically recounted and goes to whoever you selected as your second choice, thus preserving your vote.
Because you were given the chance to select your first, second and third preference candidates in a single election, there is no need for any additional election to be held, saving millions of dollars for the government, the candidates’ campaigns and political organizations promoting their candidates of choice.
This process of eliminating a candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote. This prevents the possibility of a third party candidate “spoiling” the race by taking enough votes from one major candidate to elect the other - so the Democrats will have to find another excuse for their losing streak in national elections.
Counting and recounting votes doesn’t have to be tedious or expensive with the right technology. Most organizations, cities and countries that use IRV use devices like optical scanners and computer touch screens to make the process inexpensive and efficient. Unfortunately, with most of the country using such 1950s technology as punch cards and lever machines, IRV cannot be a reality in American politics until this new technology is prevalent. You would think in the world’s wealthiest nation, this wouldn’t be a problem.
With the IRV system, the candidate who wins the election may be a voters’ second or third choice, but at least they would still be a choice. IRV also raises the level of political debate to ideas that may have not been otherwise considered, strengthening the democratic process and reducing campaign costs, and relieving candidates from having to accept donations from special interest groups. Because IRV may require second and third choice votes to win, candidates have an incentive to focus on the issues and minimize negative campaigning and mud slinging. IRV forces candidates to appeal to a broad range of voters rather than a specific voting bloc. Cities that have switched to the IRV system have experienced a higher voter turnout, since voters are no longer afraid of “wasting” their vote on a third party candidate.
More choices means more democracy. Only a totalitarian society forces its citizens to choose between only one or two candidates. In order to gain public confidence in instant run-off voting, larger U.S. cities like New York should consider switching its own voting system. Many cities and towns look to New York City to set precedents in both legislation and administration. It’s only right that the Big Apple lead the way and change the face of voting in this country.
For more information on instant run-off voting, I highly recommend the following:

Center for Voting and Democracy:

An animated guide explaining IRV:

The Midwest Democracy Center