Changing voting, minds

I had this idea of college being a time of staying up late and having epic, life-changing… I had this idea of college being a time of staying up late and having epic, life-changing conversations about the big issues of the day. However, I find few people who enjoy the idea of discussing differences about political issues. I think a big reason for this is that people have come to associate political disagreement with full-blown argument.

This is the example we see in Washington, where the occasional John McCains and Russ Feingolds notwithstanding, the majority of lawmakers seem to be fixated more on debunking the opposition than breaching partisan differences. The media, accordingly, certainly gets a lot of mileage out of playing up these disagreements into commentaries on how we live in a “divided country.”

This trend may create sustainable harm to how our generation views public policy. We are achieving little with the conservative/liberal bashing that plays out during the political conversations that do take place, other than solidifying this nasty tug of war. A conversation is exactly what our legislative process should be – not a red-faced screaming match.

The answer is more voices. A political spectrum fueled by representatives of more than one political persuasion is bound to be more dynamic and creative in its searching for solutions. It would eliminate the “either-or” aspect of our political process where pundits hark endlessly over whether McCain and Hillary Clinton would be the most likely to win the moderate vote in a presidential election while barely glossing over whether or not they are suited for actually governing.

The problem is that voting for a third party is the equivalent of a write-in for Tickle Me Elmo – it’s a waste of time. Third party candidates have ceased to be compelling alternatives – a la Ross Perot in ’92 – and become strategic chess pieces for splitting the ticket of the opposition – a la Ralph Nader in 2000.

The solution is Instant Run-Off Voting, a process that is used in elections for Fiji and Australia’s House of Representatives and for Ireland’s president. It is also used in some local elections in the United States, like San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors Election. This process ensures that the candidate selected has obtained a true majority of the vote – it also helps eliminate the “lesser of two evils” syndrome. Voters rank the candidates who are up for office. If no candidate garners a majority by virtue of being chosen first, the candidate who receives the smallest number of votes is dropped until a majority is attained.

Take the presidential election of 2000. Someone who is at the left end of the political spectrum might have selected Nader as his first choice, followed by Al Gore, then George W. Bush (voters need only rank as many choices as they want). If neither Gore or Bush attained a majority, the candidates with the smallest number of votes would be dropped – ultimately giving Gore the vote cast for Nader – and probably the presidency. Nobody is penalized for choosing to pick a candidate outside the Big Two and a candidate is selected whom the majority of the country has cast their vote for.

People would begin to give alternative parties stronger and more serious looks, ultimately giving them the legitimacy that they now lack. This is not a shift that would only benefit those on the left – invariably, some parties further to the right would emerge that could make their own contributions to the conversation that they may not be able to currently. The power and influence of the two reigning parties would diminish in importance ultimately – which would be a welcome development.

Few of us fit neatly into the labels we currently have to choose from. I believe this diversifying of political views would ultimately create a greater variety of folks running for office who are deemed too unlikely to win to be given consideration by the parties under the current system. A congress could ultimately be created that is no longer seemingly 70 percent white, male lawyers – bricklayers and retail store clerks of both genders and all ethnicities have just as much a right to represent their fellow citizens if they are committed to improving their communities.

This is not a shift that will occur anytime soon – anything that would weaken the kung-fu death grip that the parties currently have on our democracy will be met with a wave of opposition. But keep it in your heads. Talk to your friends about the idea. Spread the concept around. Eventually, the public demands what it knows is right. And true leaders recognize when times have changed. However powerful they may be, remember Victor Hugo’s adage that “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”

Spread the word and send e-mail to Daron at djc14@pitt.edu.