Tom Mast, founder of Solve American Gridlock
We are scheduled to have another election in early November to elect members of the U.S. House and Senate. It is uncertain what the votes will be, but recent history tells us that there are some unfortunate results that we can predict.
We have two all-powerful political parties – in contrast with most other respected world democracies that have an average of 3.9 parties. One outcome of this election will be that each chambers of congress will be controlled by one or the other of the two parties. Since the parties are so similar in size, the power will be almost evenly divided in each house. Because of the nature of two opposing entities for power – much like that of two children – their relationship has degenerated into a constant battle. A change in power in one of the houses in these times immediately results in the newly-empowered party beginning to unwind what the other party just finished. The parties tend to vote in blocks because winning seems more important than solving the country’s problems. The ultimate result of the election will be “more of the same” in that the fighting will continue, but perhaps with somewhat of a shift of power, the see-saw effect. #congress
How did we paint ourselves into this corner? The answer isn’t trivial, but vital to the future of our country. What is wrong?
There is a growing realization that our electoral/election methods are at fault – that they are the root causes of our congressional dysfunction. They have evolved to nurture a two-party government, serving the needs of these two parties to be in power from time to time. They make very difficult the election of people in any other parties. #politics
Some parts of our electoral system still use the first-past-the-post method in which a candidate in an election of more than two persons can win with a plurality, something less than a majority. We don’t always require having a majority to win a congressional race!
Our party primary system selects a candidate for each party. These two candidates run in the general election, and it is almost impossible for a third-party candidate to win. Even running a third-party candidate can create a “spoiler” effect that can result in electing a person whose appeal in not in proportion to the will of the voters.
Our single-member district method as mandated by an act of congress in 1967 is a huge problem. Most studies show over 80% and up to 94% of the House districts are “safe”, that is to say that one of the two parties is almost sure to win the election there. This deprives a high percentage of voters from having a chance to vote for someone with whose viewpoints they agree and from having anyone in congress for whom they voted. Many other countries use multi-member districts. These have been shown to lead to the rise of other parties, resulting in a congress with more than two parties and resulting in a climate of more civil negotiation, varied viewpoints, and chamber and committee leaderships not all of one party.
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) or similar electoral methods allow voters to indicate their preferences in addition to their first choice, leading to election results more proportional to those of all the voters. They can also be used for “instant runoff elections”, eliminating the delays, costs, and first-past-the-post issues of runoff elections as we know them. RCV also tends to support having more than two parties.
Electoral methods are important – vitally important! They are a little complex and represent a change which makes voters somewhat hesitant. But, most of them are used widely internationally and increasingly in state and local governments. Congress and the two parties created the methods in use now. We the people can insist on changes – and we should do so before it is too late.
Comments