Tom Mast, founder of Solve American Gridlock
Let me point out at the outset that this paper focuses solely on electoral methods for the U.S. House and Senate, not any other offices.
Professor Edward “Ned” Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Ohio State University and heads its election law program. He was interviewed by Kevin Kosar of the American Enterprise Institute for an April 11, 2022 article.
Mr. Foley advocates that Congress require by law that U.S. Senators and Congresspersons be elected by majority vote – over 50%. Congress has this authority. The constitution deals with Congress in Article I whose Section 4, after saying that the state legislatures can regulate the holding of elections, says “…but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…” #congress
This brought up the question of how widespread non-majority voting occurs for members of Congress. Well, the answer is grim; a whole lot of plurality voting is legal, meaning that the winner just has to have more votes than the other candidates in an election, but not a majority. This can lead to unintended consequences and is a failure in our electoral methods. Professor Foley is doing us a service by advocating changes.
Mr. Foley was asked whether some form of ranked-choice (RCV) voting would be needed to accomplish the objective of ensuring that the winning candidate had a majority. He answered that a round-robin system would work with each candidate facing off against every other candidate, something practicable with today’s computers that are really needed for RCV too. He also brought up the electoral methods used by California, a fascinating topic.
One can study the California system on the web at https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/no-party-preference#top-two-candidates , a detailed article by Shirley N. Weber, PhD, California Secretary of State.
The 2011 California law titled the “Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act” requires that all candidates for a voter-nominated office be listed on the same ballot. “Only the two candidates receiving the most votes – regardless of party preference – move on to the general election regardless of vote totals.” One will receive a majority in the general election. Washington State now has the same methodology shown in the graphic above. #politics
The Open Primary is a huge step forward. It is the point at which two candidates advance to the general election, but in contrast to the present electoral methodologies of the other 48 states, this open primary, the stepping stone to the general election, provides for competition among all approved parties. Now, in 48 states, it is virtually guaranteed that a Democrat and a Republican will be on the general election ballot and very difficult for another party to have the same opportunity. This is the genesis of our two-party situation; other major countries have an average of 3.9 parties. Having more parties means a greater variety of viewpoints, more civility and negotiation being required, and less partisan behavior.
The Open Primary methodology encourages every party to be more careful about the quality of its candidates because they will be in a primary with candidates of other parties. Voters are more likely to vote in an Open Primary with more choices and less influence by party leaders, thus improving voter turnout. And, in contrast with present systems, there would be no candidates with just a plurality vote, and those states requiring a majority would no longer have the present very poorly attended runoff elections
The …Open Primary Act provides ways a new party can get approved by the state, and they don’t seem to onerous. One method requires affidavits from about 1/3 of 1% of the number of voters in a certain previous election. California now has five approved parties.
Comments:
Congress has the authority to make the changes or leave it to the states to do so. California has already tweaked The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
There may well be good arguments to advance more than two candidates to a RCV general election.
We can establish having more than two effective parties in Congress, leading to more viewpoints, civility, and partisanship.
Both California and Washington are and have been strongly Democratic-Party states. Although new parties have been formed, the Democrat party still dominates in both states. Perhaps this would be different if most states had several effective parties; voters could see that certain parties other than the Democratic and Republican parties could grow enough strength to influence policy in Congress.
Of the 19,696,371 California voters registered for the November 6, 2018, general election: 43.5% were Democrats, 24.0% were Republicans, 5.0% were affiliated with other political parties, and 27.5% were unaffiliated ("Decline to State" or "No Party Preference") voters. It doesn’t take much imagination to see that there are enough “independent” voters (27.5%) to make an impact, particularly if they were joined by some disenchanted Democrats and/or Republicans.
What if there had been another party with say 5% of the Senate and the House seats these past several years – or two additional parties each with 3 or 4 %? The Democrats and Republicans alike would have had to listen carefully to other viewpoints and political philosophies and soften their positions. The views of more voters would have been represented, and the nation’s bickering and polarization would have been significantly reduced. We could have already had a “functional Congress”.
Actions needed:
Re the Senate:
o States should have a majority vote to win. Senate districts are single-member districts, i.e. the entire state. But, instead of only having Democrat and Republican closed primaries with most states selecting plurality candidates, primaries should be open using the California/Washington Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act methodology.
Re the House:
o States should have a majority vote to win. But, instead of only having Democrat and Republican closed primaries, most selecting plurality candidates, primaries should be open using the California/Washington Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act methodology.
o Much better yet, states also should be electing members of the House not from single-member districts (read adios to Gerrymandering and safe seats), but from multi-member districts that can be mandated by either the states or Congress. Congress mandated single-member districts in 1967 using the constitutional power mentioned earlier, so it can now mandate multi-member districts.
Comments