What are we waiting for?
24
There are many "Ranked Choice" voting methods. If you're going to choose one, choose the Condorcet method which, from a mathematical standpoint, offers the fairest method. With it voters can select their favorite wing-nut as their first choice and so long as their remaining choice ranks are rational their vote does not blow up the election. Remember, ANYTHING is fairer than first-past-the-post.
11
I like this idea.
11
Terrific idea, Govrnor Dean! Sounds like it has varied support, too.
8
This is not really a good time to build confidence in third parties, what with Jill Stein kissing up to Putin while Putin runs Russian Greens out of Russia, and Gary Johnson making Libertarians look like they need Google Maps to make it out of the restroom. Because you can't start wars if you can't make it out of the restroom. Right?
Give us some more serious candidates and I'll think it over. Until then, the Democrats and Republicans are bad enough without these other silly jokers on the bus.
Give us some more serious candidates and I'll think it over. Until then, the Democrats and Republicans are bad enough without these other silly jokers on the bus.
8
A vote for a third party candidate is like a magician's flash paper. The vote quickly disappears in an insignificant cloud of smoke and the voice you thought you had vanishes with it.
6
have open primaries and eliminate "super delegates". those 2 very simple changes would go a long way to fixing this broken system. HRC had a virtual lock on democratic super delegates (ultimate party insiders who no one elects and who can vote any way they please) before a single primary was held...before a single vote was cast. tell me, how was she able to do that $$$?
10
The biggest problem is that the two "parties" are very far from being parties in the sense understood in western Europe, Japan, India and many many other countries. They are amorphous groups of "leaders" at the city and state level, and they barter and bargain to get to a nominee they can endorse for any position. They are mostly hacks.
But every four years they and others get together for the nominating conventions and pretend to be parties. I find myself wondering if Dr Dean has ever watched the BBC and ITN when they report on the ANNUAL conferences held by EVERY party in the UK. On the basis of this article I wouldBET that he has not.
One of the best things that could happen in US politics would be for the so-called parties to GROW UP!
But every four years they and others get together for the nominating conventions and pretend to be parties. I find myself wondering if Dr Dean has ever watched the BBC and ITN when they report on the ANNUAL conferences held by EVERY party in the UK. On the basis of this article I wouldBET that he has not.
One of the best things that could happen in US politics would be for the so-called parties to GROW UP!
6
At Best; it might work with a limit of 3-4 candidates. In Portland; in the first mayoral race decided in this way; the winner was the candidate with the THIRD highest vote total; because of a ballot with over a dozen candidates. At a certain point; the ranking becomes ludicrous.
6
Would it stop the DNC from favoring one candidate over another?
12
Really excited about this. Yet, the devil is in the details. There needs to be a reasonably high bar to get into ballot cuz having to rank dozens of candidates would be a NIGHTMARE!
11
After the horror of Governor Paul LePage, I suspect that the people of Maine will vote for ANY system that is DIFFERENT than the one that brought this state a governor that actually out performs Donald Trump in the stupidity and bigotry departments. Mainers have never been so embarrassed. And we owed it all to the third party candidacy of Eliot Cutler - TWICE. Hide in shame, Eliot.
If you wish more info, find Samantha Bee's video. It will horrify you and entertain you. It will also demonstrate why a vote for Stein or Johnson are a vote for Trump. It's the truth.
If you wish more info, find Samantha Bee's video. It will horrify you and entertain you. It will also demonstrate why a vote for Stein or Johnson are a vote for Trump. It's the truth.
20
Hey Howard,how about you worry more about the Democrats winning the Oval, and the many down-ticket races! And less about this irrelevancy right now!
Lets focus on WHAT NEEDS to be done,and less on what kinda sounds fun to get to done. We dont need this distraction right now. We need laser focus on defeating Trump and the GOP candidates in down-ticket races. We need more of a warrior like mentality to win, so to lop-off the GOP heads.
We need the whole of the Party running for a win in November, and less of this multi-party distractions,
Lets win big and change things from the front! Not lose and try from far behind. Lets take care of the most pressing matters now - defeating Trump and the GOP in general. Be a warrior and take advantage of the GOP as they willingly expose their soft-white underbellies.
Lets focus on WHAT NEEDS to be done,and less on what kinda sounds fun to get to done. We dont need this distraction right now. We need laser focus on defeating Trump and the GOP candidates in down-ticket races. We need more of a warrior like mentality to win, so to lop-off the GOP heads.
We need the whole of the Party running for a win in November, and less of this multi-party distractions,
Lets win big and change things from the front! Not lose and try from far behind. Lets take care of the most pressing matters now - defeating Trump and the GOP in general. Be a warrior and take advantage of the GOP as they willingly expose their soft-white underbellies.
5
Mr. Dean: I think ranked voting is a wonderful idea. Almost any change from what we have now would be better. I don't think we need any more parties.
However, what we really need is better candidates. I was for Hillary Clinton in 2008 but Barack Obama blew me away and for the most part I have not been sorry.
Qualified patriotic leaders: Where are you? Step forward. It's your duty and we need you now more than ever.
However, what we really need is better candidates. I was for Hillary Clinton in 2008 but Barack Obama blew me away and for the most part I have not been sorry.
Qualified patriotic leaders: Where are you? Step forward. It's your duty and we need you now more than ever.
6
More advice from losers
This is why we have primaries
This is why we have primaries
Sure we need a third party. That's why Bernie Sanders did so well. That's why you Mr Dean did well. But the powers that be don't want real change. If any change comes at all, it will be slow and keep to the routine. You can't upset the apple cart unless you really upset the apple cart; like turn the whole thing over. Howard Dean you would have made a very good president. But the big boys including this paper would not allow that.
14
Great... but then who wins the national popular vote? There is a project called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, to ensure that the winner of the national popular vote becomes president:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
How would Maine's ranked-choice ballots count towards each candidate's "national popular vote" totals?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
How would Maine's ranked-choice ballots count towards each candidate's "national popular vote" totals?
3
OK, I know it's a pipe dream but, getting rid of all political parties might be better.
7
Newsflash Howard, credible people don't make scatter brained accusations because the object of their ire has the sniffles.
2
Americans won't be able to figure out ranking systems
2
Great idea. But if you want change like this on a national level, supporting Clinton will certainly not bring it.
8
Yes! I've long loved the idea of instant runoff. Now, if we can somehow get all this money out of the process...
13
I still love Howard Dean.
5
How can we call this democracy ?About 323millions of citizens in this nation should not be represented by 2 major party only. Other nations, have their system very different compared with our political system .Australia, Brasil, Israel..et.al all citizens have to register to vote when they complete 18yo. , it's a law.Obviously is a civic duty too but we don't have. The number of political party is diverse and give different platform to make a better choice.We need to change . We can start teach in schools, from the elementary level. It's very important to participate and be responsible when we became young adult .We need to Vote ,your participation in all elections is the best way to have a function democracy. A lack of participation, represents ignorance and create crazy nationalism that only will bring a very poor choices or a disaster like Trump.
8
I'm absolutely for it. The old system is broken and unfair. I want our democracy back
6
True Democracy is where multiple candidates can be voted for,giving each candidate a proportional representation in govt.
1
I must confess I wrote my first comment before reading the whole article. Isn't this basically just going and voting for who you like without having a party affiliation or registration? Or one man one vote? Which I am all for. And in the Presidential election it means getting rid of the electoral college? Which again at this point is probably a good idea.
1
I like it. I dislike 'winner takes all' elections and would prefer proportional allocation.
3
Excellent. Next step is to install term limits to keep fresh blood and ideas bubbling up from the ranks. our founding fathers never wanted a professional political class. Public service should be service and not a career.
5
Since we don't have a parliamentary system, it seems like a reasonable alternative to what we have now. Anything is better than our present, "if you don't vote for me, the terrorists will win."
3
Dean's approach will lead to opportunities for Trump-like candidates with staunch but unwavering backers to dominate the rankings early and end up in the run-off.
Very disturbing to see Dr. Dean given space here. Having witnessed his performance as governor of Vermont, as a presidential candidate in 2004, and as a "commentator" on MSNBC, I can only say his opinions ought to be shunned, not vented.
I prefer the jungle primary system now employed by California. The top two regardless of party get a second round.
Beyond that, I do not support Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Wikileaks hasnow shown what many of us already knew- Hillary is lying to voters about her views on trade, regulation and oversight of the financial services industry.
You can read about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-w...
She is unworthy of our trust or our vote.
Beyond that, I do not support Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Wikileaks hasnow shown what many of us already knew- Hillary is lying to voters about her views on trade, regulation and oversight of the financial services industry.
You can read about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-w...
She is unworthy of our trust or our vote.
7
It's also called instant runoff voting.
2
We learn what Clinton said on Wall Street on the same day as the release of that sleazy tape of Trump talking about groping women.
The Clinton's timed the release and yet still would have us believe that the Russians are to blame.
I'm writing Bernie Sanders on my ballot.
The Clinton's timed the release and yet still would have us believe that the Russians are to blame.
I'm writing Bernie Sanders on my ballot.
9
I would suggest a modified and simple ranked-choice voting. Just provide a 2nd choice, and do the runoff as before. In this country, that would be a baby step to a multi-candidate system, where even the emergence of a 3rd candidate is seen as disruptive. IN this year's example, backers of the Libertarian candidate can still have a say, while ensuring the "wrong" candidate (in their view) doesn't get elected.
5
It is a two-party accident that has become a two-party system by inertia. Mr. Dean's suggestion is a good one.
5
At frist this sounds like a reasonable idea. With only 4 or 5 parties this could work. Now imagine with 15 parties: The Tea Party ( as a political party), religious parties ( you do the math there) far right extremist parties, the Communist party ( there will always be one) the Green party of course, and on and on. So that the political process will become stuck. The way it is in Israel and Italy where the only government is a coalition government that lasts a year or two.
Now ... what about parties based upon diversity: Latino, East Indian, Black Lives Matters party, The Arabic party. And finally.... parties sponsored by foreign governments as their respective populations increase (China).
A recipe for disaster.
So ... think it through.My ancestors didn't die fighting in wars for that!
Now ... what about parties based upon diversity: Latino, East Indian, Black Lives Matters party, The Arabic party. And finally.... parties sponsored by foreign governments as their respective populations increase (China).
A recipe for disaster.
So ... think it through.My ancestors didn't die fighting in wars for that!
3
This is ironic given that Maine is currently suffering under a disaster of a Tea Party governor who was elected thanks to a third candidate on the ballot who split the liberal vote. Ranked voting would have reversed the outcome...much to the state's benefit.
39
This is a response to the wrong problem. Let's see how this happens. Every 4 years the electorate pulls their collective attentions away from their phones and says " Hey - we oughta vote!" Looking at the candidates, they say with great angst "I don't like either of them. I'm gonna vote for a third party!" After the election, things go back to the way they were.
Do those who are unhappy with the choices of their party become involved? No. Do those who want a third party get to work to establish base base of candidates and experience? No. What we get is someone popping up every 4 years and hollering "Make ME president. You have never heard of me but elect me anyway."
The problem is not two or three or four parties. The problem is a passive electorate that is willing to sit back and allow a small group of activists do it all. Make all the decisions. Pick the candidates. And complain mightily when things do go the way they wished. WISHED - but did nothing to bring to fruition. Ask any sane Republican.
Do those who are unhappy with the choices of their party become involved? No. Do those who want a third party get to work to establish base base of candidates and experience? No. What we get is someone popping up every 4 years and hollering "Make ME president. You have never heard of me but elect me anyway."
The problem is not two or three or four parties. The problem is a passive electorate that is willing to sit back and allow a small group of activists do it all. Make all the decisions. Pick the candidates. And complain mightily when things do go the way they wished. WISHED - but did nothing to bring to fruition. Ask any sane Republican.
1
Kudos to Governor Dean for promoting this potential remedy, and to the State of Maine for its exemplary initiative for greater democracy.
3
Howard Dean still hails from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. As head of the DNC, he advocated a 50-state plan, expanding the party's reach into states it had long since abandoned. Broadening the appeal of the party, or in this case, trying to broaden the appeal of the whole process, isn't just kumbaya, it's smart politics because it brings more voters into the tent, and more voters is inevitably better for Democrats.
On the other hand, I've always wanted to say to Dr. Dean, no, *you* have the power, not us. Here. We're giving it to you. Take it, and stop trying to give it back.
On the other hand, I've always wanted to say to Dr. Dean, no, *you* have the power, not us. Here. We're giving it to you. Take it, and stop trying to give it back.
1
I've supported ranked choice for years now. It's the only thing to save our country from a race to the bottom. The best thing about it is we don't need to wait on Congress to do it.
3
This is a great idea. It would probably end up inspiring more people to vote. That said, it would be opposed by the corporate interests that control the two big parties. Voters would have to fight hard to get this to happen nationally. Let's do it..it's time!
5
"Ranked Choice" seems like a good idea. Republicans and Democrats are going the way of Fox News voters. They're disappearing. It's time for the real majority of Americans, the Independents, to finally get a say in the political direction we're heading.
5
Think about ranked voting for a minute and then think about the average American voter. Sadly, tens of millions of people across this country would never be able to figure out ranked voting. I mean, counting? From one to four or five in order of preference?
2
The crux of the problem is the Electoral College get rid of that and we get more parties thus more people voting and an end to gerrymandering!
2
Good idea though very incremental. Secure electronic voting available via mobile device would solve all voter turnout problems. Funny that we always wonder why young people tend to not vote... They're working and don't want to wait in line.
I get the sentiment, but a highly fractured, coalition negotiating type governance sounds like the end of greatness to me. Can you imagine? It'll be like the Internet comments section in Congress. Or maybe it already is.
1
I am skeptical when I see the kind of obstruction small parties cause in parliamentary governments.
1
Yes! Let's do it.
I've been aware of the ranked choice system for years. It would be a big improvement.
Question-
How do we make it happen in national elections?
Mr. Dean, please keep active on the political scene. We need you.
I've been aware of the ranked choice system for years. It would be a big improvement.
Question-
How do we make it happen in national elections?
Mr. Dean, please keep active on the political scene. We need you.
3
Highly commendable suggestion. Al Gore suffered unjustified defeat due to non implementation of this type of suggestion.
2
Haven't we had enough gridlock without having minor parties preventing legislative majorities?
This column is 6 years too late. Now the Republicans are dying literally, figuratively, and electorally. Democrats on the precipice of controlling all 3 branches for a few election cycles. After that ends, then we'll change the system.
This column is 6 years too late. Now the Republicans are dying literally, figuratively, and electorally. Democrats on the precipice of controlling all 3 branches for a few election cycles. After that ends, then we'll change the system.
1
Great idea, Mr. Dean. But let's put it in 3rd place in election reform behind ending gerrymandering and overturning Citizens United.
3
~~
Dear Mr. Dean,
With our current Constitution, as written, and if you believe in the power of majority vote (50.001%), we are stuck with and for the better a two party system. At the end of the day, it all comes down to: does one believe in the majority vote.
Multiple party(s) in our current system can only gum up democracy and the majority vote. By way of basic math, (maybe 5th grade) multiple parties could allow a Trump into office with as little as 30% or less of the vote, or toss the election to the rabble of the House...won't that be a joyous event.
These rinky-dink party(s) can sway an election and deny majority vote e.g., Bush/Gore 2000........, and these party(s) NEVER plan to obtain a majority vote. Do you think Johnson ever thought he'd obtain a majority of the vote? No. He said to himself, I can sneak into a back door I don't need 50.001%.
Yes we could amend the constitution to allow run-offs like Europe etc... This is a pipe dream. We currently can't agree on or fund the eradication of an insect that deforms the pride and glory of the GOP, their last stand, the unborn fetus. So just how are we to change the constitution with all that entails?
People, left and right, keep looking for the problem in the system, when it is the Crazy Ape that is the only problem with the world.
Hope is not a plan, and I just see hope within this Op-Ed.
“Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.”
Nietzsche
Dear Mr. Dean,
With our current Constitution, as written, and if you believe in the power of majority vote (50.001%), we are stuck with and for the better a two party system. At the end of the day, it all comes down to: does one believe in the majority vote.
Multiple party(s) in our current system can only gum up democracy and the majority vote. By way of basic math, (maybe 5th grade) multiple parties could allow a Trump into office with as little as 30% or less of the vote, or toss the election to the rabble of the House...won't that be a joyous event.
These rinky-dink party(s) can sway an election and deny majority vote e.g., Bush/Gore 2000........, and these party(s) NEVER plan to obtain a majority vote. Do you think Johnson ever thought he'd obtain a majority of the vote? No. He said to himself, I can sneak into a back door I don't need 50.001%.
Yes we could amend the constitution to allow run-offs like Europe etc... This is a pipe dream. We currently can't agree on or fund the eradication of an insect that deforms the pride and glory of the GOP, their last stand, the unborn fetus. So just how are we to change the constitution with all that entails?
People, left and right, keep looking for the problem in the system, when it is the Crazy Ape that is the only problem with the world.
Hope is not a plan, and I just see hope within this Op-Ed.
“Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.”
Nietzsche
3
Yes ranked voting choices and no closed primaries! The candidate is government of all the people not just a party's candidate. Also get rid of the money chase with some public funding and total fast disclosure of funding for all PACs.
3
I've been aware of this system for some time and I agree that other than amending our Constitution it is the best way to strengthen our Democracy. We must also put an end to Gerrymandering. Republicans now control the House of Representatives with far fewer votes than Democrats. Then there's the Senate and tiny states with voting power equal to states like California and New York...
3
Dr. Dean's suggestion for the use of Single Transferable Ballots is excellent. My firm conducted the New York City School Board elections before Mayor Blooberg got the NYS Legislature to end Community school boards.The interest in the elections was very high city wide.
The most significant aspsect of the Single Transferable Vote is that votes are not wasted and. the results more accurately reflect the will of the electorate
Roland Nicholson Jr is a membet of the Electoral RReform Society of Great Britain & Ireland
The most significant aspsect of the Single Transferable Vote is that votes are not wasted and. the results more accurately reflect the will of the electorate
Roland Nicholson Jr is a membet of the Electoral RReform Society of Great Britain & Ireland
Unless we the people dissolve this self interest and self righteous Congress in which 90% of the people in this country has no confidence, and that can happen only by the acclamation of the people. Nothing will change and the freaking Republicans and Democrats will continue to avoid caring about the nation or the people.
Great idea. How about another easy fix to restore voter trust: All candidates must release their tax returns to get on the ballot. The winners have to release their returns for every year they hold public office.
If you really want to change then the key is more transparency from the bottom to the top of our democracy. Let there be light.
If you really want to change then the key is more transparency from the bottom to the top of our democracy. Let there be light.
I agree wholeheartedly. What Dr. Dean describes is much more democratic. The Democrat Party, and the Republican Party would cease to exist if things were to open up.
But, lest we forget, Bill Clinton dropped Lani Guinier as his nominee for director of the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department like a very hot potato when the Republicans objected to her having made a similar proposal.
But, lest we forget, Bill Clinton dropped Lani Guinier as his nominee for director of the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department like a very hot potato when the Republicans objected to her having made a similar proposal.
We need to do this and end the electoral college system as well. Big money and the two party system is messed up and the only way to fix it is to change it. The big question is how do we start.
1
While I love the idea I can't believe the major parties would want something that detracts from the "You're either for us or against us." Arguments that come out this time every year.
The scary thing is that in a ranked choice system, this election, as much as don't trust Clinton, she is still better than either Stein or Jonson and with a ranked system I would probably be more likely to vote for her in November, rather than writing in the name of my roomate's cat, like I'm thinking about doing.
The scary thing is that in a ranked choice system, this election, as much as don't trust Clinton, she is still better than either Stein or Jonson and with a ranked system I would probably be more likely to vote for her in November, rather than writing in the name of my roomate's cat, like I'm thinking about doing.
Any discussion of ranked choice or instant runoff balloting, without some sort of voter information system that isn't run like the current "auction for office," will not give us better outcomes.
Republicans will block any form of ranked-choice voting, period.
Mandatory voting for all citizens (as in Australia) is the best way to bolster the democratic process, but it will never happen in America.
So the next best option is to make voting easier for everyone. We can start with a high-tech, hack-proof online voting process. Paper ballots are bound to be phased out sooner or later, so why not get moving on this.
Mandatory voting for all citizens (as in Australia) is the best way to bolster the democratic process, but it will never happen in America.
So the next best option is to make voting easier for everyone. We can start with a high-tech, hack-proof online voting process. Paper ballots are bound to be phased out sooner or later, so why not get moving on this.
Excellent idea whose time has clearly come. Ranked choice voting will broaden debate, inspire far greater voter turnout, help free us from the stupid tyranny of horse-race reporting, and restore some confidence in democracy.
3
I am reminded of how pragmatically Howard Dean has always pursued idealistic goals, and how articulate he is in the process. He ranks with Jimmy Carter as one of our beacons of hope which were ignored, but who continue on in spite of that to do great work!
Require a majority of registered voters to win an election. If no one receives that many votes, start over with all new candidates.
Voting should be on more than one day, especially a weekday. Voting, all voting, should be on one or both weekend days in addition to the current day.
2
Editors? Were you on vacation? If you ever want to kill the idea of ranked-voting, Mr. Dean's essay will do it.
I love the idea of ranked-voting (or similar pro-democratic schemes), but the biggest problem is explaining how it works to the people. This essay was a disaster. This is a terrible description! You need to provide an example with some numbers. I find the vacation-voting example a good one or an example with three very different foods to choose from. Ask any mathematician to help you out.
And I thought it couldn't get any worse...then I read this crazy sentence.
"Many Vermont Republicans thought it might hurt their chances to win, and Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed a bill in 2008. But just six years later, Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, won the governor’s race by only 2,434 votes, which was far fewer than the 8,428 votes cast for a Libertarian more aligned with Republicans."
Who? What bill? Far fewer than whom? What are we talking about?
I've always liked Howard Dean. But this essay should have gone through some sort of editing process. Or a simpler one-person-3-vote system described. The ranking method may be better, but you gotta sell it. And nobody's going to buy it if they can't understand it. The Sarah Palins of the world must understand.
And using the Oscars is hardly a good example of the superiority of this method. Judging from recent Oscars, we'd never have gotten a black man or a woman as major contenders. The Oscars have a different set of problems.
I love the idea of ranked-voting (or similar pro-democratic schemes), but the biggest problem is explaining how it works to the people. This essay was a disaster. This is a terrible description! You need to provide an example with some numbers. I find the vacation-voting example a good one or an example with three very different foods to choose from. Ask any mathematician to help you out.
And I thought it couldn't get any worse...then I read this crazy sentence.
"Many Vermont Republicans thought it might hurt their chances to win, and Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed a bill in 2008. But just six years later, Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, won the governor’s race by only 2,434 votes, which was far fewer than the 8,428 votes cast for a Libertarian more aligned with Republicans."
Who? What bill? Far fewer than whom? What are we talking about?
I've always liked Howard Dean. But this essay should have gone through some sort of editing process. Or a simpler one-person-3-vote system described. The ranking method may be better, but you gotta sell it. And nobody's going to buy it if they can't understand it. The Sarah Palins of the world must understand.
And using the Oscars is hardly a good example of the superiority of this method. Judging from recent Oscars, we'd never have gotten a black man or a woman as major contenders. The Oscars have a different set of problems.
3
If voters want a third party, they should start working at the lowest level to develop candidates for selectmen, mayors, state legislatures and governors. Third party candidates beginning at the presidential level will never be successful.
This is a fantastic solution to replace our disfunctional two party voting system.
The DNC and RNC have become corrupt and voting a third party now is throwing away one's vote. The ranked voting system would solve this inequity and, perhaps, even save our democracy.
Edna Moglewer
The DNC and RNC have become corrupt and voting a third party now is throwing away one's vote. The ranked voting system would solve this inequity and, perhaps, even save our democracy.
Edna Moglewer
2
While many, myself included, are thinking more and more about 3rd party candidates, we need to realize there is a different option. Nebraska has a unicameral system. You vote for the person, not the party. It is a system that I feel would work better than adding more parties to the mix.
1
We desperately need to revise our rigid and narrow system to accommodate the growing diversity of the American electorate--to enrich the quality of political thought and better capture the range of ideas for governing. As Maine goes (one hopes), so should go the nation.
2
Ranked voting is so important. The polarization in politics is a grave threat to our democracy. All of us need to know that our voice is heard and that our votes count. Newspapers like the NYTimes already conduct their own polls. Why don't they ask for such ranked choices when conducting them and publish the expected outcomes under a ranked voting system together with regular polls. If politicians like Howard Dean, McCain, Obama and Sanders want to lead a change for the better, they should start directing their election committees to do the same. It's in the public interest for more people to know about these systems, and to see how the outcomes might be when it's put in place.
PS. This review - http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/electoral-games-people-play - discusses different versions of ranked voting (all better than what we now have) and explains the merit of ranked-choice on the Maine ballot.
PS. This review - http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/electoral-games-people-play - discusses different versions of ranked voting (all better than what we now have) and explains the merit of ranked-choice on the Maine ballot.
1
Dean is delusional. The Dems and the GOP will never yield power. Europe has a tradition of disparate parties, but that will never happen here.
Moreover, third parties don't necessarily mean quality choices. Bernie and Gary supporters are uniformed.
Moreover, third parties don't necessarily mean quality choices. Bernie and Gary supporters are uniformed.
With current technology, ranked-choice voting is definitely a practical possibility. It would help end the tyranny of the minority, which seems to be what the US has now. One of the main purposes of representative government is to resolve disagreements without killing each other, yet our current system favors candidates who appeal to those with the most extreme views and who are willing to promise NOT to compromise on anything.
What can an ordinary voter like me do to help make ranked-choice voting a reality throughout the country?
What can an ordinary voter like me do to help make ranked-choice voting a reality throughout the country?
2
Ranked choice with computer compilation
Limited campaign time to 6 months
Free air time to POTUS candidates
One debate per month with a drop out of the lowest ranking candidates as determined by independent polls leaving the top two
A constitutional convention which
Specifies the mechanics of voting, engulfs campaign finance reform and specifies term limits for congress and the supreme court
Limited campaign time to 6 months
Free air time to POTUS candidates
One debate per month with a drop out of the lowest ranking candidates as determined by independent polls leaving the top two
A constitutional convention which
Specifies the mechanics of voting, engulfs campaign finance reform and specifies term limits for congress and the supreme court
Ranked voting does not appeal to me, the only way to change the system is a Constitutional amendment to have one person one vote, and the person who gets the most votes win. The popular vote is a winner, not the electorate college is gone. The idea of having two Democrats or two Republcians to vote for is not how a democracy should work.
This might be worth a try and yes should be experimented on at the state level first.
I would also suggest the many more states move to a 'mail in' ballot system that eliminates fraud. Especially Republican fraud in using voter suppression tactics to cheat their way into power.
I would also suggest the many more states move to a 'mail in' ballot system that eliminates fraud. Especially Republican fraud in using voter suppression tactics to cheat their way into power.
6
Seems very sensible. But, let's stop gerrymandering first. That's so obviously undermining our political system, and is the primary root cause of the stark, entirely dysfunctional partisan divide that we face today.
6
Dear Mr. Dean,
How on earth would this system work?
Basically, it means instead of the people running for office getting all the bribes, excuse me, the "campaign contributions" from the uber wealthy and corporations, the 1% and their shell corporations would now have to bribe, excuse me again, give "contributions" to every single voter in order to buy the elections.
Simply impractical.
How on earth would this system work?
Basically, it means instead of the people running for office getting all the bribes, excuse me, the "campaign contributions" from the uber wealthy and corporations, the 1% and their shell corporations would now have to bribe, excuse me again, give "contributions" to every single voter in order to buy the elections.
Simply impractical.
3
As is pointed out here by many writers such a move is worthy but only a start to reforming our political process.
The big thing it would accomplish is remove the stigmatizing of voting for candidates outside the two party system. The idea that a vote for one person also amounts to a vote for someone else must be stopped. A vote for a certain candidate is presicely that, a vote for THEM, period.
To this argument is often brought up the scenario of Gore and Nader, but consider this, Nader ran for president many times and usually had little impact the outcome. Why did he have an impact when Gore ran? Because Gore, despite his current folk hero status among the Left, was an incredibly weak candidate hurt by voter burnout over Clinton scandals. The impact Nader had was not inevitable, it was the result of a major party running a weak candidate, and so it is today.
If neither party is going to do something to address your priorities by all means you should vote for someone who does. Ranked voting would in effect allow people to vote for a winner, and at the same time vote for someone to send a message, your can win the election AND have your voice heard.
The big thing it would accomplish is remove the stigmatizing of voting for candidates outside the two party system. The idea that a vote for one person also amounts to a vote for someone else must be stopped. A vote for a certain candidate is presicely that, a vote for THEM, period.
To this argument is often brought up the scenario of Gore and Nader, but consider this, Nader ran for president many times and usually had little impact the outcome. Why did he have an impact when Gore ran? Because Gore, despite his current folk hero status among the Left, was an incredibly weak candidate hurt by voter burnout over Clinton scandals. The impact Nader had was not inevitable, it was the result of a major party running a weak candidate, and so it is today.
If neither party is going to do something to address your priorities by all means you should vote for someone who does. Ranked voting would in effect allow people to vote for a winner, and at the same time vote for someone to send a message, your can win the election AND have your voice heard.
2
No question ranked choice voting is the way to go. When each voter has only one vote, there must only be two candidates. More than two produces garbage results.
2
Sorry Dr. Dean the system is too corrupt to the core for all that.
Yes I am with Hillary Clinton from the beginning and now with Donald Trump fall out the situation has become to be must win for Hillary Clinton. Mr. Sanders now is doing the right thing going all the way for Hillary Clinton that is the only choice in front of him.
Gary Jonson is a dangerous choice he is no Ralph Nader, does not know any foreign leaders yet taking votes away from Hillary Clinton.
Dr. Jill Stein has really no chance and a person never vetted yet so may who call themselves progressives are going to vote for her.
Yes I am with Hillary Clinton from the beginning and now with Donald Trump fall out the situation has become to be must win for Hillary Clinton. Mr. Sanders now is doing the right thing going all the way for Hillary Clinton that is the only choice in front of him.
Gary Jonson is a dangerous choice he is no Ralph Nader, does not know any foreign leaders yet taking votes away from Hillary Clinton.
Dr. Jill Stein has really no chance and a person never vetted yet so may who call themselves progressives are going to vote for her.
3
As long as "None of the Above" is not on the list of choices for the voter, the result of an election is never going to meaningfully reflect the mood of the public. My sense of it is, more of the ballots cast for Libertarian and Green tickets this year will actually be from NOTA voters than from those who really want Johnson or Stein in the Oval Office.
3
Bernie would be and should be president. On the right, we have a blowhard misogynist. On the left, we have a corrupt old guard politician. We needed Bernie who is beholden to no one. Unfortunately, the two party system quashed his chances.
6
Of course, the Electoral College system means that it will require a Constitutional amendment to change the two-candidate nature of presidential elections. You can have as many candidates as you like, but you have to get a majority of the EC, or it goes to the House. This rather forces the number of candidates down to two if there's going to be any kind of successful run. I don't see this Congress or any foreseeable future Congress going ahead with that.
Other elections are cool, though. They might even change the face of the Congress in time.
Other elections are cool, though. They might even change the face of the Congress in time.
2
Thank you Howard Dean, for bringing this important issue to light. Ranked choice voting would be a tremendous improvement to our democracies: local, state, and national. Politicians would try to appeal to a broader base of voters. Voters would not feel stymied by the constraints of a two party system, leading to more citizen involvement, less apathy. Let's do it.
10
Third parties, in order to become something more, should focus on local races instead of wanting to start at the top. Libertarians occupy 4 seats in all of the state houses in the land. Grassroots organizing. Doing things. Thoughtful positions. Meaningful dialogue. A national platform that is within the mainstream. Give us examples of success.
4
This is a thoughtful and engaging article from a medical doctor who only days ago trafficked in scuzzy politics by snidely Tweeting that Trump was a coke-head and then, rather than apologize, said Trump showed all the symptoms of a coker.
Dean has always been an odd public persona - but articles and arguments such as today's is why I still pay attention when he makes his case.
Dean has always been an odd public persona - but articles and arguments such as today's is why I still pay attention when he makes his case.
2
In theory this sounds like a great idea. The domination of the one party duopoly has gone on for too long, with a resistance to any change that is formidable. The larger issue is getting better candidates to run. Trump and Clinton might both have been eliminated, and we'd have better choices. What a concept.
6
For third parties to have any real shot on the national stage they must start organizing from the ground up. That means doing the leg work necessary to run viable candidates in local and state elections. Until third parties have a solid base they will continue to remain ineffectual outliers.
9
We have had ranked choice in Berkeley since 2010. San Francisco also has it. It is such a good way to elect a leader-- far superior than having to play strategy games about how other voters may behave.
The fact that ranked choice isn't the default for all elections is a bit ridiculous, if you pause to think about it. We use ranked choice decisions daily as we negotiate with other people within our social groups: where to go to lunch, what movie to see, where to vacation, etc. It is way past time the rest of the country adopt ranked-choice voting.
The fact that ranked choice isn't the default for all elections is a bit ridiculous, if you pause to think about it. We use ranked choice decisions daily as we negotiate with other people within our social groups: where to go to lunch, what movie to see, where to vacation, etc. It is way past time the rest of the country adopt ranked-choice voting.
3
Voting mathematics - the only mathematical discipline that deals with an ethic value: The value (distribution-) justice - has been around for quite some time now, and hence we know the main disadvantages of the Ranked Choice - or better Instant Run-Off - voting system: It does not fulfil the monotonicity criterion, and not the Condorcet winner criterion (you may check out details on wikipedia, if you are interested). In short: While it would surely be better than the current system, there are in fact even better rank voting systems. These are first and foremost: The Raked Pairs (aka Tideman-) method, and the Path Voting (aka Schulze-) method. So: It is hard to see, why one should not aim for these better methods directly, instead of going via the inferior Instant Run-Off.
4
I support this idea. But its an idea that has been around for awhile and nobody in power seems interested in advancing it.
If Democrats are genuinely concerned about losing votes to third parties there is an obvious solution. They can go out and try to earn those votes.
After the 2000 election they tried to destroy and suppress Ralph Nader and any other "progressive" third party movement. They didn't pay attention when Nader made common cause with libertarian Ron Paul. If Democrats are now worried that 3rd parties are getting so many votes they only have themselves to blame.
If Democrats are genuinely concerned about losing votes to third parties there is an obvious solution. They can go out and try to earn those votes.
After the 2000 election they tried to destroy and suppress Ralph Nader and any other "progressive" third party movement. They didn't pay attention when Nader made common cause with libertarian Ron Paul. If Democrats are now worried that 3rd parties are getting so many votes they only have themselves to blame.
1
ranked choice is better, but suffers from many fundamental problems including a very fundamental one of which algorithm to use to determine winners. There is a solution with all pf the advantages of ranked choice plus moany more advantages--its capled score voting (range voting) where you simply grade each candidate (or whatever candidate you care to) on a score of 0-100 and the winner is the pne woth the highest total. Simple, fair, effective, necessary. Do an internet search for "range voting" for more info.
1
To Susan Anderson: Jill Stein is not anti-vaccine, she is anti-mercury in vaccines. She has always supported vaccines. I am voting Hillary, but this is the same type of thing that insisted Al Gore said he invented the internet. Hillary's remarks to Goldman-Sacks have lessened my excitement for her, but the supreme court is foremost in my mind right now. I don't believe this position will assist in 3rd party candidates, money will. That Bernie made it as far as he did is remarkable in a country this corrupt and gives me some hope for the future, but in the meantime, vote democratic.
2
More fair (it takes a majority - "most of the votes" - not just a plurality - "the most votes" - to win).
More free (lets voters more fully express their preferences).
One ballot does the work of two (combines primary and general elections).
Simple enough.
Simply better.
More free (lets voters more fully express their preferences).
One ballot does the work of two (combines primary and general elections).
Simple enough.
Simply better.
3
As an Aussie living in the US, I can only agree with Mr Dean. Instead of seeing third or fourth party candidates as spoilers perhaps it is time to see them as legitimate voices of small but distinctive groups. Ranked-choice voting promotes consensus. You don't even have to trust me on this, you can run your own small experiment (as I have.) as it results in the election of a candidate that most voters ranked as their first or second preference. It also encourages the major parties to interact with the minor parties as they want their preference votes. They are sometimes willing to move their policy slightly to achieve this. Even more consensus. The winner is you. No more stupid locked inactive Congresses like we have seen for the last 8 years.
2
US states should be laboratories of democracy. The ranking system Gov. Dean suggests is one system that should be explored. The non-partisan blanket primary is another. Candidates for office should vie for the votes of their constituency each and every election cycle. There should be no safe seats. We need to establish a political culture that goes beyond either/or and accepts that shades of gray exist.
3
It makes sense, especially in light of the Presidential choices we have been handed this year; but the two major parties (which in reality are nothing more than private clubs) will never loose their stranglehold on the electoral system.
1
There will never be election reform in the US without a uniform national election law, and both parties agree that will never happen.
Equal protection of the law will remain impossible at the root level of negotiating what the law will be in the US, indefinitely.
Equal protection of the law will remain impossible at the root level of negotiating what the law will be in the US, indefinitely.
2
Oakland and Berkeley California have instituted ranked-choice voting with some success, especially with respect to the voter being able to vote for the person they support without throwing their vote away - but it also creates a new dynamic where someone who does not win the initial round can end up the winner as happened when Jean Quan was elected mayor of Oakland. It also produces alliances between candidates who will endorse each other to build up their #2 votes, and when there are many candidates it becomes too complicated for most voters to rank. A great idea as a way to break up the two party monopoly, but beware of the new dynamics.
2
Ranked choice has been used by unions in their elections for a long time.
The winner take all system in place now leaves half the population disgruntled.
The new approach means the 2nd choice person could still be acceptable to a large number of people.
It helps to have a demonstration of this before you take a stand.
Something has to break through the rampant dissatisfaction with the current 2 party system that has a lock on the media, money and the informercials called debates.
The winner take all system in place now leaves half the population disgruntled.
The new approach means the 2nd choice person could still be acceptable to a large number of people.
It helps to have a demonstration of this before you take a stand.
Something has to break through the rampant dissatisfaction with the current 2 party system that has a lock on the media, money and the informercials called debates.
1
California's innovation of a non-partisan primary should also be adopted. In this system, the top 2 vote getters in the primary face each other in the general election. This forces candidates to appeal to swing voter from the get go. It can also lead to 2 Republicans facing each other or 2 Democrats facing each other. I would also like to see primaries have a minimum level of experience as a pre-requisite to being on the ballot. Something like having been a Governor or Senator or Congressman. This would have kept the Donald(and Ben Carson) out of the running.
4
In the 2010 and 2014 Maine gubernatorial races which infamous Republican Paul LePage both won, the vote was split three ways:In 2010, LePage got 37.6% of the vote, Independent Eliot Cutler 35.9% and Democrat Libby Mitchell 18.8%. In 2014, LePage got 48.2%, Democrat Mike Michaud 43.4% and Independent Eliot Cutler 8.4%.
To better understand ranked-choice voting where one candidate must receive more than 50% of first-choices, I would like to know if and how LePage could have won both if rank-choice had been implemented in those elections.
To better understand ranked-choice voting where one candidate must receive more than 50% of first-choices, I would like to know if and how LePage could have won both if rank-choice had been implemented in those elections.
1
Certainly, the primary system and the first past the post system are unhealthy. Howard Dean mentions Ireland. I recall that Mike Bloomberg has taken a lot of credit for his smoking restriction in NYC, but he rarely tells us that he went to Ireland to see how they manage their ban there--one that predates his by years. So in that spirit of humility, I suggest that another part of the Irish system is worth considering--the multi-seat constituency.
Some constituencies, or districts, have as many as five representatives in the assembly (Dáil). But that is not very American in that it takes time to do all the counting, eliminating the low candidates, and redistributing their votes. It's fun, though.
Some constituencies, or districts, have as many as five representatives in the assembly (Dáil). But that is not very American in that it takes time to do all the counting, eliminating the low candidates, and redistributing their votes. It's fun, though.
3
Giving a candidate a governing chance by ensuring a majority of voters' support would be a major improvement in our democracy. However, it assaults our current "whatever it takes" mentality to holding onto power, resulting in two frontrunner candidates with higher negatives than positives.
2
Howard! The United States is *not* a democracy (see, Senate, U.S.) The majority doesn't rule, as long as afterthoughts like a Wyoming or an Alaska have equal Senate votes to, say, California. Fix that problem first then move on to ranked-choice voting. Maybe ranked-choice works well at the local/state level, but the races like the Senate (and, therefore, the so-called electoral college) are an evil of a different sort: minority rules!
1
"the math we choose can shape the kind of government we get."
Not just math but also psychology and culture.
The system setup affect who votes (and how informed their vote is). nonvoting and uninformed voting can have tragic consequences.
Quote from:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/november/devlin-ranked-voting-110711....
Not just math but also psychology and culture.
The system setup affect who votes (and how informed their vote is). nonvoting and uninformed voting can have tragic consequences.
Quote from:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/november/devlin-ranked-voting-110711....
1
Americans wake up today utterly disgusted by Trump's comments and character once again, and dismayed by Hillary's Wall Street speeches showing the true disconnect she has to the middle class, her promulgation of open borders and trade (not aligned with what Americans desire), and the two sides to every issue comment (public side and private side).
Hands down this is the worst election choice in our lifetimes. Howard Dean has a good suggestion going forward. These two parties are not representing Main Street and middle class Americans.
We need a system that is of the people, for the people, by the people.
Hands down this is the worst election choice in our lifetimes. Howard Dean has a good suggestion going forward. These two parties are not representing Main Street and middle class Americans.
We need a system that is of the people, for the people, by the people.
2
Thank you for writing this. It is very important to beginning to put in place democracy in the U.S. Coupled with overturning Citizens United and imposing strict campaign donation limitations, so that the Trump Brothers of the world don't have greater "speech" than all of the small cap brothers and sisters, sensible policies favored by most Americans might have a chance of being passed and implemented, and participation in elections would greatly increase as people were less demoralized by limited choices.
I am wholly in favour of ranked-choice voting, but Mr Dean leaves something out: the broken electoral college. The electoral college allows far more people to vote for third parties 'safely' since only a handful of states are truly in play each election.
In addition to ranked-choice voting we need to abolish the electoral college and get money out of politics. Anything short of radical change will not save American democracy from the oligarchy that now rules it.
In addition to ranked-choice voting we need to abolish the electoral college and get money out of politics. Anything short of radical change will not save American democracy from the oligarchy that now rules it.
6
It's heartening to observe more fellow americans waking up to how backward n clunky some of our systems remain, long after other parts of the world have moved on. A pair of morbidly obese parties inflicting on the nation grossly distended and profligate presidential campaigns of a benumbing fatuousness. It all makes about as much sense as inches, feet, yards, mph -- sheesh. US of A, the truly exceptional!
1
There's no good reason to oppose this. All opposition boils down to tribalism and selfish interests. Are there other alternatives, possibly better ones? Sure. But this would be an enormous step forward, it's broadly agreeable, it's easy to implement, and it's already widely utilized.
A large majority of Americans want more options. Let's make it happen.
A large majority of Americans want more options. Let's make it happen.
7
Ranked choice voting gives a much broader base to the political process. It is what the two corrupt parties fear the most. Suppressing ranked choice voting is probably the only thing the two corrupt parties agree on.
4
Yep. An additional approach for presidential elections is proportional distribution of a state's electoral college votes (candidates get electoral votes that reflect their percentage of the state's popular vote) rather than the winner-take-all method almost all the states use.
4
The issue with third parties in American politics today is that they are counterproductive to the ends for which they stand because they syphon votes from the voters' preferred alternative - as Nader did with Al Gore. Because of this third parties do not grow. Ranked choice voting would change this dynamic, giving disaffected voters a voice and also real hope that their voice will lead to a meaningful alternative over time. Ranked choice voting is more democratic than the system we have today and will promote realistic alternatives.
1
Thanks for the provocative article on how to make multiple parties more credible and tenable, from the former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, no less. It's become obvious that we need to break out of this two party quagmire, because at least one party is (and reactively both are) abusing the spirit, if not the specifics, of the Constitution. This article seems to put our country's interests first, and political agendas aside. And even if that wasn't the intent, I think it serves that purpose, regardless.
Governor Dean this is the first positive suggestion I have seen from a major Democratic Party figure on how we can break grip of the corporatist major party duopoly's hold on power. I greatly appreciate the suggestion.
I am supporting the Green Party candidate for POTUS because she and the Green Party platform come far closer to my view of the direction I want the country to follow than either of the major parties candidates or platforms. I want to see primaries elections and debates open to all candidates on a national basis and a fair national system of primary vote counting. Had this been the case in all likelihood Bernie Sander would have run as an independent and would now be poised to win the US Presidency by a landslide.
Of course the Duopoly Party establishments and oligopoly of Wall Street plutocrats and corporations will hate this idea. But something has to change if this Republic is to continue to prosper the way things are simply is not working.
I am supporting the Green Party candidate for POTUS because she and the Green Party platform come far closer to my view of the direction I want the country to follow than either of the major parties candidates or platforms. I want to see primaries elections and debates open to all candidates on a national basis and a fair national system of primary vote counting. Had this been the case in all likelihood Bernie Sander would have run as an independent and would now be poised to win the US Presidency by a landslide.
Of course the Duopoly Party establishments and oligopoly of Wall Street plutocrats and corporations will hate this idea. But something has to change if this Republic is to continue to prosper the way things are simply is not working.
1
We call it 'proportional representation'. The possibility exists for creating a plethora of minor parties - in our case by conservatives - which split the vote. This has seen some grotesque & joke candidates making it into the Senate, such as One Nation.
You also need a National Electoral Office to prevent gerrymandering, & the same voting systems all over. (Good luck with that.)
We also have polling on a Saturday & pre-polling in person or by mail.
In the last federal election, a significant number of votes were cast pre-poll.
You also need a National Electoral Office to prevent gerrymandering, & the same voting systems all over. (Good luck with that.)
We also have polling on a Saturday & pre-polling in person or by mail.
In the last federal election, a significant number of votes were cast pre-poll.
1
Yes, please, please, please, more publicity for ranked-choice voting! No-one should ever be elected to office with a plurality rather than a majority, especially in the highest offices in the land.
Our current system is a banana republic style joke.
For one thing, it elected George W Bush to the presidency. That should be enough to doom any election system.
Our current system is a banana republic style joke.
For one thing, it elected George W Bush to the presidency. That should be enough to doom any election system.
Instant runoff voting is only one aspect of the reform needed. Election reform, campaign finance reform, and public disclosure reform should all be addressed together. They overlap. You cannot do a good job of fixing one without fixing them all. Corporations should not be allowed to contribute. Lobbyists should not be allowed to arrange contributions. Maximum contribution amounts should be reduced. Government cover certain campaign costs. Government should issue credits to each voter, which can be contributed to favored candidates. Read more at:
http://jamesrobertdeal.org/election-and-campaign-finance-reform-2
http://jamesrobertdeal.org/election-and-campaign-finance-reform-2
1
I would favor a far greater reform of government. Abolish the gerrymandered House of Representatives and have only a Senate where votes would be cast according to the population of the individual states. This would greatly reduce the number of members of Congress, their staffs, etc. While we are at it, why not allow a reformulated Senate to elect the President?
1
This system is called "preferential voting" in Australia.
When corruption and disillusionment with major parties gets too high, votes began to spill in large numbers to 3rd party candidates. This helps keeps politicians honest.
Because the radicals have third party homes, mainstream parties no longer have to make an absurdly huge tent and appeal to racists and radicals.
Here, the Greens and One Nation (representing far left and right respectively) both have seats at the table.
Voters vote for who they most identify with, no matter how big all small, secure in the knowledge their vote won't be wasted. It is not unusual to see 10+ parties on the ballot!
Imagine how much the Republicans would be improved if there was a separate "Tea Party" for all the crazies, and Democrat voters in Red States got to preference a sane Republican over an insane Tea Partier.
The system is not perfect. Politics is still the same old same old. Many Australians get confused by the process of numbering a form (yes really). Some of the third parties are ignorant and poorly vetted (think Trump style surprise candidates). You still have to have 51% of Americans prefer you to the other choices so its still an uphill battle for third parties.
But all in all, I can't help feel like ranked voting would restore some faith in American democracy. People once again would feel they have real choices beyond what the establishment and the bizarre primaries offer.
When corruption and disillusionment with major parties gets too high, votes began to spill in large numbers to 3rd party candidates. This helps keeps politicians honest.
Because the radicals have third party homes, mainstream parties no longer have to make an absurdly huge tent and appeal to racists and radicals.
Here, the Greens and One Nation (representing far left and right respectively) both have seats at the table.
Voters vote for who they most identify with, no matter how big all small, secure in the knowledge their vote won't be wasted. It is not unusual to see 10+ parties on the ballot!
Imagine how much the Republicans would be improved if there was a separate "Tea Party" for all the crazies, and Democrat voters in Red States got to preference a sane Republican over an insane Tea Partier.
The system is not perfect. Politics is still the same old same old. Many Australians get confused by the process of numbering a form (yes really). Some of the third parties are ignorant and poorly vetted (think Trump style surprise candidates). You still have to have 51% of Americans prefer you to the other choices so its still an uphill battle for third parties.
But all in all, I can't help feel like ranked voting would restore some faith in American democracy. People once again would feel they have real choices beyond what the establishment and the bizarre primaries offer.
1
We have had this system in Australia for over 90 years - it's called "preferential voting" here. For state and federal elections, voting is also compulsory - you get fined if you haven't got a good excuse. The other major differences with the US are that there is a single Federal Electoral Commission which runs the electoral process, not the states, and the campaigns run for a maximum of 2 months. Saves a lot of time and money.
The downside of preferential voting? In the Senate, they have allowed the parties to get control of the preferences. You just tick one box for a party and the preferences flow as the party directs. Just the opposite of democracy in my opinion.
The downside of preferential voting? In the Senate, they have allowed the parties to get control of the preferences. You just tick one box for a party and the preferences flow as the party directs. Just the opposite of democracy in my opinion.
1
Here is what we need to improve the system:
First, a "right to vote" amendment to the Constitution that gives every citizen over 18 the absolute right to vote in any election.
Second, either ranked voting or approval voting for every office.
Third, abolish Congressional and other legislative districts, and have nationwide / statewide / citywide elections with proportional representation for any party getting more than 10% of the vote.
Finally, make election day a holiday, and make voting mandatory.
First, a "right to vote" amendment to the Constitution that gives every citizen over 18 the absolute right to vote in any election.
Second, either ranked voting or approval voting for every office.
Third, abolish Congressional and other legislative districts, and have nationwide / statewide / citywide elections with proportional representation for any party getting more than 10% of the vote.
Finally, make election day a holiday, and make voting mandatory.
No one is going to be satisfied by any particular suggestion, but the need for a major overhaul has long been in the wind, and most would require constitutional changes, not in voting (not covered by the document) but in making voting representative. Can any one image the two ranking party representatives allowing that to occur?
In short voting is working well for those who have been willing to pay to influence the outcome, that will be most difficult to change.
In short voting is working well for those who have been willing to pay to influence the outcome, that will be most difficult to change.
Kudos Howard for a great explanation of an idea that will not only improve our election process but improve civility in our political discourse. It's time to change the system. But maybe, getting Congress to enact it for Congressional and Senate elections is the place to start, then (and I hesitate to use this phrase) it will "trickle down" to the states, cities and localities.
1
Simply, do away with the electoral college.
It is not fair and can be manipulated in an assortment of ways. It creates a stranglehold on power, while districts continue to get redrawn to suit whatever party.
A true parliamentary system is the only way. It creates an even playing field and forces opposing views and parties to work together in sharing power.
Some of us need to learn to share more than others.
It is not fair and can be manipulated in an assortment of ways. It creates a stranglehold on power, while districts continue to get redrawn to suit whatever party.
A true parliamentary system is the only way. It creates an even playing field and forces opposing views and parties to work together in sharing power.
Some of us need to learn to share more than others.
3
Given that our political system is dominated by the two major parties, third party candidates rarely have a chance. "Making a protest statement" or "voting one's conscience" is often the rationale given for a third party vote, but rarely it's "because I really think they have a chance to win". We need to offer a third party candidate "a chance to win". Ranked-choice voting is a good way to do so. An alternative is a having a run-off election, where the two top vote-getters go head-to-head. That would be a more expensive approach, given it would require a second vote, but either would open the door to an alternative to the roughly even split of ever-increasing partisanship we see today. Let's open it up to more choices that all have a fair chance to win.
The harsh reality of our modern election system combined with the oligarchical control over our press has rendered democracy nonexistent in the US. We have 2 deplorable candidates for president, and I certainly will not vote for either of them, but I won't vote for a third-party candidate either, because that legitimizes the way we treat other parties in our system. I will not legitimize this system with my vote.
It would take a much larger campaign to raise awareness of the benefits of a ranked-voting system before it can effect the presidency. A non vote today is much more effective at sending a message than a vote.
Trump is deplorable in his lack of PC, but Hillary is deplorable for her lack of understanding of the constitution and the duties of a president to represent her CITIZENS over the citizens of other nations and illegal residents.
Hillary is a monster. She's a monster of this illegitimate system. She has no better character than Donald. They're both deplorable. Our preachy rich class including celebrities are out of touch with reality. They have been conned by the corporate/administration controlled press.
Huffpost is a worthless rag, and the NYT is not far behind in the rankings. The NYT might actually become a legitimate paper again if we rid ourselves of the oligarch produced by this corrupt voting system.
It would take a much larger campaign to raise awareness of the benefits of a ranked-voting system before it can effect the presidency. A non vote today is much more effective at sending a message than a vote.
Trump is deplorable in his lack of PC, but Hillary is deplorable for her lack of understanding of the constitution and the duties of a president to represent her CITIZENS over the citizens of other nations and illegal residents.
Hillary is a monster. She's a monster of this illegitimate system. She has no better character than Donald. They're both deplorable. Our preachy rich class including celebrities are out of touch with reality. They have been conned by the corporate/administration controlled press.
Huffpost is a worthless rag, and the NYT is not far behind in the rankings. The NYT might actually become a legitimate paper again if we rid ourselves of the oligarch produced by this corrupt voting system.
Ranked choice is a poor idea. It virtually guarantees that third party candidates will be marginalized, whimsical votes will be cast willy-nilly, and major party establishment incumbents will be given the advantage. Two-party hegemony in perpetuity, so no surprise that a former chairman of a major party supports ranked choice. Maine is pushing ranked choice because the intelligent folk in the state are outraged at having an imbecile governor who was elected twice with a weak plurality. We'd be better off employing intelligence tests to qualify for voting rights! Of course, that concept may go over somewhat poorly...
2
Ranked choice voting could be a concept to implement in our elections. I agree with the good Dr. that it gives third parties a better chance to be considered in major party elections.
However, our elections would be based on everyone selecting their second best candidate. In the divided political environment that we are in, can you imagine how the tactics would change to being the candidate that everyone sees as the best alternative? Clearly, a candidate would run a campaign devoid of anything substantial for fear of offending or putting of any major voting blocks.
If anyone wants to run as a third party, it's clear. Treat whomever that is exactly the same as the other major candidates from the start. They would be able to make their case (or not) to the American people along with every other candidate. The media has great deal of responsibility in this as do Democrats and Republicans.
We need to stop this notion that 3rd party candidates don't have what it takes to be high office holders. Maybe they do, maybe they don't All I know is we're leaving a lot of great ideas off the table simply because they're not Democrats or Republicans.
However, our elections would be based on everyone selecting their second best candidate. In the divided political environment that we are in, can you imagine how the tactics would change to being the candidate that everyone sees as the best alternative? Clearly, a candidate would run a campaign devoid of anything substantial for fear of offending or putting of any major voting blocks.
If anyone wants to run as a third party, it's clear. Treat whomever that is exactly the same as the other major candidates from the start. They would be able to make their case (or not) to the American people along with every other candidate. The media has great deal of responsibility in this as do Democrats and Republicans.
We need to stop this notion that 3rd party candidates don't have what it takes to be high office holders. Maybe they do, maybe they don't All I know is we're leaving a lot of great ideas off the table simply because they're not Democrats or Republicans.
We tried this in Howard and my city, Burlington, VT about 10 years ago. For two consecutive elections we used ranked-choice voting for the office of mayor. Most everyone had no problem coming up with their first/second/third choices, though in most instances they only had a single candidate that they favored occupying the office. The problem was that once the first round was completed and none of the candidates had even approached the 50% majority the ranked-choice tabulations seemed to most people like a mechanical manipulation of choosing the winner. People wanted a run-off of the top two, not a system that took a third place finishers' second and third choices into the mix. So the voters soundly replaced it after the second election. No one has even remotely suggested it come back, except for Howard that is.
1
Well, on the federal level, Ron Wyden's effort to get Oregon's vote by mail for every state deserves great attention. It stops voter harassment, and allows all to vote in the comfort of their residences.
Then, yes, either ranked choice or some such way to let third party candidates run is essential. Geez, I wish I could vote for Bernie for President.
I wonder how long it will be until our greedy, mean Congress gets things together and actually works on the people's business, including ranked choice.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
Then, yes, either ranked choice or some such way to let third party candidates run is essential. Geez, I wish I could vote for Bernie for President.
I wonder how long it will be until our greedy, mean Congress gets things together and actually works on the people's business, including ranked choice.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
2
If anything, the 2016 Presidential election has been a pathetic "farce" bordering on the absurd. After 24 years of the Clinton-Bush-Obama regimes the practice of choosing the "lesser of two evils" has proven a disastrous exercise in futility resulting in endless wars, crashed economies, abrogation of our civil rights and wholesale degradation of the environment. The two-party system has consistently failed the American people, it's antiquated and corrupt beyond belief. It's time We The People make a dramatic paradigm shift in our democracy and encourage "third" parties to flourish and be heard. Give the people "real" choice, not lunatic demagogues and recycled do nothings.
4
As an Australian, I couldn't agree more. Ranked choice (or as we know it, preferential voting) is far more logically and fairer than a first-past-the-post system. In our current Senate, 20 of the 76 senators are independent or from minor parties. While some of these senators might be regarded by as extreme, they are nonetheless a more accurate representation of the population. It is almost impossible for either of our major parties to win a majority in the Senate, and this requires them to engage much more in discussion and compromise, which I think can only be a good thing.
Ranked voting does indeed make sense, because it accords with how many of us really feel about candidate choice when we go to the polls. It can work, I believe, and help offer a motivation to push for wider choice and the encouragement of a wider perspective. At that level, it does have possibilities for a core party of some recognized strength to arise and sink roots in the legislative process, which is where power matters!
It can work, however, I believe only if it starts and grows from local and state government level outward and upwards -- and in legislatures. New parties, of any significance, cannot suddenly appear in presidential elections -- from no pre-established base -- and expect be anything more than something of nuisance value. That is where we are now.
It can work, however, I believe only if it starts and grows from local and state government level outward and upwards -- and in legislatures. New parties, of any significance, cannot suddenly appear in presidential elections -- from no pre-established base -- and expect be anything more than something of nuisance value. That is where we are now.
1
Excellent ideas, Mr. Dean, which deserves much discussion in our media. Maybe after the election, please go on MSNBC and talk about this.
The 2 party system is stifling our democracy, made worse with candidate sponsorship by wealthy elite donors. Issues are hardly discussed by the candidates and the media. Multi parties would force airing of issues not done now.
Our big money system sponsoring 2 parties is guaranteed to result in politicians who don’t work for the citizen majority interests. Where can we go?
This is proved by Princeton’s Martin Gilens research showing most of our laws are passed per the wishes of the elites, ignoring the majority of citizens’ preferences on most issues.
Many countries have long had 2nd round voting, with multi parties, giving the citizens the means to express their true preferences.
If we had this system, we could vote our true preference 1st—how enjoyable!---and then pick from the top 2 winners in 2nd round. Sounds like democracy doesn’t it?
Now when millions of us don’t really like either candidate, but just dislike one much much more, we lack freedom of choice. We must pick from the 2 nominees who, let’s admit, have gotten where they are due to big money—either their own money or that of elite sponsors.
Many countries with 2nd round voting, also have public financing of campaigns, with strict limits on private donations. Please write about that next, as the crucial element in democracy---campaign finance.
The 2 party system is stifling our democracy, made worse with candidate sponsorship by wealthy elite donors. Issues are hardly discussed by the candidates and the media. Multi parties would force airing of issues not done now.
Our big money system sponsoring 2 parties is guaranteed to result in politicians who don’t work for the citizen majority interests. Where can we go?
This is proved by Princeton’s Martin Gilens research showing most of our laws are passed per the wishes of the elites, ignoring the majority of citizens’ preferences on most issues.
Many countries have long had 2nd round voting, with multi parties, giving the citizens the means to express their true preferences.
If we had this system, we could vote our true preference 1st—how enjoyable!---and then pick from the top 2 winners in 2nd round. Sounds like democracy doesn’t it?
Now when millions of us don’t really like either candidate, but just dislike one much much more, we lack freedom of choice. We must pick from the 2 nominees who, let’s admit, have gotten where they are due to big money—either their own money or that of elite sponsors.
Many countries with 2nd round voting, also have public financing of campaigns, with strict limits on private donations. Please write about that next, as the crucial element in democracy---campaign finance.
I would love nothing more than to see ranked-choice voting implemented nationwide, or at least more broadly, in my lifetime. However, I've been hearing about it since 1999 and have seen no substantial progress towards it. Frankly, given the number of insulated voters supporting the least-qualified Republican candidate in US history to run for our highest office, educating the public on this option — one that would *benefit* this same disenfranchised-feeling "burn it down" crowd — feels like a waste of time; the likelihood that a majority of our representatives — in the polarized post-Gingrich stalemate society said demagogue facilitated — might reach Howard Dean's selfless decency and support laws that could lessen their own stranglehold on the throat of democracy feels also, sadly, implausible. Maybe the current Trump-dominated election, to which one can draw a straight through-line from the candidacy of George W. Bush, has got me bummed out, but much though I'd like to hold out hope for ranked-choice voting I don't see how it could ever come to pass.
We have "ranked choice" voting here in San Francisco.
Maine already is different from most states in Presidential elections. It has 4 electoral votes total. Two are awarded based on the state-wide vote. The other two are awarded based on votes in each of Maine's two Congressional districts.
As it now stands (and this doesn't appear likely to change), Clinton will win the state-wide electoral votes (2) and the electoral vote for Congressional District 1 (1), for a total of 3. Trump will win the electoral vote for Congressional District 2. So Clinton will win 3 of 4 Maine electoral votes. In most states, she'd win all 4.
Nebraska does it the same way, except that Trump almost certainly will win all 5 electoral votes: 2 state-wide votes plus 1 for each of Nebraska's three Congressional districts -- 5 total.
Maine already is different from most states in Presidential elections. It has 4 electoral votes total. Two are awarded based on the state-wide vote. The other two are awarded based on votes in each of Maine's two Congressional districts.
As it now stands (and this doesn't appear likely to change), Clinton will win the state-wide electoral votes (2) and the electoral vote for Congressional District 1 (1), for a total of 3. Trump will win the electoral vote for Congressional District 2. So Clinton will win 3 of 4 Maine electoral votes. In most states, she'd win all 4.
Nebraska does it the same way, except that Trump almost certainly will win all 5 electoral votes: 2 state-wide votes plus 1 for each of Nebraska's three Congressional districts -- 5 total.
It's nonsense to accuse Jill Stein of being anti-vaccination; as a doctor she supports FDA testing of all drugs, and attackers have twisted this into a parody of her actual views. No other candidate addresses the issues of our time head on and with dignity--the need to limit our incessant wars, address climate change boldly and sincerely, and alter our priorities to limit income inequality.
Howard Dean's article is an eloquent testimony to the possibility of a major electoral reform. Thus far the one thing both parties have agreed upon is that they want no competition, but perhaps instant runoff voting could move us closer to democracy.
Howard Dean's article is an eloquent testimony to the possibility of a major electoral reform. Thus far the one thing both parties have agreed upon is that they want no competition, but perhaps instant runoff voting could move us closer to democracy.
3
More importantly US Federal Elections must be publicly funded.
In Australia the first ranked choice must exceed 4% before a party or candidate can draw federal funds.
The amount of election funding payable is calculated by multiplying the number of first ranked votes received by the rate of payment applicable at the time. The rate is indexed every six months in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index.
Everybody votes in Australia so there is no need for ID.
In Australia the first ranked choice must exceed 4% before a party or candidate can draw federal funds.
The amount of election funding payable is calculated by multiplying the number of first ranked votes received by the rate of payment applicable at the time. The rate is indexed every six months in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index.
Everybody votes in Australia so there is no need for ID.
The elephant in the room is money. Without money there isn't enough exposure for an effective campaign, and our Congress and our courts have decreed that campaigns shall be long and expensive.
Now, we have one party for the wealthy, the Democrats, and they have plenty of money. We have one party for the very wealthy, the Republicans, and they have plenty of money, too. They both have enough money to put out enough propaganda to persuade the unwealthy that the Democrats and the Republicans represent them too.
And our courts have decreed that propaganda is nothing more than free speech, although why they call something free that is so expensive is beyond my comprehension.
So, since running a political campaign needs lots of money, the cost of entry for a party that might represent the unwealthy is more than the unwealthy could afford.
And the wealthy in Congress and the courts have absolutely no interest in changing the rules.
Now, we have one party for the wealthy, the Democrats, and they have plenty of money. We have one party for the very wealthy, the Republicans, and they have plenty of money, too. They both have enough money to put out enough propaganda to persuade the unwealthy that the Democrats and the Republicans represent them too.
And our courts have decreed that propaganda is nothing more than free speech, although why they call something free that is so expensive is beyond my comprehension.
So, since running a political campaign needs lots of money, the cost of entry for a party that might represent the unwealthy is more than the unwealthy could afford.
And the wealthy in Congress and the courts have absolutely no interest in changing the rules.
Consider how ranked choice voting might affect presidential elections the 2016 presidential election and future presidential elections.
Would Bernie Sanders have run as a third party candidate and skipped the Democratic Primaries? Or, would he have moved from the Democratic Primaries to a third party?
Would we have a Christian America Party on the November 8th ballot? Who would be its candidate?
Would the Tea Party faction walk out of the Republican Party and form its own third party? What about the Progressive faction of the Democratic Party?
How might the major parties change? Would parties be able to endorse more than one candidate?
What would the presidential debates look like? Would we have Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders all participating? Should there be any limit to the number of parties eligible to participate?
Can Congress enact a ranked choice voting statute or would ranked choice voting require a Constitutional Amendment? If statutory ranked choice voting is opposed by the states, could one or more states challenge statutory ranked choice voting in the Supreme Court? Could a candidate who received a plurality of first choice votes in a statutory ranked choice election but lost in the final count challenge statutory ranked choice voting in the Supreme Court?
Would Bernie Sanders have run as a third party candidate and skipped the Democratic Primaries? Or, would he have moved from the Democratic Primaries to a third party?
Would we have a Christian America Party on the November 8th ballot? Who would be its candidate?
Would the Tea Party faction walk out of the Republican Party and form its own third party? What about the Progressive faction of the Democratic Party?
How might the major parties change? Would parties be able to endorse more than one candidate?
What would the presidential debates look like? Would we have Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders all participating? Should there be any limit to the number of parties eligible to participate?
Can Congress enact a ranked choice voting statute or would ranked choice voting require a Constitutional Amendment? If statutory ranked choice voting is opposed by the states, could one or more states challenge statutory ranked choice voting in the Supreme Court? Could a candidate who received a plurality of first choice votes in a statutory ranked choice election but lost in the final count challenge statutory ranked choice voting in the Supreme Court?
Before attempting ranked voting or proportional representation etc. can we move election day to weekends and make voting a mandatory requirement of citizenship? Much simpler. Then serious campaign finance reform. Then outlaw committed delegates in primaries. Then require right in candidates to be a must in primaries in all elections and levels. Then lets see what participation rate and results look like. If fails, we can complicate things further.
It's worth looking at systems that do use ranked choice voting to see what the possible pitfalls might be. I'm no expert here in Ireland, but there seems to be a lot of manuvering going on in which a political party will run several candidates at once, hoping that the overflow once the leading candidate reaches his/her quota will flow also to the next member of the same party. (A friend of mine has said it's a better system for voting someone out than for voting someone in.) This year more independents were elected than usual, and we wind up with an unusual government formation -- but that's because it's parliamentary in structure. Worth studying, for sure, as a way of making the system more fluid so that the choices and will and desires and needs of the electorate can find a meaningful voice.
I think it is a good idea. We would probably had President Gore rather than President Bush. It gives voice to those who feel poorly represented by the major candidates, while allowing them to also choose between the lessor of two undesirable candidates.
I think it also allows the major candidates to move toward the center more easily. When a significant minority is passionate about an issue, there is a tendency for one party to move more strongly in that direction than the majority prefers. With ranked choice, voters can express a strong choice for an issue, and also pick a centrist candidate more closely aligned with their own beliefs.
I think it also allows the major candidates to move toward the center more easily. When a significant minority is passionate about an issue, there is a tendency for one party to move more strongly in that direction than the majority prefers. With ranked choice, voters can express a strong choice for an issue, and also pick a centrist candidate more closely aligned with their own beliefs.
Sure, "ranked choice" or simple transferable voting can encourage a greater role for smaller parties. However, the most likely voting reform that would end, or at the very least weaken the duopoly we currently have would be to switch to proportional voting and multi-member electoral districts. Doing so would then let your libertarians and greens receive representatives in govt., it would eliminate the idea of the "wasted vote, and it might clear things up for voters if the factions in the Democratic and Republican parties ran separately. Ex. There is a decent bit of space between a blue dog and a green both running in a Democratic primary. There is a world of policy difference between a Tea Partier, and a moderate Republican. Voters never get to see those clearly. Majoritarian voting forms two party systems.
Nonsense. Typically, an overdone recipe when a simpler one would do. Remove pension-eligibility from any elective office, term limit every office at every level, and mandate free, equal media exposure as a condition of license for anyone in the ballot. Voila. Instead of a raving knucklehead cum physician, or a power-hungry striver, or an attention-starved egoist, we could have a professional offering managerial expertise, a skilled rhetorician with fresh ideas or a talented civil engineer - that is, accomplished individuals with a sense of public service who cannot seek government sinecures because there aren't any.
The real purpose of ranked choice voting is to enhance consensus. It does this in two ways. Firstly, the candidate who is elected is the consensus choice, i.e. the choice most people put as their first or second preference. Secondly, because parties need to think about where their preferences should flow, they need to build alliances, or common ground, with other parties or candidates before elections. After elections, the fruit of this consensus-building is legislation that is based on consensus positions. The US could benefit from this approach, IMO.
1
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is surely to become part of a renewed electoral system and of the larger political renewal pursued by the Sanders’s Revolution organization. Both the citizen organization www.fairvoting.org and the scientific approach to voting https://electology.org can be helpful.
RCV also provides the opportunity for visionary and transformational approaches, particularly those in respect to the looming climate catastrophe, to become part of the political process. Though money creation and public banking have minimally entered the political process, the proposal for a carbon-based international monetary system which incorporates public banking has not. It would transform the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system and its neo-liberal political context, the conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of which are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net. Stated Bill McKibben: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.”
RCV also provides the opportunity for visionary and transformational approaches, particularly those in respect to the looming climate catastrophe, to become part of the political process. Though money creation and public banking have minimally entered the political process, the proposal for a carbon-based international monetary system which incorporates public banking has not. It would transform the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system and its neo-liberal political context, the conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of which are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net. Stated Bill McKibben: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.”
2
Seldom mentioned, our current two party system is an artifact of our electoral college system written into the constitution. Because the winner in a State by any margin gets all of the electoral votes, the system culls out all of the minority parties. The Parlimentary system of Governing is better at including minority parties who can exercise influence by forming coalitions. Ranked choice voting sounds good but would change little with respect to our two party system.
2
This smacks of a solution looking for a problem to fix. We already have ranked choice, it's called the primaries. What's lacking is civic engagement by too much of the electorate. Ranked choice only encourages lack of participation. This piece needs to go on to the logical conclusion. If a third party candidate wins, how does he or she govern with a legislature that is made up of 2 parties both hostile to the winner? Ranked choice works in a parliamentary system where coalition building is required. It's not a solution here, it is merely a salve for apathy. A third party isn't going to change the negativity that Nixon developed with the southern strategy, that comes from repudiation at the polls.
1
I agree with "ranked-choice voting" as described. However, I think our system needs something else. Instead of a super wealthy individual running or contemplating a run for president, or addressing problems in other countries (which is very noble) I would like to see an investment in a third party. Not from the top down (running for president), but from the bottom up. Maybe starting with a number of congressional seats, a few Senate seats etc. After a few election cycles perhaps there would be enough growth to actually field a presidential candidate. "Ranked-choice voting" would very much complement this.
1
The problem is, there is no real two-party system, not when both parties are beholden to the 1 percent. Otherwise, why would President Obama, a beloved candidate, put Wall Street cronies in charge of watching over Wall Street after being elected? A true Democratic Party would win handily and nominate Supreme Court justices that would dismantle gerrymandering and Citizens United, or act with a Congressional majority to do the same.
But the Democratic Party today is all about the money, and nothing else. That's why the DNC chokes off money from down-ticket candidates for Congress and only focuses on the presidency. And the richest candidate, the one most likely to grovel to the 1 percent for money, becomes the standard bearer. It does't matter if that candidate is the worst choice, the most disliked candidate, the one most likely to lie and cheat. That candidate is the winner because that candidate has the approval (with the multi-million dollar donations and Super PACs to back it up) of the 1 percent
Any decent candidate gets crushed in that scenario. How can ranked-choice voting have any real effect on that? A new Progressive Party is needed as an alternative to the conservative GOP and corporatist Democrats. Most Americans are progressives. So, Mr. Dean, form an American Progressive Party. We voters will back you.
But the Democratic Party today is all about the money, and nothing else. That's why the DNC chokes off money from down-ticket candidates for Congress and only focuses on the presidency. And the richest candidate, the one most likely to grovel to the 1 percent for money, becomes the standard bearer. It does't matter if that candidate is the worst choice, the most disliked candidate, the one most likely to lie and cheat. That candidate is the winner because that candidate has the approval (with the multi-million dollar donations and Super PACs to back it up) of the 1 percent
Any decent candidate gets crushed in that scenario. How can ranked-choice voting have any real effect on that? A new Progressive Party is needed as an alternative to the conservative GOP and corporatist Democrats. Most Americans are progressives. So, Mr. Dean, form an American Progressive Party. We voters will back you.
1
I think that both of our two major parties will resist reform with every fiber of their collective being. Win or lose, the current system bestows power on the parties; power that insures a base from which they can run and run again, staying in the game, whatever the outcome in a particular race. Win or lose we are stuck with the choice of Republican or Democrat.
Barring comprehensive campaign finance reform, the best chance may lay in local elections where independent contenders can have a chance at building a following without having to depend on mass media; where in-person interaction can more truly convey integrity and conviction than expensively packaged and fatiguingly repetitive ads. In local races, it may make a difference.
Start at the bottom of the food chain to starve out the apex predators and you can change everything. It just takes time.
Barring comprehensive campaign finance reform, the best chance may lay in local elections where independent contenders can have a chance at building a following without having to depend on mass media; where in-person interaction can more truly convey integrity and conviction than expensively packaged and fatiguingly repetitive ads. In local races, it may make a difference.
Start at the bottom of the food chain to starve out the apex predators and you can change everything. It just takes time.
1
Ranked elections are a step forward. But the California system where all candidates from all parties run in a single primary is better. Ranked elections will lead to fragmentation of the political spectrum. A single primary will lead to candidates that don't appeal to the fringes of each party, but appeal to moderate voters.
Two states now use this system: California and Louisiana. The latest Louisiana primary revealed a weakness in the system. Sixteen candidates ran, and it is possible that the final election could have feature two choices who received less than 15% of the vote between them. This argues for a two-stage primary where the field is narrowed down to no more that five candidates and then to the two highest.
Two states now use this system: California and Louisiana. The latest Louisiana primary revealed a weakness in the system. Sixteen candidates ran, and it is possible that the final election could have feature two choices who received less than 15% of the vote between them. This argues for a two-stage primary where the field is narrowed down to no more that five candidates and then to the two highest.
2
Ranked-choice adds a layer of complexity in presidential elections over a layer that should first be removed: the Electoral College.
It’s an old complaint and one repeated every 4 years, but getting rid of the Constitutionally-mandated Electoral College would be good. To my knowledge, there’s no mention of a popular vote in the Constitution for the President, as the “Founding Fathers” didn’t apparently trust the rabble. It’s up to the states to decide how the electors are chosen, and the electors choose the president, all electoral votes for any given state going to one candidate. It would be better to get rid of the College, insert a popular mandate, and then talk about ranked-choice.
For as a NY resident, the election is already decided for me because of the Electoral College: as a non-swing state, NY will give all its electoral votes to Clinton. With the Electoral College in place, rank-choice is less effective, since anyone not voting for Clinton essentially has his/her vote cancelled out. Without the Electoral College and with direct popular vote, rank-choice would make voting for third-party alternatives more viable.
(In extreme situations, rank-choice might also lead to instability, with many competing parties resulting in the ungovernable situation of the German Weimar Republic (1920s/30s). The Germans get around that today by requiring a minimum of 6%, national vote for a party, in order to be represented in parliament.)
It’s an old complaint and one repeated every 4 years, but getting rid of the Constitutionally-mandated Electoral College would be good. To my knowledge, there’s no mention of a popular vote in the Constitution for the President, as the “Founding Fathers” didn’t apparently trust the rabble. It’s up to the states to decide how the electors are chosen, and the electors choose the president, all electoral votes for any given state going to one candidate. It would be better to get rid of the College, insert a popular mandate, and then talk about ranked-choice.
For as a NY resident, the election is already decided for me because of the Electoral College: as a non-swing state, NY will give all its electoral votes to Clinton. With the Electoral College in place, rank-choice is less effective, since anyone not voting for Clinton essentially has his/her vote cancelled out. Without the Electoral College and with direct popular vote, rank-choice would make voting for third-party alternatives more viable.
(In extreme situations, rank-choice might also lead to instability, with many competing parties resulting in the ungovernable situation of the German Weimar Republic (1920s/30s). The Germans get around that today by requiring a minimum of 6%, national vote for a party, in order to be represented in parliament.)
Ranked choice voting is a sweet deal for the two big parties. because they are still assured of winning, without having to make any concessions. Third parties would become even more irrelevant. As it stands, at least they have the spoiler threat.(Which does have the serious drawback of hurting the main candidate that's closer. But still, it's some kind of influence.) The much better solution is to simply drop the electoral college. As it stands, only swing state voters matter, and that's a curse on democracy. By making every vote count, the two big parties would have to negotiate for support with the smaller parties. Now that's real influence. Everything else can stay in place. Euro style coalitions, where smaller parties eternally blackmail the larger ones, aren't needed. Just a one off round of promises vs. support. If a big party breaks its promises too casually, it will have trouble the next time around.
I think that your explanation is missing two key components. 1) that voting is positive not purely a product of the median voter rule : it isn't about who can have the most appealing platform it's about who can generate the most support and get the most votes. Many people don't vote and so winning is more a matter of having supporters and getting them to show up than having wide appeal. Preference voting leads most people's second choice which is hardly a mandate to rule effectively. 2) preference voting changes the critical votes. While in the current American system the winner is decided by a combination of party appeal and swaying of undecided voters the latter makes elections decided by those who in the current system have a means of engaging and choosing the winner decide to opt out of the process instead. Meaning that elections are easily decided by those on the edges of the political spectrum and who would otherwise not be apart of the national conversation.
Overall preference voting might sound nice but when looking at it closely it isn't so pretty. Politicians who win are often not everyone's first choice and are elevated because of the elevated power of those out of the main stream. This makes it hard to rule as popularity is more important that appealing to a specific vision for the country. There is a reason Australia has had 6 PM's in the last 10 years and Oakland California previous major Quan had a grinding tenure , it's preference voting that got them there.
Overall preference voting might sound nice but when looking at it closely it isn't so pretty. Politicians who win are often not everyone's first choice and are elevated because of the elevated power of those out of the main stream. This makes it hard to rule as popularity is more important that appealing to a specific vision for the country. There is a reason Australia has had 6 PM's in the last 10 years and Oakland California previous major Quan had a grinding tenure , it's preference voting that got them there.
I can see where this might help 3rd party candidates, but it is not the whole answer to fixing our horrible government. We need to put the private political corporations out of business by strictly regulating campaign financing and the length of time for the campaign itself. The electoral college must be dismantled, term limits put in place, and a formal procedure put in place to dissolve a corrupt or nonfunctioning government. Lastly, a complete overhaul of our laws is in order with the new code of law written in common English.
Ranked voting is good to produce a winner without having to hold another election. The biggest drawback is that this system requires voters educate themselves on all the candidates. Currently, it is a struggle to get them to learn about one. Ranked voting also eliminates straight ticket voting to some extent. The private political corporations depend on this option in many states to put their purchased candidates in office.
The bottom line is that without the other reforms, we will still have bad government.
Ranked voting is good to produce a winner without having to hold another election. The biggest drawback is that this system requires voters educate themselves on all the candidates. Currently, it is a struggle to get them to learn about one. Ranked voting also eliminates straight ticket voting to some extent. The private political corporations depend on this option in many states to put their purchased candidates in office.
The bottom line is that without the other reforms, we will still have bad government.
Yeah! It is clear that far too many voters are casting protest votes, with or without understanding the nature of our winner-take-all presidential election process. Our "simple, choose one" process is, in practice, actually complex. When it seems that many voters wish to express a preference for a more conservative candidate vs. multiple less conservative candidates (or, a more or less liberal candidate vs. ...), the outcome of "choose one" votes promotes a candidate that does not reflect the true preference of the majority of voters. In winner-take-all, "choose one" contests the under dog relishes the entry of a third-party spoiler, to increases the chances that the less popular candidate can win without appealing to a majority of voters. What Howard Dean is proposing would be a great improvement of the way votes are counted in most states' elections, currently.
We have ranked choice voting in Minneapolis and it has been a disaster. Because every voter can be a voter for every candidate, there is no incentive for a candidate to distinguish themselves from other candidates because no one wants to possibly lose a second or third place vote. We have had very pablum campaigns as a result. And collusion among campaigns.
In addition, people who run who think they can stitch enough second and third place votes together to win. In 2013, we had 35 candidates for Mayor. And who wants to have your third or fourth place vote winner as mayor?
The response from the Ranked Choice voting people was that we should be able to rank all of them. But most voters educate themselves on one candidate regardless of the voting method because it takes time and effort to educate yourself. We found many people just voted for one person because of this.
In most othe races, for city council, we had one or two candidates where ranked choice voting made no sense.
Also, voters pay attention before they have to vote. Losing the primary meant losing an opportunity for voters to pay attention, also hampering the public debate.
I think if we had many real, functioning parties, ranked choice voting could be a useful tool. But with two parties at best (and pretty much just one in Minneapolis), it is just confusing to voters. People don't understand how to vote and they very much don't understand how ballots are counted, a problem in a democracy.
In addition, people who run who think they can stitch enough second and third place votes together to win. In 2013, we had 35 candidates for Mayor. And who wants to have your third or fourth place vote winner as mayor?
The response from the Ranked Choice voting people was that we should be able to rank all of them. But most voters educate themselves on one candidate regardless of the voting method because it takes time and effort to educate yourself. We found many people just voted for one person because of this.
In most othe races, for city council, we had one or two candidates where ranked choice voting made no sense.
Also, voters pay attention before they have to vote. Losing the primary meant losing an opportunity for voters to pay attention, also hampering the public debate.
I think if we had many real, functioning parties, ranked choice voting could be a useful tool. But with two parties at best (and pretty much just one in Minneapolis), it is just confusing to voters. People don't understand how to vote and they very much don't understand how ballots are counted, a problem in a democracy.
We have instant runoff voting in Australia for both our Senate and House of Representatives, and it works well. It's still mostly a two party system (a centre-left and a centre-right party), but minor parties like the Greens, One Nation (a far-right party) and high profile independents jointly hold the balance of power in the Senate, allowing them to influence legislation when the major parties don't agree.
From what I can see of US politics, both major parties seem to be further to the right than other western democracies. I'd guess that the main impact of instant runoff voting would be a significant vote for a party to the left of the Democrats in the liberal states (perhaps led by Sanders), which would draw some Democrat policies to the left to compete with them (they'd have to create a coalition to form government).
From what I can see of US politics, both major parties seem to be further to the right than other western democracies. I'd guess that the main impact of instant runoff voting would be a significant vote for a party to the left of the Democrats in the liberal states (perhaps led by Sanders), which would draw some Democrat policies to the left to compete with them (they'd have to create a coalition to form government).
Nothing in the constitution of the United States dictates that there be only two major political parties, yet the two party system is such an ingrained aspect of our political structure that independent and third-party candidates still seem somehow invalid and un-American. The political gridlock our country has experienced in recent years is as a good proof as an any that the system needs to be shaken up, and that our democracy has become systematic and predictable and not truly responsive to its constituents. The Trump phenomenon is as much about non-PC speak-from-the-gut rhetoric as it is about digital media making the old party systems irrelevant.
Let's go for shorter election seasons, more third-party inclusion in debates, encrypted online voting and do away with the Electoral College. That would be real democracy.
Let's go for shorter election seasons, more third-party inclusion in debates, encrypted online voting and do away with the Electoral College. That would be real democracy.
1
If this reform were combined with the abolition of the electoral college, presidential elections would produce winners who more accurately reflected the preferences of the electorate. Those of us who live in red or blue states would finally enjoy the opportunity to see our votes help determine the outcome of the election.
Candidates would have to moderate their message, in order to attract support from as wide a variety of voting blocs as possible. Cities would replace states as centers of political influence, forcing all candidates to pay attention to the needs of metropolitan areas. No longer would lightly-populated rural states exercise political influence disproportionate to the size of their populations.
The consequences outlined above would make our political system more democratic, but in so doing they would also curtail the political influence of currently powerful elites. While the structure of the senate would remain unchanged, political leaders in the South and Mountain West would suffer a loss of power in the selection of presidential nominees.
This threat will continue to thwart efforts to abolish the electoral college. But Dean's proposal has a better chance, and maybe the Trump scare will encourage more people to support it.
Candidates would have to moderate their message, in order to attract support from as wide a variety of voting blocs as possible. Cities would replace states as centers of political influence, forcing all candidates to pay attention to the needs of metropolitan areas. No longer would lightly-populated rural states exercise political influence disproportionate to the size of their populations.
The consequences outlined above would make our political system more democratic, but in so doing they would also curtail the political influence of currently powerful elites. While the structure of the senate would remain unchanged, political leaders in the South and Mountain West would suffer a loss of power in the selection of presidential nominees.
This threat will continue to thwart efforts to abolish the electoral college. But Dean's proposal has a better chance, and maybe the Trump scare will encourage more people to support it.
1
I agree that some sort of multi-vote system would be an improvement on what we have, but I think the "approval voting" system is superior to ranked voting.
Ranked voting is complicated, and requires computers to implement. Based on the description in the op-ed, I wonder how many readers would be able to manually tally up, let's say, a club election where there were 100 voters and 5 candidates. The more you think about it, the more it isn't clear how you proceed. Further, with ranked voting counting cannot even begin until *all* the votes have been cast, No more looking at whose ahead in which districts!
With approval voting the voters cast one vote for any candidate they would be willing to see in office, and whoever gets the most votes wins. Tallying is simple, and all voters will be able to feel they understand what is going on. It's true that all voting systems, including approval voting, have technical flaws where under certain circumstances they produce results that seem intuitively wrong. But I've looked at these voting paradoxes, and the ones associated with approval voting strike me as: 1) unlikely to happen; and 2) not all that bad if they do.
So basically I'm saying go with simplicity! Voters need to feel they understand how the system works -- not just the part where they cast their votes, but also the part where those votes are counted.
Ranked voting is complicated, and requires computers to implement. Based on the description in the op-ed, I wonder how many readers would be able to manually tally up, let's say, a club election where there were 100 voters and 5 candidates. The more you think about it, the more it isn't clear how you proceed. Further, with ranked voting counting cannot even begin until *all* the votes have been cast, No more looking at whose ahead in which districts!
With approval voting the voters cast one vote for any candidate they would be willing to see in office, and whoever gets the most votes wins. Tallying is simple, and all voters will be able to feel they understand what is going on. It's true that all voting systems, including approval voting, have technical flaws where under certain circumstances they produce results that seem intuitively wrong. But I've looked at these voting paradoxes, and the ones associated with approval voting strike me as: 1) unlikely to happen; and 2) not all that bad if they do.
So basically I'm saying go with simplicity! Voters need to feel they understand how the system works -- not just the part where they cast their votes, but also the part where those votes are counted.
2
The fairness of voting systems has been a topic of scientific analysis for rather a long time now. Two conclusions from this thinking are relevant 1) no system of elections can be fair in all possible ways one could define fairness, 2) first-past-the-post as used in the US is found to be less fair than many other systems of voting, in particular with respect to spoiler effect.
Single Transferable Vote or alternatively Ranked Voting are two voting systems that are found to be more fair. Adopting an alternative to the existing practice would therefor be an improvement.
In case there are many candidates on a ballot, ranked voting has a subtle issue with voter privacy and in that light Single Transferable Vote would be a better method.
As mentioned in another comment, the election method is no substitute for a better public discussion on policies, yet it may help to create more space to get there eventually.
Single Transferable Vote or alternatively Ranked Voting are two voting systems that are found to be more fair. Adopting an alternative to the existing practice would therefor be an improvement.
In case there are many candidates on a ballot, ranked voting has a subtle issue with voter privacy and in that light Single Transferable Vote would be a better method.
As mentioned in another comment, the election method is no substitute for a better public discussion on policies, yet it may help to create more space to get there eventually.
The premise that an extra run-off election is more democratic or that it produces better candidates seems highly questionable. Ranked voting seems to be aimed at increasing voter satisfaction with unsatisfactory candidates, a problem that a mere runoff between two of them doesn't solve. In fact, that appears to be a further step in the direction of magnifying the cause of the problem --- political parties' control over the candidate selection process.
Allowing new candidates to enter the race, and --in the interest of both time and true public participation -- removing political parties from the candidate selection process -- appears to be the correction for this defect. I suspect, however, that this would be far more democracy than either political party would want.
Allowing new candidates to enter the race, and --in the interest of both time and true public participation -- removing political parties from the candidate selection process -- appears to be the correction for this defect. I suspect, however, that this would be far more democracy than either political party would want.
All for it. Look at the horrid choice we have for president. Even independents in a representational party have to end up working with one or the other party to get anything done. We should also abolish all rules that prevent those who lose party primaries from running as independents. Tough on the parties. Why should they be protected and we not get to vote for who we want? Connecticut did have that rule (one of the few states) and Joe Lieberman, a relative moderate to his Dem. party, was able to be elected as an independent. We should also abolish party labels next to candidates for judge. They are supposed to be independent. They should also not participate in party organizations while judges which can't help but bias them, even if unconsciously.
The two parties don't just have a stranglehold on our elections, but consequently, on all three branches. This must stop.
The two parties don't just have a stranglehold on our elections, but consequently, on all three branches. This must stop.
I have a lot of respect for Howard Dean. But I disagree with him over ranked choice voting. Here's why.
First, It all but requires computer voting. That undermines local/state preferences for paper ballots, that still exist in many places. Further, it imposes a hidden cost for computer voting on states that adopt it.
Second, it could easily mimic, not resolve, the fault lines in our voting system, e.g. the so-called "spoiler" issue.
Third, and most important, in many states, ranked choice voting is unconstitutional under state constitutions. It would abolish plurality rule, it would effectively allow someone to vote more than once, and it has other flaws.
First, It all but requires computer voting. That undermines local/state preferences for paper ballots, that still exist in many places. Further, it imposes a hidden cost for computer voting on states that adopt it.
Second, it could easily mimic, not resolve, the fault lines in our voting system, e.g. the so-called "spoiler" issue.
Third, and most important, in many states, ranked choice voting is unconstitutional under state constitutions. It would abolish plurality rule, it would effectively allow someone to vote more than once, and it has other flaws.
This could be a good way to start a process that would provide a viable alternative to the current two party system that is suffering from terminal partisan deadlock and paralysis.
However there is a more effective way. Instead of wasting its time and energy on a fruitless quixotic quest for the White House, major third parties such as the Libertarian Party should instead concentrate on getting its people elected to the House and Senate. If, instead of running for President, they had said, to voters, choose whoever you want for president, but to make sure we break the cycle of deadlock, vote for us for Congress, so neither of the major parties would have a majority in Congress, forcing compromise. A Congress in which there are say 7-9 Libertarian Senators, and 40-50 House Representatives would force the President, whoever it may be, and the leaderships of both major parties to abandon their respective extremist wings, and start returning to the middle, prioritizing common sense and problem solving over ideology and dogma. Such a third party could, within a decade, possibly even less, radically impact our dysfunctional political system, bringing it away from the margins and back to the center, where it should be.
However there is a more effective way. Instead of wasting its time and energy on a fruitless quixotic quest for the White House, major third parties such as the Libertarian Party should instead concentrate on getting its people elected to the House and Senate. If, instead of running for President, they had said, to voters, choose whoever you want for president, but to make sure we break the cycle of deadlock, vote for us for Congress, so neither of the major parties would have a majority in Congress, forcing compromise. A Congress in which there are say 7-9 Libertarian Senators, and 40-50 House Representatives would force the President, whoever it may be, and the leaderships of both major parties to abandon their respective extremist wings, and start returning to the middle, prioritizing common sense and problem solving over ideology and dogma. Such a third party could, within a decade, possibly even less, radically impact our dysfunctional political system, bringing it away from the margins and back to the center, where it should be.
14
Finally somebody prominent gets it. I've been calling for ranked-choice voting in the presidential elections since 2008. Thanks, Howard for writing this! The 2-party stranglehold is largely responsible for the disillusionment most voters feel about our system.
I've seen others suggest that voting be mandatory. This is an absolutely ridiculous, Putin-style idea. Democracy means freedom of choice, and the choice to not vote is as important a right as the right to vote. Forcing people to do things is the essence of tyranny. Advocates of mandatory voting might mean well but their just out of touch with reality. The essence of their argument is that they believe their candidate would win if everyone voted, so they want to force their candidate on everyone. Bad idea!
The solution is to provide choices that motivate people to vote of their own volition. Ranked-choice voting would motivate voters and it would also motivate more involvement in the political process by average citizens. It would stimulate ideas for new parties and new party platforms. It would be a beginning to the end of oligarchy in the US.
I've seen others suggest that voting be mandatory. This is an absolutely ridiculous, Putin-style idea. Democracy means freedom of choice, and the choice to not vote is as important a right as the right to vote. Forcing people to do things is the essence of tyranny. Advocates of mandatory voting might mean well but their just out of touch with reality. The essence of their argument is that they believe their candidate would win if everyone voted, so they want to force their candidate on everyone. Bad idea!
The solution is to provide choices that motivate people to vote of their own volition. Ranked-choice voting would motivate voters and it would also motivate more involvement in the political process by average citizens. It would stimulate ideas for new parties and new party platforms. It would be a beginning to the end of oligarchy in the US.
18
Ranked choice voting would certainly be a dramatic improvement of our electoral system. The reason for this is simple: with this ballot system, more information about voter preferences are collected, and these preferences will be more determinative of the outcome.
This is quite generally more fair, but it becomes particularly important in cases when a certain candidate is dispreferred by a majority of the electorate - and ends up winning because the opposition to the candidate was split. In these circumstances, third parties are blamed for "spoiling" an otherwise straightforward decision situation. This will no longer be the case with RCV.
The real question, then, is: why have more than two parties? Because our current parties only integrate new positions through pressure, and competition from third and fourth parties would generate such pressure. And because more parties mean a richer system of representation of voters' views. - Isn't it strange that voters in much smaller countries like the Netherlands or Germany have a choice between six or seven viable parties, and we only have two?
RCV would not fix gerrymandering; you would need independent districting committees to do that, and perhaps also districts represented by more than one candidate (or - in the best of all worlds - proportional representation). But it will increase truth in voting by making outcomes more faithful to the voters' preferences. Without this fidelity, there is no fair representation.
This is quite generally more fair, but it becomes particularly important in cases when a certain candidate is dispreferred by a majority of the electorate - and ends up winning because the opposition to the candidate was split. In these circumstances, third parties are blamed for "spoiling" an otherwise straightforward decision situation. This will no longer be the case with RCV.
The real question, then, is: why have more than two parties? Because our current parties only integrate new positions through pressure, and competition from third and fourth parties would generate such pressure. And because more parties mean a richer system of representation of voters' views. - Isn't it strange that voters in much smaller countries like the Netherlands or Germany have a choice between six or seven viable parties, and we only have two?
RCV would not fix gerrymandering; you would need independent districting committees to do that, and perhaps also districts represented by more than one candidate (or - in the best of all worlds - proportional representation). But it will increase truth in voting by making outcomes more faithful to the voters' preferences. Without this fidelity, there is no fair representation.
Things are always more complicated than they sound: http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html . From the conclusion:
"Instant runoff voting (IRV) allows voters to do more than choose a single, most preferred, candidate. They can supply additional information, indicating their general ranking of all candidates in a race. One important advantage of this is that it makes it possible for voters to vote for a candidate that they think is the best, when that candidate has little or no chance of winning, without increasing the likelihood that a candidate they feel is the worst will win. But IRV has serious drawbacks. Particularly when there are three or more serious contenders, some very strange things can happen, such as the defeat of a candidate who would have won over each of the other candidates in a 2-person race, or a situation where A is deprived of a victory because several voters changed their first-place votes from B to A."
They go over other peculiarities, some of which might have technological solutions. This will not work for a primary where you have numerous candidates such as the Republican primaries this year--it is hard to see how civility could be improved given what we've seen (they are speaking to narrow ideological bases, something that needs to change).
Yet I hope that a few more states try this route--they could be the incubators for future voting changes. This method of change is, to a significant degree, what the Constitution intended.
"Instant runoff voting (IRV) allows voters to do more than choose a single, most preferred, candidate. They can supply additional information, indicating their general ranking of all candidates in a race. One important advantage of this is that it makes it possible for voters to vote for a candidate that they think is the best, when that candidate has little or no chance of winning, without increasing the likelihood that a candidate they feel is the worst will win. But IRV has serious drawbacks. Particularly when there are three or more serious contenders, some very strange things can happen, such as the defeat of a candidate who would have won over each of the other candidates in a 2-person race, or a situation where A is deprived of a victory because several voters changed their first-place votes from B to A."
They go over other peculiarities, some of which might have technological solutions. This will not work for a primary where you have numerous candidates such as the Republican primaries this year--it is hard to see how civility could be improved given what we've seen (they are speaking to narrow ideological bases, something that needs to change).
Yet I hope that a few more states try this route--they could be the incubators for future voting changes. This method of change is, to a significant degree, what the Constitution intended.
This may be wishful thinking, but it seems like Trump's candidacy is pointing out a lot of chickens that are coming home to roost, beliefs that are conservative positions (global warming denial, a pro-rich economic system, birtherism and racial prejudice, the hatred of the LGBT community, misogyny). Once the old beliefs have been exploded once and for all, in a less polarized, increasingly humane and liberalized society, more policy positions will be contained within the two major parties, and the goal of inclusive representation will be in reach. All in all an interesting and thought-provoking essay on ranked-choice voting, though.
The ranked-choice method described by Mr Dean is one of many possible methods of handling an election with more than two candidates. Such methods are generally opposed by the major parties because they increase the chance that a third party candidate will be elected; people who favor a third party candidate will no longer be tempted to vote for a major party candidate by a fear that the third party candidate has no chance to win, and hence their vote is "wasted".
The procedure described by Mr Dean is not the only possible way to use ranked votes to decide an election. Unfortunately, different methods, many of which seem reasonable, in some cases yield different results. In 1951 Kenneth Arrow (who later won a Nobel prize for economics) showed that no voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while simultaneously satisfying four criteria that are necessary for the system to be generally seen as fair and just. There is no perfect voting system.
To say nothing about the separate problem of ignorant or misinformed voters.
The procedure described by Mr Dean is not the only possible way to use ranked votes to decide an election. Unfortunately, different methods, many of which seem reasonable, in some cases yield different results. In 1951 Kenneth Arrow (who later won a Nobel prize for economics) showed that no voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while simultaneously satisfying four criteria that are necessary for the system to be generally seen as fair and just. There is no perfect voting system.
To say nothing about the separate problem of ignorant or misinformed voters.
One needs to "follow the money" in politics and ranked choice will not change this theory. This will not change an institutional structure in a ranked choice system that will seek to establish a cartelized election structure among a minimum number of candidates.
Our system has a chance this election for alternatives, the Libertarian and the Green Parties. The problem has been that institutions, the media and their partisans have a vested interest in supporting the current "two-party" system.
This can be changed in short order if the electorate, which is faced with a choice of Clinton and Trump, who are seriously flawed, find the Libertarian Party, in particular, represented by former Governors Johnson and Weld as attractive alternatives. Their support of being liberal socially and economically conservative resonates among the mainstream of the American electorate.
The institutions, money providers and in particular the media have an opportunity and obligation to provide America with a choice, but have been scared to actively include in the discussion Johnson/Stein. While these institutions really don't trust the American electorate to make a rational choice by including them, they are really concerned about losing control of the monetary benefit. The Media and the ingrained institutions (the Democratic and Republican Parties and their surrogates) have failed America!
Our system has a chance this election for alternatives, the Libertarian and the Green Parties. The problem has been that institutions, the media and their partisans have a vested interest in supporting the current "two-party" system.
This can be changed in short order if the electorate, which is faced with a choice of Clinton and Trump, who are seriously flawed, find the Libertarian Party, in particular, represented by former Governors Johnson and Weld as attractive alternatives. Their support of being liberal socially and economically conservative resonates among the mainstream of the American electorate.
The institutions, money providers and in particular the media have an opportunity and obligation to provide America with a choice, but have been scared to actively include in the discussion Johnson/Stein. While these institutions really don't trust the American electorate to make a rational choice by including them, they are really concerned about losing control of the monetary benefit. The Media and the ingrained institutions (the Democratic and Republican Parties and their surrogates) have failed America!
Open primaries with a run off general election accomplishes the same goals. Instead of a primary where the fringe can run rough shod over the majority by manipulation of the state primaries the run off selection process produces a pair of candidates who have the most appeal as evidenced by the tally of votes they received on the national scale. Early voting states would not have more sway then late voting states as each vote only counts once and its the grand total that determines who advances. A candidate may adjust his/her presentation to attract a particular states demographics but must keep in mind the attractiveness of that approach at the national level. By not requiring a predetermined preference for one candidate from each party campaigns will become organized to build voter support rather then the current list of shenanigans orchestrated to suppress it. The general election becomes a runoff between the two candidates who receive the most votes in the primaries.
I have long held the belief that the party system was necessary to provide structure to our representation and avoid chaos but recent evidence demonstrates that the 2 party system has been corrupted by its own desires for power. It no longer serves its intended function. An election cycle like the one we are currently experiencing is a wake up call that change is being demanded by the voters. Either provide that change or get run over by it.
I have long held the belief that the party system was necessary to provide structure to our representation and avoid chaos but recent evidence demonstrates that the 2 party system has been corrupted by its own desires for power. It no longer serves its intended function. An election cycle like the one we are currently experiencing is a wake up call that change is being demanded by the voters. Either provide that change or get run over by it.
9
We need to vote directly on the laws under which we live. We need to vote directly for the President, and we need to elect the Federal Judges. All of the Government must be directly answerable to the people. Money will not be able to buy our representatives because we won't have any legislative representatives. Political equality follows from each person having the same power over their own life and over the life of the country. Freedom follows along. The 1% buys our representatives every election and after every election. We debate over social media. We vote electronically over television shows: The Voice, American Idol, etc. We can and should debate our laws and debate over our executive officers and federal judges and then vote for them. The will of the people should be the Government. We don't need represented. We are wise enough to govern ourselves. Our Representatives rule us. Rousseau called Representatives the elected Aristocracy. There will be no small group to be corrupted by fame,power, money, and ego. We will make mistakes and then correct them, like Prohibition. Actual Democracy is the only way for a people to be free and equal. The Founding Fathers knew this but chose to have an elite group of professional politicians govern us because they concluded man was Not Wise enough to govern himself. All but Jefferson. Jefferson's reply was, If man is not wise enough to govern himself, he sould govern others? See assocactualdemocracy.com.
1
Ranked-choice voting can increase voter turnout. And that would make our elections more representative simply by virtue of greater participation.
Besides eliminating the stranglehold the two major parties have on our system, it would also eliminate accusations that those voting for a third-party candidate are responsible for someone like Trump being elected.
Besides eliminating the stranglehold the two major parties have on our system, it would also eliminate accusations that those voting for a third-party candidate are responsible for someone like Trump being elected.
115
Im Australian. your country needs to urgently study our electoral system. Our federal system was created and put in place in 1901 as a combination of the US and UK system of government. We have:
1 compulsory registration to vote at age 19. If you don't register the punishment is a paltry fine ($50 )
2 compulsory attendance on election days - except for local government elections. Some americans claim thats 'anti freedom". It is not. you have to attend but you don't have to complete your ballot unless you want to. Most people, once there, do.
3 an independent electoral commission that sets electoral boundaries with a "one vote one value" principle uppermost. Gerrymandering is almost non existent in Australia. Where it occurs it is minor and accidental due to population shifts between the boundary review periods.
4 preference votes in our lower house, proportional representation in our senate and state upper houses. that produces a nice spread of views. the minor parties in the senate are a good, if sometimes inconvenient, check on the powers of the 2 major parties.
Our system works well. there is no voting fraud or any other problems with it. We don't have a bill of rights, sure, but we have found that we can all be trusted without one.
Lastly, we are going to have a problem with China. And soon. the USA is disgracing democracy as a system of government. Thats a problem that you people are making worse by the day. You people need to fix it. Now.
1 compulsory registration to vote at age 19. If you don't register the punishment is a paltry fine ($50 )
2 compulsory attendance on election days - except for local government elections. Some americans claim thats 'anti freedom". It is not. you have to attend but you don't have to complete your ballot unless you want to. Most people, once there, do.
3 an independent electoral commission that sets electoral boundaries with a "one vote one value" principle uppermost. Gerrymandering is almost non existent in Australia. Where it occurs it is minor and accidental due to population shifts between the boundary review periods.
4 preference votes in our lower house, proportional representation in our senate and state upper houses. that produces a nice spread of views. the minor parties in the senate are a good, if sometimes inconvenient, check on the powers of the 2 major parties.
Our system works well. there is no voting fraud or any other problems with it. We don't have a bill of rights, sure, but we have found that we can all be trusted without one.
Lastly, we are going to have a problem with China. And soon. the USA is disgracing democracy as a system of government. Thats a problem that you people are making worse by the day. You people need to fix it. Now.
225
Australia's system basically can't be implemented here. Our Constitution leaves the administration of all elections to the individual states. Most states are controlled by a single political party. They will never do anything to endanger their grip on power for the common good.
And the only way to change this? With the two-thirds majority assent of those very same state governments, of course!
God only knows why we worship these founders of ours for their brilliance and foresight. They seem terribly naïve to me.
And the only way to change this? With the two-thirds majority assent of those very same state governments, of course!
God only knows why we worship these founders of ours for their brilliance and foresight. They seem terribly naïve to me.
Sorry, that should be registration to vote at age 18. Typo...
Even better would be Approval Voting. The voter simply votes for, or approves, as many or as few candidates as he/she wishes. Each choice a voter makes counts as one vote for that candidate. The candidate with the most votes is declared the winner. No ranking, no instant-runoffs.
Steven Brams, professor of politcs at NYU and an expert in voting systems, has demonstrated that Approval Voting is a much simpler, easier to understand, and more democratic system Instant Runoff Voting, which involves numerous rounds of vote transfers. See https://electology.org/approval-voting.
Steven Brams, professor of politcs at NYU and an expert in voting systems, has demonstrated that Approval Voting is a much simpler, easier to understand, and more democratic system Instant Runoff Voting, which involves numerous rounds of vote transfers. See https://electology.org/approval-voting.
12
At first glance this is a very appealing idea and I am surprised that I have never heard of it before today. Thank you NYT and Mr. Dean
5
We have ranked-choice voting in California and it is the best.
5
Thank-you Governor & Doctor Howard Dean for writing this article on Ranked Choice Voting. I, too, hope that the people of Maine will vote "Yea" on Question 5.
We need to make this advanced, nuanced voting standard in all are public elections.
We need to make this advanced, nuanced voting standard in all are public elections.
4
Howard Dean the progressive. Howard Dean the liberal.
You really have no credibility left, after the way you treated you fellow Vermonter Bernie Sanders.
No credibility left with liberals and progressives. Got it?
You really have no credibility left, after the way you treated you fellow Vermonter Bernie Sanders.
No credibility left with liberals and progressives. Got it?
13
I have been hoping for common cause to change our election system for years and it hasn't happened. This is a simple solution that would make it easier to allow other voices into the arena.
1
A well-meaning article, but Ranked Choice Voting won't help third parties and independents. Approval Voting, however, will. Just Google it.
6
Love the idea of Approval Voting, but try selling it to the public. Few will understand it. I teach math. Trust me. Nobody will get it.
2
Finally some thoughts on an alternative system. Now how about some genuine campaign finance reform.
24
Sounds enticing to this progressive. Sounds like real news too. Would the NYT please report on Maine's progress with Question Five?
13
Ranked choice voting is also supported by and been proven by mathematicians to be a better option than the current system.
26
The idea that third party votes catastrophically turn presidential elections is wrong-headed. A minority pool of third party voting is simply part of the reality of an exclusive two-party system that systemically disenfranchises some, while advertising to many the corruption of a system in which there are only two available choices. There is no way that a huge organization like the Democratic party, for example, is going to unify everyone left of Richard Nixon in a presidential race (especially now that the Democratic mainstream is farther right than ever). If you want to exclude third parties, you have to accept the fact that voters not accommodated by your own party will not vote. I'm sure that campaigns take this into account, despite the public shaming of people who refuse to fall in line even when the deck is clearly stacked. Disenfranchising third parties is not automatically some kind of alchemy that turns third party votes into Democratic votes. That takes a lot of propaganda. If our two-party system doesn't collapse this time in a Trump presidency, we're going to see more trouble the next time around. This is not working. I don't know much about ranked choice, but it sounds like an interesting alternative.
13
"Ranked choice" is an extremely dumb idea. It's unnecessarily complicated, bound to confuse voters, and unwieldy to implicate, and it's not even new: We've been hearing it mindlessly touted since at least 2000. Let's be clear: it's unnecessarily complicated INTENTIONALLY. Its proponents reflexively reject the more obvious, much more logical and practical alternative (an alternative I'll explain in a moment) because they think that a supporting a labyrinthine, Rube-Goldberg-like proposal makes them appear more impressive and sophisticated.
The much more obvious, logical, and practical alternative is simply a National non-party Primary held across the country on the same day. The two candidates with the highest votes will compete on election day, and the winner of that election-day contest will become president. The two candidates can be from different parties or the same party. The political parties can continue, if they choose, to hold party primaries in addition to the National Primary. This is the system we use in Madison, Wisconsin to elect a mayor and essentially the system France uses to elect a president. It's time-tested and very effective. (France, by the way, is the largest country in Europe excluding Russia--which extends far into Asia--and the Ukraine--which until recently was with Russia part of the USSR.)
The much more obvious, logical, and practical alternative is simply a National non-party Primary held across the country on the same day. The two candidates with the highest votes will compete on election day, and the winner of that election-day contest will become president. The two candidates can be from different parties or the same party. The political parties can continue, if they choose, to hold party primaries in addition to the National Primary. This is the system we use in Madison, Wisconsin to elect a mayor and essentially the system France uses to elect a president. It's time-tested and very effective. (France, by the way, is the largest country in Europe excluding Russia--which extends far into Asia--and the Ukraine--which until recently was with Russia part of the USSR.)
33
I have voted all my life under the preference voting system in Australia. Are you saying that Americans are somehow dumber than Australians and wont be able to understand it?
Clinton/Gore would have lost in 1992, so Gore would have not been running for President in 2000.
5
Great to see Howard Dean on board with this idea. It would transform American politics.
19
Thank you Mr Dean for pointing out one of the fundamental weaknesses of the American polical experiment,; the two party system. It locks in mediocrity and makes reform of the system nearly impossible
8
Howard, ranked-choice has serious issues. Range voting is far better. Please read www.votingninja.com
3
If you can't sell it in 1 or 2 sentences, how are you going to sell it to any of corrupt insider politicians in whatever legislature you intend to convince? Great idea. Never going to happen.
1
Oregon tried to get 'ranked choice'. The Dems (who control) and the Repubs (who are under the influence of tea party leaning folks) saw it as the threat it is to their power. They both were ferocious in opposition. It did not have a chance. How to make it happen?
16
As a Maine resident, the ballot question of ranked choice will be something I will be voting against when I go the the polls in November.
Because, why should anyone with a moral compass think it is acceptable to give a portion of his or her "ranked" vote to candidates such as the likes of Donald Trump.
Because, why should anyone with a moral compass think it is acceptable to give a portion of his or her "ranked" vote to candidates such as the likes of Donald Trump.
3
My understanding is that you don't have to rank every candidate on the ballot. For example, in 2010, I could've voted for Eliot Cutler (1); Libby Mitchell (2); and Shawn Moody (3); and skipped LePage altogether. If we had RCV then, I think Cutler would have been elected.
You do not HAVE to vote for a second alternative. If a candidate gets >50% on the first go around they simply win. If all candidates get than 50%, then second choices come into play. Let's say Gary Johnson is in last place. If people put Hillary as their second choice then his votes would go to her. The process would continue until someone achieves >50%. You NEVER have to vote for someone you you don't want.
You misunderstand rank order choice voting.
There is no requirement that you rank ALL candidates. You can rank only the candidates you wish. There would be no need to give any portion of your vote to a candidate you don't support at all.
There is no requirement that you rank ALL candidates. You can rank only the candidates you wish. There would be no need to give any portion of your vote to a candidate you don't support at all.
I support the wisdom the founders established with a two party system. We need to elect better choices from the Democrats and Republicans. More parties not what we need.
4
The founders didn't envision the two party system. The two party system evolved over time. As an example, at the time of our infancy, the Vice Presidency was simply the person who came in second in the general election. During the election season that yielded Lincoln's presidency, there were several parties competing for victory. While it is true that in most instances two parties dominated, the two party system was never formalized by the federal government or written into law.
2
The founders did not support a two party system. In fact, they were opposed to parties altogether and looked at the formation of "factions" as a sign that democracy was failing.
It appears that the founders were wrong. All democracies tend to form political parties. How they are structured varies from country to country.
It is only in today's world with widespread and instantaneous communications, fragmented into self-reinforcing but isolated communication spheres, that parties are genuinely threatened. Parties may be becoming less relevant as candidates can marshal many individuals via "social media".
It appears that the founders were wrong. All democracies tend to form political parties. How they are structured varies from country to country.
It is only in today's world with widespread and instantaneous communications, fragmented into self-reinforcing but isolated communication spheres, that parties are genuinely threatened. Parties may be becoming less relevant as candidates can marshal many individuals via "social media".
2
The founders did everything they could to keep political parties from forming. There is nothing in the constitution that mentions political parties. The Democratic party formed in 1828--52 years after our nation was born and more than 40 years after the Constitution was ratified. The Republican party came even later in 1856.
3
Hey Howard, didn't Maine elect Paul LePage using this very method? Boy, that worked out well.
21
We do not have ranked choice voting at present. If this referendum passes, we will use ranked choice voting to elect our governor in 2018. Paul LePage is the reason this referendum is on the ballot this year. In 2010, he won the election with 38% of the vote; independent candidate Eliot Cutler had 37%. If we had ranked choice at that time, Cutler would have been elected governor. We learned our lesson the hard way.
No. Rank choice voting was not in place for that election. He won in in a three way race in which no one achieved a majority. If rank choice voting had been in place, he certainly would have lost.
No "system" overcomes stupidity. That's why I suggest we actually deal with policy as well as process. Might be a good idea to have experts outline some realities for us rather than politicians and Fox.
I don't think that more political parties will help. That will simply encourage more one-issue groups, with each becoming its own gold standard of non compromising fanaticism.
I would like to see a more parliamentary system for choosing the President. This would create a more united party system and thus fight gridlock by guaranteeing a majority in power. I don't see much use in a separate House and Senate, another inefficient way to encourage gridlock.
I would like to see a more parliamentary system for choosing the President. This would create a more united party system and thus fight gridlock by guaranteeing a majority in power. I don't see much use in a separate House and Senate, another inefficient way to encourage gridlock.
7
I am totally in favor. I wonder how this would affect the polarization and the extremism that gerrymandered "safe seats" create?
We still (also) need to pass common sense, non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state, like California, among about a dozen states, has done. I know it helped a lot to put earnest, sensible, cooperative people into the state house.
Also, let's have all mail-in voting in every state. Cheaper, safer, fraud free, and impossible to discriminate and suppress the vote.
We still (also) need to pass common sense, non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state, like California, among about a dozen states, has done. I know it helped a lot to put earnest, sensible, cooperative people into the state house.
Also, let's have all mail-in voting in every state. Cheaper, safer, fraud free, and impossible to discriminate and suppress the vote.
76
If you are using ranked choice voting, please explain why you have primaries?
It's hard to see how the Republican primary would have had a better outcome if the state primaries had used ranked choice system. The unknowns who only drew a couple of percent of the votes would have been immediately eliminated and we'd have ultimately wound up with an establishment Republican, and the grass roots Republicans are disgusted with the status quo.
It does seem as though ranked choice voting would just double down on the incumbent advantage that results in 80% of incumbents being re-elected, irrespective of their incompetence.
It's hard to see how the Republican primary would have had a better outcome if the state primaries had used ranked choice system. The unknowns who only drew a couple of percent of the votes would have been immediately eliminated and we'd have ultimately wound up with an establishment Republican, and the grass roots Republicans are disgusted with the status quo.
It does seem as though ranked choice voting would just double down on the incumbent advantage that results in 80% of incumbents being re-elected, irrespective of their incompetence.
10
I don't think that you understand the purpose of political parties.
A party is merely a group of like-minded voters who vote among themselves to endorse a candidate whom they believe represents the values that they share. The parties are NOT affiliated with nor chosen by any level of our government. That's why ANBODY can run as an independent, i.e. they choose to run without seeking the endorsement of any party. And we do have more than just the two "major" parties, e.g. the Libertarians, the Greens, etc.
Of course, when a person runs as an independent (or backed by a small "third" party), they don't have access to the money, name-recognition, and existing infrastructure that a party provides its nominee. This insurmountable pressure is what keeps our two major parties in power. But there's no statute that states that we must have only two major parties.
Each party is free to choose its own method for selecting its candidates; the Dems and Reps currently use different systems to apportion their delegates at their conventions. A party is free to choose to run its own nomination process in the way that Mr. Dean describes it; they simply have chosen not to do it that way.
And each state can select its own method of voting for offices at any level within their own state; that's what Mr. Dean is suggesting.
There are many studies by mathemeticians that describe the flaws of our current voting system. Look up Voting Theory on Wikipedia to see the pros/cons of various methods.
A party is merely a group of like-minded voters who vote among themselves to endorse a candidate whom they believe represents the values that they share. The parties are NOT affiliated with nor chosen by any level of our government. That's why ANBODY can run as an independent, i.e. they choose to run without seeking the endorsement of any party. And we do have more than just the two "major" parties, e.g. the Libertarians, the Greens, etc.
Of course, when a person runs as an independent (or backed by a small "third" party), they don't have access to the money, name-recognition, and existing infrastructure that a party provides its nominee. This insurmountable pressure is what keeps our two major parties in power. But there's no statute that states that we must have only two major parties.
Each party is free to choose its own method for selecting its candidates; the Dems and Reps currently use different systems to apportion their delegates at their conventions. A party is free to choose to run its own nomination process in the way that Mr. Dean describes it; they simply have chosen not to do it that way.
And each state can select its own method of voting for offices at any level within their own state; that's what Mr. Dean is suggesting.
There are many studies by mathemeticians that describe the flaws of our current voting system. Look up Voting Theory on Wikipedia to see the pros/cons of various methods.
I’d accept that Mr. Dean’s solution might affect elections at the margins when sentiment for two candidates is very evenly split, but I’d question how many are so close. We see renewed interest in such ideas today because both presidential candidates are so broadly disliked. Yet how often does that happen? How many times have a president and vice-president been chosen by Congress? (Answer: twice. 1824, Jackson/Adams/Crawford/Clay, and 1800, Jefferson/Adams/Burr/Pinkney.)
Some might suggest that 1960 (Nixon/JFK) came close, but Nixon chose not to destroy the nation by pointing out that JFK won by the skin of his teeth by voting the graveyards in TX and electoral shenanigans in Chicago that affected IL’s vote. Some might also suggest that 2000 (Bush/Gore) came close as well, but that election really hung on a legal question which was decided in Bush’s favor. And in 2000, complicating the selection in FL by a ranked-choice system would have made the chad problem trivial by comparison among the senior communities that contributed to the controversy.
I suspect that Mr. Dean has come up with this brainstorm because at national, state and local elections, Democrats are being handed their heads; and if you can’t make better arguments to cadge votes, then mix-up the system. Who knows? Could work.
Some might suggest that 1960 (Nixon/JFK) came close, but Nixon chose not to destroy the nation by pointing out that JFK won by the skin of his teeth by voting the graveyards in TX and electoral shenanigans in Chicago that affected IL’s vote. Some might also suggest that 2000 (Bush/Gore) came close as well, but that election really hung on a legal question which was decided in Bush’s favor. And in 2000, complicating the selection in FL by a ranked-choice system would have made the chad problem trivial by comparison among the senior communities that contributed to the controversy.
I suspect that Mr. Dean has come up with this brainstorm because at national, state and local elections, Democrats are being handed their heads; and if you can’t make better arguments to cadge votes, then mix-up the system. Who knows? Could work.
5
I think you miss the point. It is about garnering a majority, not changing the outcome of a 50.1 to 49.9 election. A better example than JFK or Bush II, would be Clinton in 1992. He clearly had the most votes, but did not achieve a majority. In ranked voting the second choices among Perot voters would have been tallied. If they got President Bush to 50% he would have retained the presidency.
Well only if the 50% also secured him an Electoral College majority. Maybe Howard Dean wants to tackle the very undemocratic nature of Federalism in his next op-ed?
Well only if the 50% also secured him an Electoral College majority. Maybe Howard Dean wants to tackle the very undemocratic nature of Federalism in his next op-ed?
1
I am sick and tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of evils . I would like to be able to vote my conscience , to vote for the person that best represented my beliefs .
But I don't want to do that if it gives an an advantage to the worst of the lot . Ranked choice voting would break the lock of the lookalike two party system . It would provide new opportunities for good people to get in the race .
But I don't want to do that if it gives an an advantage to the worst of the lot . Ranked choice voting would break the lock of the lookalike two party system . It would provide new opportunities for good people to get in the race .
2
Your self-love is an even match for Trump's, Richard.
Through ranked-choice voting, Oakland ended up with Jean Quan.
There's much in our politics that needs repairing, like GOP gerrymandering. The cash that sloshes through it is appalling.
Ranked choice voting is a bad answer. Better candidates is a good one.
There's much in our politics that needs repairing, like GOP gerrymandering. The cash that sloshes through it is appalling.
Ranked choice voting is a bad answer. Better candidates is a good one.
17
Oakland doesn't have a True ranked-choice!
If it did then voters would rank every candidate regardless of how many there are.
Oakland has a weird way of giving everyone 3 votes to use and therefore is a weird gaming system. It needs to be fixed.
If it did then voters would rank every candidate regardless of how many there are.
Oakland has a weird way of giving everyone 3 votes to use and therefore is a weird gaming system. It needs to be fixed.
1
Approval or "applause-meter" voting is simpler: it involves making an up-or-down choice on EACH candidate, and the winner is the one with the highest "up" count. The main advantage is that it eliminates the Ralph Nader spoiler effect, since e.g. in 2000 you could have voted "up" on BOTH Al Gore and Ralph Nader, without one taking votes away from the other.
7
Maine gave the world Paul LePage. With all due respect, the state has lost its right to lead the nation in anything, any longer, until he is removed from office.
46
Paul LePage is the major inspiration for the push in Maine toward ranked-choice. In each of his elections, the Democratic vote was split by an "independent" who insisted on running as a spoiler (like Nader but more popular). Ranked-choice eliminates the pernicious effect of such candidates because their votes will just end up being transferred.
Maine has every right to "lead the nation" on this issue because it is actually doing something about it.
Maine has every right to "lead the nation" on this issue because it is actually doing something about it.
1
Ah, but an examination of LePage's two elections shows that in both of them there was a spoiler candidate that got just enough votes to throw the election to LePage. In the first, it was the Democratic candidate; in the second, it was the independent. Either time, it's pretty clear that all of the non-LePage voters (who constituted a majority between them) would have been happier with either of the other two candidates than with LePage. Ranked voting would have given them one of them.
Don't disrespect a majority of Mainers based on the choice of an electoral minority and flawed electoral system.
Don't disrespect a majority of Mainers based on the choice of an electoral minority and flawed electoral system.
Paul LePage was elected with 38.1% of the vote in a 5-way race and re-elected with 48.2% in a 3-way race. I can think of no better argument for why ranked-choice voting is a superior alternative to first-past-the-post.
1
From Howard Dean:
Flash. Another bonkers idea (surprise)!
Yeah, this works great in countries with parliamentary democracies because they can remove the leadership on a single vote of no confidence. Even then, ranked choice voting would have given Hitler the chancellorship fair and square without any help from coalition parties. Out of the chaos of 1933 grew a very strong German national government, but not one Americans would embrace.
Flash. Another bonkers idea (surprise)!
Yeah, this works great in countries with parliamentary democracies because they can remove the leadership on a single vote of no confidence. Even then, ranked choice voting would have given Hitler the chancellorship fair and square without any help from coalition parties. Out of the chaos of 1933 grew a very strong German national government, but not one Americans would embrace.
5
Dear Mr. Dean,
Ranked Choice voting makes too much sense for the US to accept. This is a country where we celebrate stupidity when it comes to politics and governing.
Ranked Choice voting makes too much sense for the US to accept. This is a country where we celebrate stupidity when it comes to politics and governing.
155
As a former Australian now in the USA, I miss this system so much. It's just the right way to do things.
30
Sounds like a win-win-win.
6
We need to consider this and other ideas to open up our democracy, remove the stranglehold of partisanship imposed by a two party system and, in the end, to have better candidates and better leaders at all levels. Our democracy demands change to survive, but not the kind, voter suppression, being eagerly employed by the far right.
It is critical to remember that Trump eliminated most of his opponents for the nomination not be getting a majority of vote, but by playing the Republican system of awarding all of the delegates in most states to the candidate with a plurality. He got 30 to 40% of the votes in the early primaries until the others dropped out, leaving the impression that he was "the people's choice" and giving voters in the latter primaries some confidence to vote for him because he appeared to be endorsed. (Democrats generally award their delegate in proportion to the popular vote, giving weaker candidates at least a fighting chance.)
The whole presidential nomination process needs deep review. Perhaps the goal should be to nominate three candidates and let the delegates, semi-pros of their parties, decide. We should have a strong third party, too, but the Electoral College system acts as a roadblock, as does the automatic ballot access given to the two major parties.
We need MORE CHOICE, now and in the future. A movement for change is gradually being born and Trump's incessant insults to decency and fundamental values is helping.
http://morechoice2016.com
It is critical to remember that Trump eliminated most of his opponents for the nomination not be getting a majority of vote, but by playing the Republican system of awarding all of the delegates in most states to the candidate with a plurality. He got 30 to 40% of the votes in the early primaries until the others dropped out, leaving the impression that he was "the people's choice" and giving voters in the latter primaries some confidence to vote for him because he appeared to be endorsed. (Democrats generally award their delegate in proportion to the popular vote, giving weaker candidates at least a fighting chance.)
The whole presidential nomination process needs deep review. Perhaps the goal should be to nominate three candidates and let the delegates, semi-pros of their parties, decide. We should have a strong third party, too, but the Electoral College system acts as a roadblock, as does the automatic ballot access given to the two major parties.
We need MORE CHOICE, now and in the future. A movement for change is gradually being born and Trump's incessant insults to decency and fundamental values is helping.
http://morechoice2016.com
40
Here we go again; a smart guy who should know better, runs off at the mouth advocating multiple political parties. The fault lies not in the fact that we have "only" two parties, but in the pandering of candidates who want to be everything to everyone. That's way above their pay grade. The Two parties need to redirect their energies to simplify their message in order to be attractive to voters. Multiple parties hearken back to France of the late forties, fifties and sixties, when they had a new president every six or seven days. The formation of multiple parties requires a governmental change from a representative republic to a Parliamentary system.
Our Republic is a really fragile form of government, and we tinker with its workings at great peril.
Our Republic is a really fragile form of government, and we tinker with its workings at great peril.
4
'Parliamentary System' is as much about, if not more so, a 'vote of confidence' (and potential high turnover of government) than about multiple parties. Seems to me you can have the later without the former.
Fragile? Indeed it is. In fact, it's broken already.
2
Here we go again, a guy to thinks that the phrase "here we go again" is an argument rather than a cliche.
1
There needs to be a Healthcare Commissioner in every state who heads the effort to get "bottom up" input about how to encourage "bottom up" control of our healthcare systems. This person should have the highest rank in each state and this person should be elected in this manner with debates held between the top five non-partisan candidates who are not allowed to get donations over 50 dollars a person in campaign contributions. This would make this position more responsive to the people and result in more rational planning of healthcare delliery from the county to the state level. Than just maybe we will have a healthcare system that is responsive to the needs of the people.
7
The party split in the US is between people who want government they can consent to and people who want no government at all.
Though it's 40 years late, I couldn't agree more.
9
Proportional representation is a great idea - works in Sweden and allows one to vote for who a citizen would like to win as well as representation from a range of views post-election. A novel idea? If there were any time to bring this to a reality, it is now.
How can one ethically vote for Clinton with her ties to Wall Street and big money or Trump and his ties to big money and sexist comments? I am guaranteed no voice no matter who wins. Both are horrible choices if you are anything but in the 1%. Time to go back to our European roots and emulate them again, as well as Maine!
How can one ethically vote for Clinton with her ties to Wall Street and big money or Trump and his ties to big money and sexist comments? I am guaranteed no voice no matter who wins. Both are horrible choices if you are anything but in the 1%. Time to go back to our European roots and emulate them again, as well as Maine!
14
How can "ties to money" disqualify a candidate who need to oversee a growing economy?
Trump is a blowhard buffoon.
Clinton has sold progressive qualifications.
Sanders lack of economic understanding was his fatal flaw for me. I'm an optimistic person, but Brexit shows that an imaginary cake cannot be eaten.
Trump is a blowhard buffoon.
Clinton has sold progressive qualifications.
Sanders lack of economic understanding was his fatal flaw for me. I'm an optimistic person, but Brexit shows that an imaginary cake cannot be eaten.
Thank you, Howard Dean, for taking this stand in support of a critical electoral reform, one that will give us outcomes more in keeping with the spirit of democracy and meritocracy.
I recall your advocacy of "instant runoff voting" back in 2000 during a debate between you and Ralph Nader--who certainly should have been an advocate for it, yet apparently didn't want to forsake the modicum of leverage conferred on third parties by the spoiler effect.
The millions of Americans who were rooting for Bernie Sanders should consider that if ranked-choice voting were already in place, he could have simply run as an Independent without fear of splitting the progressive vote (thus making victory more attainable to Trump). It was this same concern that kept Michael Bloomberg out of the race. It can't be denied that our current, outdated voting method suppresses competition.
Let's hope that RCV will soon cease to be a taboo subject for the two-party establishment!
I recall your advocacy of "instant runoff voting" back in 2000 during a debate between you and Ralph Nader--who certainly should have been an advocate for it, yet apparently didn't want to forsake the modicum of leverage conferred on third parties by the spoiler effect.
The millions of Americans who were rooting for Bernie Sanders should consider that if ranked-choice voting were already in place, he could have simply run as an Independent without fear of splitting the progressive vote (thus making victory more attainable to Trump). It was this same concern that kept Michael Bloomberg out of the race. It can't be denied that our current, outdated voting method suppresses competition.
Let's hope that RCV will soon cease to be a taboo subject for the two-party establishment!
71
Worth repeating:
'Thank you, Howard Dean, for taking this stand in support of a critical electoral reform, one that will give us outcomes more in keeping with the spirit of democracy and meritocracy.'
'Thank you, Howard Dean, for taking this stand in support of a critical electoral reform, one that will give us outcomes more in keeping with the spirit of democracy and meritocracy.'
Ranked choice? We call it the transferrable vote. I'm happy that some in America are moving that way, but frankly I've been worried that many Americans wouldn't be able to handle it. Still, those who understand the trifecta at OTB would have no bother.
However, is it not more important to have real discussions on real policies? There are thoughtful analyses out there that go a long way past nonsense slogans like "war on coal" and "bring back our jobs." Who will talk to voters about the shortage of qualified workers for pre-existing jobs? About the connection of economic growth with population growth, especially with the growth of the work-force? Our politicians seem totally averse to forward thinking or to anything but shallow thinking about the changing world. Ranked-choice voting based on nonsense slogans may not be very transformative.
However, is it not more important to have real discussions on real policies? There are thoughtful analyses out there that go a long way past nonsense slogans like "war on coal" and "bring back our jobs." Who will talk to voters about the shortage of qualified workers for pre-existing jobs? About the connection of economic growth with population growth, especially with the growth of the work-force? Our politicians seem totally averse to forward thinking or to anything but shallow thinking about the changing world. Ranked-choice voting based on nonsense slogans may not be very transformative.
9
Ranked Choice voting is such an obvious way to get the most favored people elected into office that the Democratic and Republican Parties and particularly their most extreme members are frightened by it. Candidates on the far left and far right will instantly have strong competition from 3rd parties and force the two major parties to become more like most Americans. Maybe one good article a month for the next 20 years, or the election of Donald Trump will get this up for discussion in legislatures.
20
I am glad that Dr. Dean is interested in expanding voter's choices. But voters ranking candidates may make errors that will negate their ballots. Ranked Choice Voting can also be manipulated, as experienced in Oakland, CA. It requires counting and recounting ballots.
Approval Voting avoids all these problems and still allows voters to express aproval of multiple candidates. It is illustrated on the cover page of The Fair Elections Fund--a Whole New Ball Game, at www.thefairelectionsfund.com. Publicly funded campaigns would also expand voter's choices, free candidates from fundraising and fealty to secret funders. Is the representation you want worth $7.00 a year to you?
Approval Voting avoids all these problems and still allows voters to express aproval of multiple candidates. It is illustrated on the cover page of The Fair Elections Fund--a Whole New Ball Game, at www.thefairelectionsfund.com. Publicly funded campaigns would also expand voter's choices, free candidates from fundraising and fealty to secret funders. Is the representation you want worth $7.00 a year to you?
33
I agree whole-heartedly. If anything, Dean underemphasizes how such a system would have changed past national elections. George Bush (senior) likely would have won a second term. Al Gore almost certainly would have won Florida. It is easy to give examples that voters on both ends of the political spectrum can sympathize with because the examples always end with the most consensually preferred candidate at the time winning.
This is precisely the system which can free many of us from the sense that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. The more positive campaigning this would promote is frankly important to our government at this point given how little trust citizens currently have for our political institutions.
This is precisely the system which can free many of us from the sense that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. The more positive campaigning this would promote is frankly important to our government at this point given how little trust citizens currently have for our political institutions.
160
An excellent idea. I would add something more - make voting mandatory. Start with ensuring that all eligible voters are registered. You could do this by having registering for the draft be equivalent to registering to vote (since women now have to register). Any registered voter who chooses not to vote would then have a penalty (maybe $100?) assessed against them. That money could go to government funding of elections. Put it all together and you start closing in on a true representative government.
122
Mandatory voting works! Australia has 90% voter participation.
Registration and voting need to be much easier. But it will be nearly impossible to achieve due to Republican voter suppression laws. Republicans only want conservative whites to vote. They know that's the only way they can stay in power.
Registration and voting need to be much easier. But it will be nearly impossible to achieve due to Republican voter suppression laws. Republicans only want conservative whites to vote. They know that's the only way they can stay in power.
The US Constitution grants you freedom of association, how do you mandate association with a political party?
And a national holiday from work on Election Day, AND universal vote-by-mail for anyone who wants to do so.
2
I went to one of those 50 universities that uses ranked voting. It makes great sense and is easy to understand. No worries about spoilers or strategic voting. Rank the choices and relax knowing that even if your favorite loses, you still have some power to get a less bad 2nd or 3rd choice elected.
43
Agree!
But in 2016 this is not reality. Reality in 2016 means a third party vote is wasted. Let's not do that. Let's not put a foul mouthed fraud into the White House.
But in 2016 this is not reality. Reality in 2016 means a third party vote is wasted. Let's not do that. Let's not put a foul mouthed fraud into the White House.
28
Other problems, such as gerrymandering, are worse and make the current system worse. Fix those first, and then see if there is still enough of a problem to warrant a change.
8
Excellent system for allowing all voters wishes to be expressed more clearly. It might even encourage voter participation. We also need to work on ballot access; without that, there are only two choices!
13
American elections would become far more entertaining and more engaging with ranked choice voting - frankly with any upgrade that would allow third parties to have reasonable chances of getting elected. And as the quality increases with more choices, more people would come to the polls. Nobody is very interested in the tweedle-dee tweedle-doom choice anymore.
26
So what's the downside? We need this now. Howard Dean doesn't mention it but I just googled "ranked choice" and found fairvote.org. So there's a citizens group already championing this. We know the politicians aren't going to give this to the people. That means we'll have to demand it.
66
Worth repeating:
'We know the politicians aren't going to give this to the people. That means we'll have to demand it.'
'We know the politicians aren't going to give this to the people. That means we'll have to demand it.'
2
I didn't realize ranked choice was even possible. That would be wonderful. Though Jill Stein's demogoguery and opportunism are unappealing at best and her support of anti-vaxxers and other quackery (an MD, really?) unhelpful, I'd be all for a good green candidate, and an open voting system might attract better third-party candidates.
152
A very poor assessment and understanding of Jill Stein
6
Susan A, introduce preferential voting and there will be no more wasted time, energy and column space arguing about "wasted" votes.
Stein and Johnson are one thing - even better would be that a never-Trump Republican could be attracting votes while delivering preferences to Hillary. Of course, Bernie might be still there too and once his supporters were in the booth, it would be such a small step to add Hillary. Or Trump, on the other hand - that would be possible. The permutations would be fascinating, and perhaps a little scary.
Optional preferential is best, where the voter is free to add preference(s) or not as they choose.
Stein and Johnson are one thing - even better would be that a never-Trump Republican could be attracting votes while delivering preferences to Hillary. Of course, Bernie might be still there too and once his supporters were in the booth, it would be such a small step to add Hillary. Or Trump, on the other hand - that would be possible. The permutations would be fascinating, and perhaps a little scary.
Optional preferential is best, where the voter is free to add preference(s) or not as they choose.
1
I agree Susan. I'm voting for Jill anyway as a protest vote. It's a small gesture to Washington that we need real change in our political system. Time to get rid of the two party system that offers us no real choice.
1