Free and Fair Elections and Their Discontents

Fundamentally, the Democrat-Republican political class and ruling establishment are opposed to free, fair and competitive elections in the United States.  The reason is simple: free, fair and competitive elections would threaten their monopoly on elected office at all levels of government.  Consider the response to the San Francisco mayoral election, which took place earlier this month.  San Francisco voters adopted ranked choice voting via referendum in 2002.  This year's election was the first in which the ranked choice system "came into play."  From the San Francisco Examiner in June: 

This way of voting for San Francisco’s mayor has yet to be tested in a citywide race — this is the first time what is known as ranked-choice voting will come into play in the race for The City’s top post.

There’s a lot of guesswork being done by candidates in the crowded field and by political insiders on how it will impact the results.  It was voters themselves who decided to use this system of voting when they approved Proposition A in March 2002.  [Emphasis added.]

Ultimately, the election was won by incumbent Democrat Ed Lee, who came out on top in a field of at least fifteen candidates.  Already, however, the city's political establishment have already launched an all out assault against the alternative voting method.  From KQED News last week:

Now critics are zeroing in on the ranked-choice system, hoping to repeal it before another city election rolls around. The proposal is being fronted by city Supervisors Sean Elsbernd and Mark Farrell, who calls the system a “failed experiment.” They hope to put the issue to voters next year.  Opponents have a good shot, said Charles Marsteller, former head of Common Cause in San Francisco.

“Regardless of its merits, ranked-choice voting will probably be repealed,” he said in an interview. Ordinary voters struggle with the system because “it’s complicated,” he said. And politicians and political professionals quickly grew to dislike it because its results were so unpredictable.  “It’s hard to estimate outcomes with ranked-choice voting,” Marsteller said. “You don’t know if the polls are right. The political consultants don’t like it.” [Emphasis added.]

Ranked choice voting is not complicated at all.  Rank your top three candidates in order of preference.  How complicated is that?  Of course, those who feel threatened by any such reform have an immediate interest in making it appear to be more complicated than it is in fact.  The more telling argument against the alternative system is the fact that political strategists, consultants and pundits don't like it because it makes the outcome of an election unpredictable!

The complaint that the alternative voting method makes elections unpredictable is highly revealing.  These strategists, consultants and pundits make a mockery of free and fair elections.  The implicit assumption of their argument should be held in the highest contempt by supporters of free elections, namely, that elections should be predictable.  For these individuals, elections are nothing more than a formality, a sham, a choreographed charade meant to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the rule of an entrenched faction.  Perhaps they would have been more comfortable in Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Stalin's Russia, where the outcome of elections were always known well in advance of election day.

The Only Wasted Vote is a Vote for a Republican or a Democrat

In a commentary for Associated Content, Floyd Saunders argues that it is time to break the two-party duopoly.  Excerpt:

With the major parties so unpopular, there is a growing interest in having a third-party candidate run for president. Indeed, a group called Americans Elect has made some headway at getting an alternative presidential candidate on the ballot in all states, and a panel of experts at the Institute of Politics believe a third-party candidate would have a better chance of winning than ever before. . . .

It's obvious by the polling data that Americans are largely dissatisfied with the quality of candidates in the two party system. And more importantly, the notion that everyone will find a president they like if only given two choices is absurd. There are usually more than two ways of looking at a issue, and there should be more than two legitimate options when it comes to choosing who will arguably become the most powerful person in the world.

Even so, I don't expect to see two-party dominance end anytime soon. While there have been isolated incidences of third-party success, the odds are just too stacked against them. For instance, it's difficult for candidates outside the major parties to raise money and get media attention . . . However, the biggest challenge for third parties is the idea that voting for them will be a "wasted" vote. This is because candidates who aren't Republicans or Democrats rarely win, so voting for an alternative party often makes it feel like your vote doesn't matter.  The best way to address this flaw would be to install instant runoff voting . . . 

The only wasted vote is a vote for a Republican or a Democrat.  

People Before Parties: Politics and Electoral Reform Group Releases Recommendations for Electoral Reform at #OWS

Two weeks ago, I relayed a number of recommendations for electoral reform being considered by the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street in NYC, in which I have been active.  This past Sunday, the group came to full consensus on the proposal, which has now been posted in full on the group forum at NYCGA.net.  That document is published here in its entirety.  Please distribute widely.


People Before Parties: Recommendations for Electoral Reform
A proposal of the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street

Free and fair elections inspire good citizenship and public service.  They engage the intelligence, good will, and real interests of the people.  Free and fair elections ensure that citizens can control their own political destiny, and make genuine contributions to society through sound self-government.  Free and fair elections can remedy myriad ills and counteract the abuses of a government that has come to prey upon the resources and spirit of citizens.

The centralization of political power in the hands of two narrow political factions at all levels of government is neither democratic nor republican. Lawmakers representing these factions have rigged our electoral system to ensure their continued monopoly on public office in the United States.  No party system whatsoever is mandated by the U.S. Constitution.  Government of the people, by the people and for the people has been transformed into government of the people, by the parties, for entrenched interests.

Whatever our political differences may be, surely on this we can agree: our government does not represent the interests or will of the people. It is time to institute free and fair elections in the United States.

A vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed.  Americans are not apathetic.  They have been demoralized by a forced choice between two corrupted political parties. The two-party system is incapable of providing adequate representation for the many diverse interests constitutive of the American electorate. This is a crisis of democracy and representation. It is a crisis of government.

In the federal system, the states are the laboratories of democracy. We urge the people of states, localities, and General Assemblies nationwide to begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, to open our political system to the millions of people who go unrepresented by the entrenched factions.

We call for experimentation with reforms to create a level playing field for all voters and for all candidates for elected office – whatever their party affiliation may be, or whether they have none at all –, and to curtail the influence of corporations and narrow political factions over our system of government.

We recommend experimentation with (in no particular order):

• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy.  There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as ranked choice voting, approval voting and range voting, liquid democracy and so on.

• Independent, nonpartisan redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives, lawmakers should not choose their own voters.  A bipartisan commission is not a non-partisan commission.  Independent council and computer drawn districts can remove partisan bias from the redistricting process.

• Smaller and more localized districts.  It is time to expand the number of representatives in local and state government and in the House of Representatives. This will ensure a closer relationship between the people and their elected officials, putting the latter on a shorter leash.

• Proportional representation. Winner-take-all, single member district plurality voting has allowed narrow political factions to wield disproportionate influence within our system of government.  Proportional representation has been used in the United States in the past to break up party monopolies.  It can be implemented again.

• Expansion of franchise.  Laws that restrict the right to vote should be repealed.  Those who are denied the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised. Participation can be encouraged through simple reforms such as election day voter registration.

• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment.  Fortunately, the people need not wait for officials to implement laws limiting their own terms.  The people can impose term limits at any election by voting for alternatives to the representatives of the entrenched factions.

• Ballot access reform.  Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates, which are common in all fifty states, should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.

• Primary election reform. A public election should be open to the public.  If parties desire to hold closed primary elections, they can provide for their own caucuses or conventions.

• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda and to recall any elected official.

• Vote counting.  Electronic voting machines are produced, operated and serviced by a small number of corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions.  Unless there are significant controls to protect against the rigging of such machines, hand-counted paper ballots should be re-introduced into our voting systems.

• Holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged.  Election day should be ruled a holiday to encourage voter turnout.

• Fusion voting. Parties should be able to nominate the candidates of their choice across party lines.

• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an instant runoff between the top four candidates from the primary in the general election. Countless other possibilities.
This list is not exhaustive.

We urge assemblies across the country to deliberate on reforms that can help break the ruling political monopoly in government through free and fair elections, and put people before parties. We urge the people of states, localities and general assemblies nationwide to demand the implementation of electoral reform and begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, from the bottom up.
-------
This proposal was developed by the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street between September and November 2011. It contains input from well over 100 individuals who attended group meetings in Liberty Plaza as well as many others from across the country who influenced the proposal through online discussions.  The document was produced through a collaborative writing process.  It was approved by the Politics and Electoral Reform group with full consensus support on November 6, 2011.

Seeking Input for Electoral Reform Wish List: What Say You?

Since the Occupy Wall Street protests began in downtown Manhattan on September 17th, I have noted on a number of occasions that there is an inspiring amount of independent and third party activity and organizing taking place at the demonstrations.  Members of the Green, Libertarian, Socialist and Reform parties, among others, have been involved in the movement from the very beginning, in addition to legions of Independents. 

Much of the organizing work being accomplished at Occupy Wall Street is being done within autonomous working groups and caucuses.  There are working groups devoted to everything from media and internet to outreach, direct action and reform.  There are a number of groups, of which I'm aware, that should be of special interest to independents, third party advocates and opponents of the two-party state.  Over the next couple days, I'm going to provide some info on these various groups and relay portions of the documents and proposals they have been working on, all of which can be found through the New York City General Assembly's website for Occupy Wall Street.

Today, the focus will be the Politics and Electoral Reform group – in which I have been active for a number of weeks.  The group is working on a proposal recommending electoral reforms that could be implemented by states and localities to level the playing field for those who have been marginalized, and whose interests are not represented, by the Republican-Democrat two-party state. Numerous reforms are being considered by the group, which is collaborating on a working draft document for the proposal.  Here is an excerpt from the section of the document specifically devoted to the recommendations for reform:

• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy.  There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as instant runoff voting, ranked choice voting, approval voting and range voting, liquid democracy and so on.

• Independent, nonpartisan redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives, lawmakers should not choose their voters.

• Smaller and more localized districts.  Expansion of the number of representatives in local and state government and in the House of Representatives. This will ensure a closer relationship between the people and their elected officials, putting the latter on a shorter leash.

• Proportional representation. Winner-take-all, single member district plurality voting has allowed narrow political factions to wield disproportionate influence within our system of government. There are alternatives.

• Expansion of franchise. Those who are denied of the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised.

• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment. Term limits should be imposed by law or by the people at the ballot box.

• Ballot access reform. All should be equal before the law regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.  Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.

• Primary election reform. A publicly funded election should be open to the public.  If parties desire to hold closed primary elections, they can provide for their own caucuses and conventions.

• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda.

• Vote counting. The reintroduction of hand counted, paper ballots, or the introduction of significant controls to protect against the rigging of electronic voting machines, which are produced, operated and serviced by corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions.

• Weekend or holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged.

• Fusion voting. Parties should be able to nominate the candidates of their choice across party lines.

• Campaign finance. Publicly funded election campaigns, or matching fund systems that allow candidates who refuse to accept corporate donations to compete on a level playing field with candidates who are heavily financed by corporate interests.

• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an IRV runoff between the top four candidates from the primary. Countless other possibilities.

(Note: the proposal is a living document, and any of the above could and probably will be changed by the group at some point.)  I'm relaying this excerpt because many readers here at Politea have thought long and hard about a lot of these issues, and could provide some interesting suggestions that could be taken up by the group.  So what say you, folks?  What do you think of the recommendations as they stand?  Should any be amended? or dropped? or edited?  Are there any important potential reforms that are missing from the list?

Ranked Choice Voting and Its Discontents

Ranked choice, or instant-runoff voting, is probably the best-known alternative method to the plurality voting system.  It is supported by reform groups like Fair Vote, Independents, third party advocates – Greens in particular –, and even independently-minded Democrats and Republicans.  Ranked choice has already been implemented in a number of cities across the country, from Maine to Minnesota to California.  San Francisco is set to hold its first mayoral election under the new system.  At Divided We Stand, the Dividist takes a critical view of the process.  Excerpt:

As a direct consequence of our new public financing rules for the mayoral race in San Francisco, we now have a cavalry charge of 16 candidates running for mayor . . . As Ron Popeil might say - "But that's not all!" At no extra charge we will now throw all sixteen candidates into the mix-master of our first ranked voting / instant runoff election for mayor. On November 8th, all San Francisco voters will cast three votes for mayor in rank order of preference. "Rank" being the operative word in that sentence. . . .


Who knows what kind of a gawd-awful mess will come out of this election? Recall that in Oakland's 2010 ranked voting mayoral election, candidate Jean Quan had 10 points fewer first choice votes than Perata in the first vote count. I am talking about - Her Honor Jean Quan, the current mayor of Oakland, who had 10 percentage points fewer first choice votes than the loser Don Perata.

The simple fact is that most SF citizens have no friggin' clue about the ramifications of ranked voting/instant runoffs. While the voters may not understand it, be assured the candidates who would otherwise have zero chance of winning a plurality in the election or a majority in a real runoff know how exactly how the voting system can be gamed.

Net net - As a voter it is more important to decide who to exclude from any of your three votes for mayor than it is to pick who you would prefer to see win as your first choice. In fact you may be better off ranking your favorite as your second or third choice. This is Game Theory Gone Wild. We might as well be drawing lots to pick the next mayor . . . 

Fortunately, for those who are not fans of the instant runoff, ranked choice is not the only alternative to plurality: there are alternatives to the alternative, so to speak, such as approval voting and range voting. 

John Anderson Makes the Case for Runoff Elections and Proportional Representation

Hello dear readers and friends!  I hope you all had a relaxing or exciting holiday weekend, as the case may be.  I took a much needed blog break myself, which you might have noticed, and am still catching up on the news from the last few days.  Did you see John Anderson's op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor last Thursday?  He touches on one of the big points of discussion in the comments here over the weekend.  The former Independent candidate for president in 1980 and current board member of Fair Vote argues strongly against the winner-take-all system, and in favor of a number of electoral reforms, including runoff voting in presidential elections and proportional representation in Congress and state legislatures.  Some excerpts: 

while it’s just a matter of time before an independent wins the White House, America’s “winner-takes-all” voting system suppresses potential support for independent candidates and blocks their fair representation in Congress. We need new rules better designed for the realities of today’s politics. Americans’ desire for independents at all levels of government is clear.

Americans’ desire for independents at all levels of government is clear. Independents and third-party candidates have won recent gubernatorial elections in Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, and, in 2010, Rhode Island. Last year, independent candidates also finished ahead of major party nominees in races for governor and US Senate in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, and Maine . . .

plurality voting is not mandated in our Constitution . . . To combat the injustice of plurality voting rules that we use in our presidential election, many cities, states, and nations require a separate runoff election between the top two finishers if no candidate earns a first-round majority . . .

The problem of voting representation is even greater in congressional elections. It’s time to take on elections that distort fair representation in our state legislatures and Congress . . .

Reforming winner-takes-all elections for state legislatures and Congress may be a greater challenge than upholding majority rule with runoff systems in presidential elections, but doing so is a pre-condition for giving all voters real choices and new voices.

As a start, Congress should repeal a 1967 law that took away the power of states to adopt proportional voting systems for US House elections. As alternatives to winner-takes-all systems, proportional voting allows like minded voters to earn seats in proportion to their share of the vote – 30 percent of the vote earns 3 of 10 seats, rather than nothing, which would be the case if their chosen candidate didn’t win the most votes in their district.

Read the whole thing.

Getting Past First Past the Post: Instant Runoff vs. Range Voting and Approval Voting

At Attack of the Machine Elves, Maikeru's excellent series of posts on voting reform continues today with an article on alternatives to plurality voting. Maikeru has argued we need to "get past first past the post":

If there's one thing that many pro-reform advocates seem to agree on, it's that the voting regime we're using right now isn't working. Currently in America, the vast majority of elections are decided using the first-past-the-post voting method, in which each person is given one vote and the candidate that receives the most votes is declared the winner. . . . The shortcomings of the first-past-the-post system are numerous and glaring. In the case of plurality voting, an election can in extreme cases be won by a candidate who falls far short of a majority and of achieving the mandate that goes with it. . . . This often leads to tactical voting-- . . . rather than voting for the candidate that best reflects their political beliefs, most voters who don't prefer one of the two major-party candidates nonetheless hold their noses and vote for what they perceive as the lesser of two evils. . . . Another often-cited deficiency of the first-past-the-post voting system is that it tends to result in a large number of "wasted" votes, or votes that are cast for either losing candidates or for winning candidates beyond the threshold needed for victory. . . . Another criticism leveled against first-past-the-post voting is that it tends to encourage gerrymandering due to the relatively high number of "wasted" votes the system produces. . . . .

Today, Maikeru compares instant runoff voting with range voting and approval voting, which is essentially a simplified variant of range voting. Maikeru writes:

in addition to first-past-the-post voting there are two other major categories of voting methods that are used within single-winner systems: preferential voting methods, in which people are allowed to vote for multiple candidates and do so by ranking them in order of preference; and range voting methods, in which people are also allowed to vote for multiple candidates but are not required to rank them against one another. Over the last couple days, I've been discussing the various types of preferential voting methods and have offered the observation that instant-runoff voting seems clearly superior to first-past-the-post in terms of efficiency, providing for a runoff in cases where no candidate receives a majority of the vote while avoiding the expense and hassle of holding a separate second round of runoff voting, as well as in terms of providing for a more open and representative political system. . . . Today I conclude my look at the various voting systems with a focus on range and approval voting, which offer the most intriguing reform alternatives to IRV.

Read the whole thing. In the end, Maikeru comes down on the side of approval voting:

Ultimately, I think that any of the three voting systems discussed in depth here is better than first-past-the-post voting and would reflect a significant improvement over the status quo. But taking into consideration how easy it would be to implement these systems, to administer them once they are in place, and what kind of results they would produce, approval voting appears to be the best option available for reform advocates to get behind in attempting to promote change within the context of the single-winner system that predominates in this country.