Search by keyword or six-digit Content ID
My Stuff | Register | Help


What's Hot

    Stories
  1. 1. Odyssey students to collect donations for UNICEF at Halloween (Not Rated) 0
  2. 2. Capitol Hill community works to “scare away hunger” this Halloween (Not Rated) 0

    Events
  1. 1. Colorado Pediatric DMExo and Symposium (Not Rated) 0
  2. 2. Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (Not Rated) 0

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Denver [Change Location]
Looking for Treasure Coast? Click here

2008 election fiasco is preventable

Article Contributed on: 7/11/2007 4:23:34 PM

If New York mayor and multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg enters the presidential race, he could take votes from the most-preferred candidate and cause the second-place candidate to win. However, the Colorado legislature could prevent that by making a simple change to our voting rules.

There is widespread speculation that Bloomberg could run for president as an independent. He could finance his own campaign at a level competitive with the major parties, leading to a close three-way race. Note that it is too soon to tell whether he would take more votes from his Democratic or Republican opponent.

Suppose 60% of voters prefer major party candidate X over the other candidate Y. Now suppose Bloomberg enters the race and attracts most votes from X, so the election results are, say, 34% X, 35% Y, 31% Bloomberg. Thus, Y might win, even though 60% of the voters prefer X. Imagine the shock and outrage at this severely undemocratic result!

The problem is that our "plurality" voting system allows voters to vote for only one candidate, and forbids voters from indicating other acceptable alternatives.

There is an amazingly simple solution: Keep the same, familiar ballot format we have now. Just change the instructions from "Vote for one" to "Vote for one or more." Count all the votes. The candidate who gets the most votes wins.

With this change, most voters don't need to change their voting habits at all. They can vote for their favorite (X or Y) and be done with it. But, Bloomberg supporters can safely vote for him, AND, if they don't expect him to win, they can vote for X or Y as their backup choice. X would get votes from 60% of voters and win.

Thus, this "vote for one or more" solution eliminates the spoiler and wasted vote problems and helps assure that the most popular candidate wins.

Q: What about the "one person, one vote" principle? A: That principle means that legislative districts should have roughly equal populations in order to give people equal representation. It has nothing to do with how people vote or how ballots are counted.

Q: But isn't it unfair to let some people vote for more candidates than others? A: There is no inequity. Every voter has the same opportunity to - in effect - vote "yes" or "no" for each candidate.

Q: What if everyone just votes for one anyway? A: Then we're no worse off than we are now with the present "vote for one" rule.

Q: What if many Democrats and Republicans vote for Bloomberg as well as their favorite? A: Obviously, Bloomberg could win. If you really don't want Bloomberg to win, don't vote for him!

Q: What about other solutions? A. "Vote for one or more" is by far the simplest and cheapest solution, and thus has the best chance of being adopted in time for the extremely important November 2008 elections. Adopting this solution doesn't hinder further improvements in future years.

Conclusion: There is a substantial risk that our current voting system could make a poor choice of winner in November 2008. "Vote for one or more" greatly reduces that risk and can help assure that the most popular candidate wins. The change can be handled with existing voting equipment and procedures with very low cost (no equipment or software upgrades are needed).

To express support (or criticism) or get involved, please visit http://groups.google.com/group/COVoterChoice

Jan Kok
Cofounder of RangeVoting.org

Guidelines: Be kind. Abusive commentary may be removed. If you believe someone has been abusive, please click "Report Abuse".

SUBMIT COMMENT
Talk Back : submit comments to the story

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.
Thank you! Your comment has been updated.
Showing 1-9 of 9 comments
Jan Kok wrote on 7/16/2007 @ 5:09:00 AM

Responses to Brian’s comment, below: Q: Can “vote for one or more” be implemented without software upgrades? A: Yes, there are a couple ways to do it using the capabilities of existing voting machines. One way is to treat the election as a “vote for N” election. Another way is to treat the election as a series of yes/no referendum questions, one per candidate. Either way, the ballot can look like a familiar “vote for one” ballot, except the instructions say “vote for one or more.” And either way, the machines just count all the votes for each candidate; the one with the most votes wins.
Report abuse
Jan Kok wrote on 7/16/2007 @ 5:08:01 AM

(“Vote for N” elections are fairly common in the US for filling N at-large seats on a city council or a board. For example, Denver voters are instructed to “vote for two” candidates to fill the two at-large seats on the Denver City Council. It’s ok to vote for fewer candidates than the number allowed, and in fact many voters do so. To handle a “vote for one or more” election using the “vote for N” voting machine feature, let N be the number of candidates in the race.)
Report abuse
Jan Kok wrote on 7/16/2007 @ 5:05:47 AM

Q. What about Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)? A. I (Jan) would rather have Range Voting, which allows voters to rate all the candidates on a scale such as –1,0,+1 or 0-to-5. But both IRV and Range Voting are more complicated than the incredibly simple “vote for one or more” rule change. Both IRV and Range Voting take more ballot space (note that people already complain that our ballots are too long). Both IRV and Range Voting involve a change in ballot style that will confuse some voters and cause spoiled ballots. IRV generally requires voting machine upgrades (and certification of those upgrades), which are additional expenses, compared with “vote for one or more” which requires no upgrades (see separate comment).
Report abuse
Jan Kok wrote on 7/16/2007 @ 5:04:34 AM

Considering that the state budget is EXTREMELY tight – bills requiring a few thousand dollars of funding were killed in the House Appropriations Committee this year – the cost of any proposed change is crucially important. Also, our legislators will understandably be nervous about making changes to our election rules in a presidential election year. It is crucial that the changes be as simple as possible to minimize risk. “Vote for one or more” is by far the simplest, cheapest, safest change that can avert a 2008 election fiasco. Realistically, I believe it is the only voting rule change that has any chance of being adopted for 2008. And that will only happen if YOU, my fellow citizen, demand it!
Report abuse
Jan Kok wrote on 7/16/2007 @ 4:57:57 AM

Q: If we are going to go through the trouble of modifying our voting system, why not attempt to implement the best methodology available? A. As explained above, “vote for one or more” is the only voting rule change that has any realistic chance of being adopted for 2008. I believe this change would serve as a stepping stone to further voting reform (which I certainly support). It would stimulate discussion and create more interest in voting reform. It could accelerate reform in other states. It could reduce fear of making changes to our voting system and whet voters’ appetites for more change.
Report abuse
Jan Kok wrote on 7/16/2007 @ 4:55:40 AM

Thanks for the comments. Note that Colorado State Representative John Kefalas has created a Voter Choice Task Force to study various voting reforms and make recommendations to the 2008 legislative session. If you want to “vote for one or more” in 2008, please let Kefalas and the task force members know. One way to let them know is to join the (unofficial) news group, http://groups.google.com/group/COVoterChoice and post your opinions on that group.
Report abuse
John Zwick wrote on 7/14/2007 @ 9:57:51 AM

I would love a range or preference schedule system so people wouldn't feel pressured into the two-party vote. A parliamentary system might be the only way to really break that stranglehold, but this is a great step in the right direction.
Report abuse
Brian Boyarko wrote on 7/13/2007 @ 7:26:21 PM

I agree that this would be an immediate improvement to the present voting system; however, it seems that a software upgrade would be necessary. I would really like to see an independent "Voting System Integrity Commission" formed that would serve to audit and verify the accuracy of voting machines, firmware, software, registrations, and procedures used at polling places. I am more in favor of implementing IRV because it generates results that are most accurately in line with the will of the people, makes third parties viable, and is not difficult to implement; in fact, it is used in many places throughout the world successfully. It seems that if we are going to go through the trouble of modifying our voting system, why not attempt to implement the best methodology available?
Report abuse
Art Trevethick wrote on 7/12/2007 @ 8:40:08 AM

This would be a great idea. Is there any way it could be implemented before the 08 elections? It could eliminate many of the problems we have now and would allow individuals outside the main stream to have an effect on the election. These other ideas can contribute substantially. With only two views presented presently and the fact that these views often come from a very similar basis, we are now quite limited in what is available for voters. This would give a much broader view and allow voices which have not be represented to be heard.
Report abuse
Showing 1-9 of 9 comments