A Proposal for Practical and Achievable Change that Matters

[Gus diZerega]

A Proposal for Practical and Achievable Change that Matters
by Gus diZerega, Ph.D.

Today a majority of Americans are thoroughly fed up with both major parties, the Republicans even more than the Democrats. Yet these toxic dinosaurs run no risk at all of ceasing to be the two big players in American politics, as they have been since the Civil War. Worse, they have grown more centralized and both become wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporate, banking, and defense elite that rule this country. That both are corporatist does not mean there is no difference between them. We have an American version of the “Red” vs. “Expert” split in the old Soviet party. Given the choice, I’ll take the experts. But it’s a very depressing choice. We have the forms of democracy without the substance.

The plurality voting rules in this country are perhaps the major reason why. When whoever gets the most votes wins, which is what plurality voting is about, if you vote for a third party closer to your position, in almost every case the main party farthest from your position gains. This is because if you vote at all absent the third party your vote would have gone to the other party.

Those who voted for Ralph Nader did nothing to prevent Bush from winning – and in my view unintentionally helped him. Around a million dead Iraqis was the result, among other things. Nor is this a problem for Democrats alone. John Tester became a Senator in Montana likely because votes that might have been Republican went to the libertarians. While my preferences are obvious, the issue is deeper that partisanship. The problem is constitutional.

What we get in elections today is a systematic dramatic under-representation of third party support because of people (such as myself) who do not want to help the major party farthest from their views, combined with reinforcing a corporate oligarchy hiding behind a democratic facade. Perhaps bad but little remarked upon, when third parties become boutique ego trips for their leaders, as they usually are, there is no way for a national progressive leadership to arise. Play-actors and narcissists take their place.

The result is a political system with that systematically defangs alternatives, increasingly enriches the wealthy, promotes empire abroad, and gradually but relentlessly erodes civil liberties and what remains of democratic freedoms at home. Depression, anger, and a sense of helplessness for most Americans are the result.

A Possible Solution?

This situation is dire and may have passed a point of no return. But there still remains one major card in the Progressive deck that can be played in a number of hands: the state initiative. This exists in a great many states. It has been perverted by corporate money, like everything else corporations touch, but initiatives can still be used by progressives as well.

Unfortunately most Progressive initiatives are oriented towards specific policies the legislature has failed to address when what we really need is a change in the constitutional rules of the game. Preferably a seemingly small change that is easily understood and that radically changes the political landscape in a way that undermines centralization is what is needed.

We need a state initiative in every state with initiatives, an initiative proposal that basically can be said in two sentences:

All political offices in the state of _______ shall be by majority vote. Instant runoff will decide elections where there is no majority among first choices.

Imagine the difficulty of the two main parties arguing against majority rule when most Americans hold both in contempt. If these initiatives were on as many ballots as possible, and repeated regularly until passed, the issue would remain in the public eye. As both gay marriage and marijuana legalization indicates, the more these issues are in the public eye the more intelligent the public becomes regarding them. But unlike gay marriage and marijuana legalization, majority rule is already regarded as legitimate. Indeed, a substantial percentage of Americans likely think we already have majority rule elections.

Impact

With majority vote rules for elections a vote for a third party candidate will not help your opposition politically in any sense. If one of the two main parties gets a secure majority, compared with a plurality election the outcome will be the same. But when majorities are not secure the dynamic changes.

If no one gets a majority, then (to simplify but not distort) instant run off rules count voters’ second choices as well. This means

1. A candidate may need another party’s voters to win. In order to get them he or she has to treat the issues they raise explicitly and would be well advised not to trash their candidate. As a result issues will be discussed that normally would not get discussed. Further, the third party will be treated with a degree of respect, legitimizing it in otherwise skeptical eyes.

2. Other party supporters will be encouraged to vote their real preferences, and make the main party candidate a second choice. In doing so we will rapidly see that third parties have a lot more support that currently seems to be the case. This is because under current rules I may prefer Greens or Libertarians or something, but never vote for them because I don’t want to help the other main party. Further, as they become more competitive they become more interesting to undecided voters. Third parties, some of them, will address genuine issues, and give voters who care about them a chance to be heard, perhaps decisively.

3. Because they have a chance, third parties will attract candidates who are in it for more than ego and warm tingly feelings of self-righteousness. We will get a pool of more competent candidates. This will make them more effective in attacking the positions of main parties. This is VERY important because the US at the moment has no forum within which strong progressive leaders can emerge and learn how to build a base. There are no strong progressive organizations with much public visibility in the way a strong third party would be visible.

4. Over time ‘third parties’ will get more strongly established in the public eye, win elections, and provide genuine competition to the corporatists. Given current levels of disgust with corporations, banks, and the main parties it might not take much time.

5. Given the current financial situation in many states, majority vote elections will also be cheaper. Currently most states help finance party primary elections. Primaries were established because we have a two party oligarchy and it is only through primaries that much democracy exists in the US at all. But when many parties exist they can pay for their own primaries if they want them. The financial savings would not be negligible.

Here in California as best I can tell a primary costs about $70 million. Let the parties pay for one if they want one.

The Bigger Picture

A genuine multi party system will be democratic in a way a two party oligarchic oligopoly is not. Currently most Americans have no opportunity to vote for candidates who support issues the public has supported for a long time, such as the public option, getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq, taxing the ultra wealthy at a higher rate, or many other positions far more humane than the travesty of corruption calling itself American democracy can currently address.

Many parties will cause the oligarchs the same problems as many states. America’s banks and corporations have been the biggest forces for political centralization, free market fools to the contrary. That is because the powerful can more easily control a single point of power that requires money to access than they can a multiplicity of points where fewer resources are needed.

A multi-party system will ensure that Americans have a decent range of political parties to vote for without thereby helping the party they like least. Banksters and corporations cannot buy everyone off because some parties will exist in explicit opposition to them. We will have a choice. This does not mean utopia, but it means decent people will have a chance to vote for decent policies that are put forth in good faith by politicians far more committed to implementing them.

Objections Met

Instant runoff already exists in a number of California cities, such as Oakland and San Francisco. It has proven popular and successful in San Francisco since 2004 and has been more recently adopted in Oakland Berkeley, San Leandro and Santa Clara County. Sonoma County should be a local target for this reform, as well as our cities. This would familiarize voters with the idea.

Even so, while a good start they would be only a step. One reason is that local elections are non-partisan in California, which weakens the visibility and ultimately the legitimacy of third parties, yet if we are to break free from our current oligarchy we need to end the two party oligopoly. The full impact of this reform cannot make itself felt until it occurs in the states, and so impacts the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Some people worry about crooked elections. I do as well. In my opinion 2000 was a fraud and 2004 was probably also stolen. What prevents that kind of stuff is an aroused citizenry. An aroused citizenry with many parties with a stake in honest elections will be a better check on Republican (or conceivably Democratic) fraud than anything else.

When imported Republican thugs invaded and disrupted vote counting in Florida our history might be much different if patriotic Americans defending the democratic process had met them. Third parties engage more serious citizens, on balance, and might have given us that protection. Democrats certainly did not.

If majority vote rules were established in even one state, the resurgence of alternatives would encourage Americans in other states to adopt the process. It would be a catalyst. States with initiative processes would be the first to go and states with no initiative will be slower, but with enough popular pressure even they will fall in line as state legislators did on ratifying the popular election of Senators, which took power away from them. Even better, if these rules worked in states, there would be pressure for even the election of the president to be by popular vote. But that is a long way off at present.

The California Instant Run-Off Coalition’s web site is

https://www.calirv.org/

Their long-term goal is to organize a state initiative.

A detailed report by supportive members of the Vermont Legislature as to how it could work there is

https://www.calirv.org/about/vt-report.pdf

A list of FAQs and good commentary can be found at

https://www.calirv.org/about/faq.html

Additional reports on instant runoff elections in California cities can be found at

https://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting-and-its-impact-on-racial-minorities

https://blog.mkf.org/2010/04/01/instant-runoff-voting-comes-to-oakland/

https://blog.mkf.org/2010/11/13/oakland-rising-and-oaklands-new-mayor/

About Gus: I am a long time Sonoma County resident, but one who has had his residency punctuated by teaching positions at colleges in Washington and New York. Bit I always come back to this magickal place of redwoods, rolling hills, valley oaks, the Russian river, and spectacular coast, and so much more. Including good friends.

My training is in political science, having received my Ph.D. in Berkeley, followed by a sudden intellectual and spiritual turn into NeoPagan and shamanic practices 25 years ago, which I continue. Consequently I try and harmonize the two contrasting worlds of modern logocentric knowledge and immanent spirituality, and do so from a progressive and compassionate perspective.

I have been asked to submit occasional pieces which I think will be useful to people in Sonoma County, and this is the first.

[mulhouse3]

Well, I like the idea of giving the 3rd party(s) a chance, but I would set up the math a little different: one votes for two parties at first, just like for the school board. "Vote for two" it says. That way it is a free for all for votes, where a bunch of parties can get plenty of votes, not just the rep/dems. The founding people hated parties I read, therefore don't write parties into the constitution. Only talk of the individual candidates(be over 35 etc). Voting is in a way telling who you can stand, not just like. I don't like the Greens let's say, and I dig the Dems, but I can stand the Greens: I give one vote for each. I thought at first the Greens should only get half/vote if I can just stand them, but that value of half of a vote would cause confusion, and it could invite corruption of the vote counting. Just think, Ralph Nador in 2000 could have gotten tons of votes and not been robbing from Al Gore et al.(Dems) I like the Vote for Two, it will attract more attention and more people will vote! Everybody make up bumper stickers saying "Vote for Two."

[Cogwheel]

FWIW, Range voting has been shown mathematically to have even better results than IRV (as far as best reflecting the actual desires of the voters).

With IRV, all you're doing is arranging candidates relative to each other. So, for example, if you dislike two candidates equally, you can't express that. With Range voting (or more simplistically in Approval voting), you are able to express your opinion about every single candidate against an arbitrary scale (whether Yes/No in the case of approval or a numerical rating in the case of range voting).

There's a lot of information at rangevoting.org.