Instant Run-Off Voting and a Plurality Needed to Win Elections
By Andy Alt / Political Dimensions

Aug 20, 2008 - I don’t mean to shock anybody, but there is one other related issue that’s been bothering me for a while: the commonly-held belief that Ralph Nader siphoned votes in 2000 and cost Vice-President Al Gore the election. The only reason I have trouble with that view is the fact that there were over 2,000,000 people that voted for him. Ralph Nader had, and has, the right to run for President. And anyone who votes had the right to vote for him. Let us not allow politicians, the media, our neighbors, and ourselves to create any more animosity, or perpetuate the brainwashing and conditioning that perpetuates the acceptance a two-party system as the sole form of Democracy. That’s not what our country is based on, and that is not the idea for which people have fought and died.

A new concept was stuck into my head today, again by my more intelligent friend. If we “siphon” enough votes to cause a panic among the two dominating parties, it may be a wake-up call to them. In the past, I’ve held beliefs which match many other people’s feelings about voting “the lesser of two evils.” Basically, voting for a third-party may make a statement, but a third party candidate won’t get elected so it’s a wasted vote. Countering that thought, the new point of view I’m now considering regards the panic I mentioned. Essentially, if a Democrat or Republican loses an election because of a third-party candidate, there’s a possibility and the potential for the introduction of new legislation: instant run-off voting during a general election, and the winner must have the plurality of votes. I’ll attempt to simplify this idea for those who are newbies to politics and representative government.

If done correctly and with The People’s desires in mind, instant run-off voting makes third-party candidates viable. Using instant run-off voting, the ballot gives two options for President, a first choice and a second choice. If candidate “A” receives 2% of the popular vote, candidate “D” receives 49%, and candidate “R” receives 49% of the vote, none have the plurality of votes. Therefore, if everyone who made candidate “A” his or her first choice also made candidate “D” the second choice, that 2% would go to candidate “D” giving them 51%, the plurality of votes. In the real world, not all of the 2% would have chosen candidate “D” as their second choice; however, If roughly half voted for “D” and half voted for “R,” then, in the end, one of them would still receive over 50% of the popular vote. (And of course the Electoral College would have to be done away with for this process to be implemented.)

Using that method, people would feel free to vote for a third-party candidate without fear of “siphoning” votes from their second choice, or “the lesser of two evils.” Typically people in power don’t like to give up their power, so it’s less likely that change would come from within, ie., there won’t be any legislation proposed by either of the two major political parties. The incentive, however, should have come in 2000. If the Democrats felt the election was lost due to the run of Ralph Nader, there should have been discussion about instituting instant run-off voting where a plurality of votes is needed to win. Why was there no discussion? Possibly because Republicans held both houses of Congress until 2006. But maybe there was a discussion and I simply hadn’t heard it. Even if it was proposed by Democrats, it would never have passed because they held the minority in the House and Senate. Regardless of the possibility of it passing, the issue could have been raised, and still could be placed on a Democratic agenda.

One major fault in the system currently: I read a rumor, possibly true, that some of Ralph Nader’s funding came from Republicans.

I would like to forget about politics, politicians, and corrupt governments, but while I live on planet Earth, and while human nature dictates that power will corrupt, I’ll either have to bury my head in the sand or just deal with it.