Deep Voting Reform: Endowing the future with a voice in American politics.

Deep Voting Reform: Endowing the future with a voice in American politics

Deep Voting Reform: Endowing the future with a voice in American politics

Wherefore today’s panel?Wherefore today’s panel?

a) To educate regarding a topic little thought of or understood.

b) To encourage those with an interest in politics to choose a path less followed, but having

potentially huge implications for sustainability.

a) To educate regarding a topic little thought of or understood.

b) To encourage those with an interest in politics to choose a path less followed, but having

potentially huge implications for sustainability.

The Industrial Revolution introduced something never before seen -- substantial change on a time scale of decades to centuries. Neither our genes nor our political systems have evolved to address problems, for example climate change or biological extinctions, that develop on such time scales.

Rather, the essence of politics is to win the next election; politicians have nothing to gain by addressing topics that will lead to serious problems well in the future.

• To tackle long-term issues, such as achieving sustainability, the American voting system requires a fundamental, but simple, overhaul --

replacement of Plurality Voting with a better system, plus public financing of elections.

• Together, these two improvements can greatly enhance the political voice of a now essentially voiceless future.

Our present system: Plurality Voting

Our present system: Plurality Voting

What is meant by “plurality voting”?

What is meant by “plurality voting”?

When there are 3 or more candidates, the winner can be elected with a mere plurality of

the vote.

Plus one is allowed to vote for only a single candidate, no matter how many are running.

Among voting theorists, plurality voting is usually relegated to the

bottom of the barrel, in comparison with other common voting

methods

Because, in any race with more than two candidates, plurality voting may elect the candidate least acceptable to the majority of those voting.

1912 Presidential election is a good example.

The 2000 Presidential election may be another example where, because of a moderately popular

third candidate (Ralph Nader), the second most popular

candidate (George Bush) got elected.

Whatever, one’s political preference, I think we can all agree that the history of the

world during the past 8 years and possibly for many years

into the future has been significantly altered by the

choice of President in 2000.

So, we now have the “spoiler” phenomenon:

In 2004 the Republicans paid for Nader signature drives.

And Democrats pay for radio ads for Libertarian candidates.

And the “lesser of two evils” phenomenon:

“No matter how much better than the Democratic Party nominee Ralph Nader might be, how can you possibly be voting for him; all you will succeed in doing is get XXXX elected.”

For XXXX, fill in George W. Bush, John McCain, etc.

And the “throwing away your vote” phenomenon:

“How can you vote for XXXX, who has

no chance to be elected? You are just throwing away your vote.”

For XXXX, fill in any 3rd party candidate

Can’t we do better than this?

Can’t we do better than this?

That is, better than Plurality Voting?That is, better than Plurality Voting?

There exist many other voting systems that allow one to rank or

score candidates, rather than simply vote “yes” for one of them:

Approval

Borda count

Condorcet

Instant runoff

Proportional representation

Range

Approval Voting is my favorite

Because it is simple, hard to “game”, and unlikely to lead to bad, counterintuitive results as some other voting systems

occasionally can.

Approval votingApproval voting

If X candidates are running, then a person can vote for (“approve”) as many as she or he wants. The voter does *not* rank her/his choices. The candidate with the most “approvals” is elected.

If X candidates are running, then a person can vote for (“approve”) as many as she or he wants. The voter does *not* rank her/his choices. The candidate with the most “approvals” is elected.

If the 2000 Presidential election had been run under approval voting then probably Al Gore would have been elected and

Ralph Nader would have received many more votes than

he actually did.

What are some virtues of approval voting -- or of any system that allows a voter

to express something positive about more than a

single candidate?

What are some virtues of approval voting -- or of any system that allows a voter

to express something positive about more than a

single candidate?

Virtues of approval voting:

• Winning candidate is acceptable to the largest fraction of the voters

• One is never “throwing away” one’s vote• Should reduce negative campaigning

(because one wants to avoid antagonizing supporters of other candidates)

• Empowers 3rd parties, thereby diversifying debates and leading to a wider range of meaningful choices for a voter.

Where are some places approval voting is used?

• In the U.N., to elect the secretary-general

• In Renaissance Italy for 500 years• In various professional science and

engineering societies• A modified form of approval voting is

used to elect the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club

Why do we still retain plurality voting??

Why do we still retain plurality voting??

Voter apathy (even in the wake of the 2000 election)

Active and passive resistance to change by the two major parties

Voter apathy (even in the wake of the 2000 election)

Active and passive resistance to change by the two major parties

What are a few long-term issues related to sustainability for which inclusion of additional parties in

U.S. politics could not but help?

• excessive military/corporate political influence• rapid and seemingly endless U.S. population

growth• excessive meat eating• slow pace of implementation of renewable energy• over reliance on airplanes and cars to the

exclusion of (rapid) passenger trains

What can be done to make a difference, for sustainability?

What can be done to make a difference, for sustainability?

If one is a political junkie, or even if one is not, one must wean oneself away from the

“instant gratification” of seeing one’s favorite Democratic or Republican candidate

victorious and instead think long-term --

For the long-term (sustainability), if one has energy to spend working in politics, one

could not find a better cause than getting rid of plurality voting.

If one is a political junkie, or even if one is not, one must wean oneself away from the

“instant gratification” of seeing one’s favorite Democratic or Republican candidate

victorious and instead think long-term --

For the long-term (sustainability), if one has energy to spend working in politics, one

could not find a better cause than getting rid of plurality voting.

The Sierra Club is full of political junkies who spend an incredible amount of time trying to get their

favorite Democrat elected to office.

While satisfying the day after election day (if your candidate is victorious), as regards sustainability, such policies are long-term losers.