American democracy is certainly beginning to show its age and we could learn a thing or two from some of the newer democracies elsewhere in the world that have made improvements.
Here, I would like to offer what I believe are the two most important changes we can make to governance in the United States that will make government work better for all citizens and that will help reduce the polarization that is currently paralyzing our country.
#1 Publicly Financed Political Campaigns
Each accepted candidate for an elected political office should receive a designated amount of taxpayer-funded money for their campaign and not be allowed to accept donations from individuals, corporations, lobbyists, special interest groups, or any other entity. Key aspects of these publicly financed political campaigns would be
- At each level of government (local, county, state, national) each candidate would need to receive an agreed-upon minimum number of nomination petition signatures in order to qualify for a run.
- The amount of money each candidate receives depends on the office and the level of government, with national candidates receiving the most financial support.
- There will be agreed-upon rules on how this money can be used and transparency into how it is used.
- All candidates for a given political office receive the same amount of money to fund their campaigns.
- Though each candidate is barred from accepting donations from other sources, they are free to take part in as many interviews and debates sponsored by other organizations as they wish.
#2 Ranked Choice Voting
Ranked Choice Voting (also known as instant runoff) allows each voter to vote for more than one candidate by selecting their first choice, second choice, and so on, if they wish. Ranked Choice Voting should be allowed at all levels of government (local, county, state, and national).
Here’s a simple example of how one method of ranked choice voting works.
Let’s say you have three candidates running for a particular political office: Candidate A, Candidate B, and Candidate C.
There are nine different ways a voter could vote in this election:
A only
B only
C only
First choice: A; Second choice: B
First choice: A; Second choice: C
First choice: B; Second choice: C
First choice: C; Second choice: B
First choice: C; Second choice: A
First choice: B; Second choice: A
Now, let’s say we have 8,764 voters who voted as follows:
A only: 182
B only: 361
C only: 880
A, then B: 718
A, then C: 1,366
B, then C: 1,336
C, then B: 1,815
C, then A: 489
B, then A: 1,617
Tallying up everyone’s first choice gives us:
Candidate A: 182 + 718 + 1,366 = 2,266 votes
Candidate B: 361 + 1,336 + 1,617 = 3,314 votes
Candidate C: 880 + 1,815 + 489 = 3,184 votes
We see that Candidate A received the fewest votes, so they are removed from further consideration. We now look at the second choice (if any) of all those who voted for Candidate A as their first choice, in addition to those who voted for Candidates B & C as their first choice.
Candidate B: 361 + 718 + 1,336 + 1,617 = 4,032 votes
Candidate C: 880 + 1,366 + 1,815 + 489 = 4,550 votes
You’ll notice the 4,032 + 4,550 = 8,582 votes, which is 182 less than the total number of voters (8,764). That’s because 182 voters voted only for Candidate A, and since they didn’t specify a second choice, when Candidate A was removed their contribution to the election is over at this point.
You’ll also notice that Candidate C wins the election with the majority of the votes (4,550 vs. 4,032).
Generalizing, if there are n candidates running then the number of ranked choices available is n-1. For example, for four candidates, there would be two rounds of elimination instead of only one as shown in the three-candidate example above.
Two candidates qualifying
Each voter chooses one and only one candidate
Three candidates qualifying
Each voter can choose a first choice and second choice candidate
Four candidates qualifying
Each voter can choose a first choice, second choice, and third choice candidate
And so on…
Ranked choice voting would encourage more than two viable political parties (and that would be a good thing, seeing as our current two-party system maximizes polarization), plus voters could vote for any candidate they truly support without fear of the spoiler effect, since they can specify a second choice should their first-choice candidate be eliminated because they received fewer votes than the other candidates.
It is unlikely that initiatives to adopt publicly financed political campaigns and ranked choice voting will come from either the Republican or Democratic parties (or their corporate and billionaire donors and lobbyists!) so it is up to us, the rank-and-file voters, to force these issues at a grassroots level. I would be interested in hearing from readers who have ideas on how best to accomplish this.
