02-25-08

Cardboard Cutouts Part Three
Achieving a Real Mandate
Imagine living in a place where more than sixty per cent of the registered voters voted against the winning candidate.  If you live in Texas, you don't need to imagine it, you're living it.  Like I am.  In 2006, incumbent Rick Perry won the election with only 39 per cent of the ballot.  This was, in large part, dues to the so-caled "spoiler effect" of the two major independent candidates in the election.  Well that, and the fact that Texas statewide elections employ a plurality system.

A plurality system is one where candidates are elected and issues decided by a single vote, and whoever gets the most votes win.  This differs from majority elections where candidates and issues are required to receive at least half (simple majority) or some set minimum (preset majority—alway a larger fraction than one-half).

The "spoiler effect" only exists in places where the plurality system holds sway:  A strong independent candidate, rather than expressing a reasonable chance of winning the election, tends to draw votes away from the party to which he is most closely aligned.  The upshot of this is that power is concentrated in established corridors, with little likelihood of new ideas being introduced into the system. 

Mind you, I don't think that the plurality system was instituted as an intentional and cynical method of maintaining power.  originally, I'm sure they were instituted as a matter of expedience.  The United States is a big place, and with notable exceptions on the East Coast, the states themselves are pretty big, and for a long time, it just wasn't feasible to elect candidates to office by even simple majority.  For one thing the vast communications network necessary for determining runoff positions and notifying voters of a runoff election quickly and efficiently didn't exist until around 1925 or so.  The other major obstacle was counting procedures; the technology for mechanically or electronically counting ballots didn't really exist until the last half of the 20th Century.  These difficulties in coutning and communications are the reason that for most of the life of our country, the Presidential Inauguration took place on March 20 (this was changed in 1932, with the ratification of the 20th Amendment).  It's odd that our leaders recognized the changing trends of communications as they regarded the ratification and exploitation of election results, but not the effect on the process itself.

It is no longer unfeasible to hold a runoff for every election.  Because of this, the plurality system is a dinosaur in desperate need of revision.  Now, I've heard of ideas of holdin "instant runoffs".  These would be complex ballots, much like the judging ballot for beauty pagents, where candidates are scored on a sliding scale, and mathematical wizardry is used to determine fromt hat who would win.  With all due respect to those who champion such systems, that's crap.  In any election very few people know who they're "for" beyond their main candidate of choice, and asking people to fiull out a score card in the few minutes most people have in the ballot booth is just unreasonable.  In a runoff situation it always comes down to who the supporters of the minor candidates hate least, and an "instant runoff" will not make that happen.

I am more in favor of traditional runoffs, in all election.  Election results are generally fully tallied within 48 hours, and, even in the worst case possible, there are 79 days between the general election and the date of inauguration.  Even factoring in weekends and a week off for Christmas, that provides plenty of time for a runoff announcement and an abbreviated runoff campaign.  That's all it takes.  Take the top two candidates by plurality from the general election, place them on a ballot for an election to be held before (say) December 1, hold the election with those candidates only (no write-ins), and bingo!  You have an actual mandate from the people.  Assign electors in the manner I described last time, and I guarantee, our Presidential elections wil quickly stop being the divisive, frustrating circuses we've grown so used to.  Candidates, freed from the expedience of appeasing some amorphous majority, will stop being cardboard cutouts spewing platitudes, and maybe become actual people talking about actual issues.