A Vote For Nader is a Vote for Bush, But It Doesn't Have to Be
Just as the world doesn’t break down into two neatly divided groups of good people and evildoers, the U.S. electorate doesn’t break down into two neatly divided groups of Democrats and Republicans. In fact, many voters have negative impressions of both major parties, and view the stagnant duopoly that is the modern American political system as an interminable bout between two evils.
Unfortunately, come Nov. 2 those same U.S. voters will be forced to align themselves with John Kerry or George W. Bush – or else essentially concede that their votes will have no impact on the actual election of the president for the 2005-2009 term.
Sure, if people want to vote for Ralph Nader they should feel free to do so. But such votes, as many recognize, come with unfortunate consequences.
Someone’s going to nominate justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in the next four years, and it’s not going to be Ralph Nader. And someone’s going to chart the future course for social spending issues such as healthcare reform, and it’s not going to be Ralph Nader. And, of course, someone’s going to decide the fate of America’s ill-conceived military intervention in Iraq, and no, that’s not going to be Ralph Nader either.
But this year’s Nader dilemma represents much more than a third-party candidate threatening to shape the outcome of an election; it represents a flaw in the election system itself. More specifically, it represents the overwhelming downside of winner-take-all voting.
It may very well be that more than half of the U.S. voting population – including those considering casting their ballots for Nader – would prefer any number of available alternatives to George W. Bush. But the current system has no mechanism for registering that sentiment at the polls. In the future, it should.
The winner-take-all system – in which the candidate with the most votes from a single-choice election emerges as the victor – both risks the election of unfavorable candidates and discourages third party contenders from entering the fray (out of fear that they might play the “spoiler” role). If the United States implemented instant runoff voting, both of these undesirable consequences would fall by the wayside.
Instant runoff voting, which is currently in use in Ireland, invites voters to rank several candidates in a given field instead of selecting just one. Then, if no candidate captures a majority (50.1 percent) with all the voters’ first choices counted, the system eliminates the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes and tallies the ballots again, this time counting the second-choice votes of those who favored the eliminated candidate. This process then repeats itself until one candidate captures a majority, thus winning the election. (It should be noted here that several countries use runoff voting without the ranking component – by simply holding a second election between the top two vote getters if no one wins a majority; but the instant system, which requires only one election, seems preferable.)
While instant runoff voting would likely provide a boost for the Kerry camp in the upcoming presidential election (and a relieving option for some on-the-fence Nader supporters), it would not – by any means – benefit any particular political camp in the long run. Rather, it simply would enable minor party candidates to run for office without fear of spoiling elections, while encouraging voters to cast ballots based on genuine political preferences rather than strategic calculations.
Support for instant runoff voting, at least in some situations, has come from points spanning the political spectrum – a testament to its ability to provide a common sense reform to the election system. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the progressive Democratic congressman from Ohio, has long advocated for the process, while the Utah Republican Party – an outfit not generally known for its rabidly liberal views – adopted it for its state convention elections in 2001.
Nonprofit groups like the Center for Voting and Democracy, which have worked tirelessly to reform the election system, have argued extensively that instant runoff voting would improve the state of the U.S. government by giving the electorate a louder voice through the voting process. They’re right on target.
While this fall’s race for the presidency is clearly destined for a winner-take-all duel between Kerry and Bush, future elections don’t have to be that way (whether they’re presidential elections, congressional elections, or elections at other levels). In the coming years, political leaders should seriously address the instant runoff option and weigh it on the merits.
A vote for A doesn’t have to be a vote for B. It should be just what it is: a vote for A. This campaign season, which has already sparked fairly significant interest in American government and politics, provides an opportune time to raise this issue as a proposal for the future. Because come September of 2006, 2008, or 2010, when a similar situation arises in another important election, it’s going to be – just like now – too late.
