Davis Gallery
Time to Reform Electoral System
RECEIVED Mon., July 12, 2004
Dear Louis,
In your July 9 editorial ["Page Two"] you state, "I believe in democracy" and "I believe in the two-party system." These beliefs are inconsistent. While democracy implies inclusiveness, the two-party system is exclusionary. In a two-party system, voters often vote against candidates rather than for their choice. It becomes the lesser of two evils.
In "non-swing" states, due to the winner-takes-all Electoral College, the feared presidential third party "spoiler" effect is a red herring. Up to half the votes won't count anyway. Further undermining "one person, one vote" democracy, the EC distributes power unequally. For example, a Wyoming citizen's vote is worth over three times that of a Texan's.
Over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the EC. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the EC than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the EC as "archaic" and "ambiguous." In 1987, an ABA poll showed 69% of lawyers favored abolishing it. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58% in 1967, 81% in 1968, and 75% in 1981.
Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there can be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the state's system for proportional allocation of votes. Elimination of the EC would be better, but that takes a Constitutional amendment. Working within the anti-democratic framework of the EC, a proportional allocation of electoral votes is more realistically achievable in current winner-takes-all states.
This is only one of many realistic reforms we have available to us for making our voting process more inclusive and, thereby, more democratic. If you are interested in helping advance democracy through voting method reform, contact [email protected].
In your July 9 editorial ["Page Two"] you state, "I believe in democracy" and "I believe in the two-party system." These beliefs are inconsistent. While democracy implies inclusiveness, the two-party system is exclusionary. In a two-party system, voters often vote against candidates rather than for their choice. It becomes the lesser of two evils.
In "non-swing" states, due to the winner-takes-all Electoral College, the feared presidential third party "spoiler" effect is a red herring. Up to half the votes won't count anyway. Further undermining "one person, one vote" democracy, the EC distributes power unequally. For example, a Wyoming citizen's vote is worth over three times that of a Texan's.
Over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the EC. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the EC than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the EC as "archaic" and "ambiguous." In 1987, an ABA poll showed 69% of lawyers favored abolishing it. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58% in 1967, 81% in 1968, and 75% in 1981.
Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there can be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the state's system for proportional allocation of votes. Elimination of the EC would be better, but that takes a Constitutional amendment. Working within the anti-democratic framework of the EC, a proportional allocation of electoral votes is more realistically achievable in current winner-takes-all states.
This is only one of many realistic reforms we have available to us for making our voting process more inclusive and, thereby, more democratic. If you are interested in helping advance democracy through voting method reform, contact [email protected].
Rod Sanders
