This is the first in a three-part
series opposing ranked-choice voting, Question 5 on the state ballot
in November.
“Democracy is the worst form of
government, except for all the others,” said Winston Churchill.
The famous British Prime Minister
thought our democratic system of government was inherently and
intentionally inefficient and lacked the streamlined nature of
systems placing efficiency above the popular will. But its
inefficiency gives the people time to consider the results of their
votes.
The American democratic, electoral
system is “presidential.” Unlike a parliament, where all
candidates of several parties run by district with no general
election of the head of government, the U.S. system has statewide
elections, usually with a choice between candidates of only two
parties.
The state-based system used by the
federal government is also used in the states themselves –
including Maine. The governor is elected statewide, while the
Legislature is elected by district.
From 1820 until 1879, the system
generally worked well in Maine. But that year, three candidates
gained votes – Republican, Democratic and Greenback. None had a
majority, throwing the election into the Legislature.
Disagreement centered on whether the
old Legislature or the newly elected one should pick the governor.
Conflict threatened, and Joshua Chamberlain, former governor and
former Civil War general, was asked to separate the armed parties.
Finally, the state Supreme Court decided and a Republican became
governor.
To prevent such an embarrassing and
dangerous situation from arising again, Maine amended the state
constitution to allow for “choice by plurality of all the votes.”
Since 1974, Maine has experienced a
series of multi-candidate races for governor, usually with three
leading candidates and usually won by a plurality not a majority.
Four former Democrats have run as independents and two were elected.
Another came close, while the still another sharply reduced the
incumbent’s vote
The frequent selection of the governor
by plurality raised little or no concern until the 2010 election of
Republican Paul LePage. The majority of voters supported either
independent Eliot Cutler or Democrat Libby Mitchell. A fourth
candidate also gained votes.
LePage again profited from an
opposition vote split between Cutler and Democrat Mike Michaud, and
was reelected in 2014.
Two conclusions seem clear from his
elections. LePage would not have won if the opposition had not been
split. And he benefitted from the tea party wave in 2010 and became
one of the most controversial governors in state history, being for
many an embarrassment to the state, because of remarks many thought
racist.
The divided opposition had reason to
regret their having failed to unite behind either Cutler or the
Democrat. But some voters felt they should have to abandon their
first choice in the name of the practical politics that could have
stopped LePage.
As unusual as this situation might
appear, it isn’t. While many developed countries use the
parliamentary system, voters in these countries also understand that
their district choice is a vote for the top executive.
No further away than Canada, there are
three major parties that run candidates in districts all across the
country. The party gaining the most votes – virtually always a
plurality and much less than a majority – names the country’s
prime minister and the premiers of its provinces.
There are no coalitions; the minority
rules. The system works satisfactorily, because all parties are
committed to making it work.
In the U.S., the plurality system, used
nationally and in 39 states, works. Major new parties seldom arise,
but third parties come and go. Remember in 1879, the third candidate
came from the long-forgotten Greenback Party.
For a new party to establish itself as
an alternative, it must win its way into the top two. The last new
party to make the grade was the Republican Party in 1860. The
ranked-choice system could inadvertently and easily create new
parties and always prevent majority winners.
Ranked-choice voting, in which voters
can also pick second and third choices, might have prevented LePage’s
elections. But it would have been a revolutionary and unprecedented
change in the American political system.
Today, voters must make their own
choice whether they prefer to vote on principal or party, even if
that means seeing their candidate lose, or to pick an acceptable
alternative. Ranked-choice voting would promote even more split
voting with the ultimate winner hidden behind a computer calculation.
The problem with
the LePage elections may have been more with divided voter opinion
than the voting system. You cannot fix one by changing the other.
Next: The problems with
ranked-choice voting. Third: Alternatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment