Gordon L. Weil
Jared Golden has a good point. The Democrat represents Maine’s Second District,
which has always backed Trump, and has previously won elections thanks to Ranked-Choice
Voting. But he found this year that it may not make sense.
RCV and the proposed National Popular Vote that would
displace the Electoral College, are reforms that can reduce democratic
government set out in the Constitution.
The great British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once recalled
that “democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms.” Democracy is messy and inefficient to ensure
that decisions will be carefully made to reflect a thoughtful popular
will. RCV and NPV may be more efficient,
but they could undermine popular democracy.
American elections have traditionally been conducted by plurality
voting – electing the person with the most votes, even if not an absolute
majority. The Maine Constitution
requires it for state elective offices, but uses RCV for federal and party
elections.
In some states and municipalities, when the winner does not top
50 percent, a run-off must be held among the leading finishers. That makes sense and allows two real votes,
often between candidates of two parties.
The second election gives voters a new choice after a brief campaign and
taking into account the latest political developments.
The traditional system has worked reasonably well. RCV eliminates both the plurality and the
run-off. Voters may get to pre-select a
back-up if their favorite does not make a strong enough showing to win
outright. That’s a bit like saying you’ll
get the side dish for dinner if they run out of your entree, but you won’t have
the chance to select again from the main menu.
Maine has a rule that the first choice can be left blank
with a voter either picking a second choice or leaving the entire RCV choice
empty. Either way that RCV ballot
counts, even if it denies the victory to the majority winner, Golden in this
case, because the vacant ballots must be counted as if they were a candidate
choice. That’s absurd.
Another alternative to tradition is the “jungle primary.” All
party candidates and independents run in a single election. Then the top
finishers go to a real run-off.
California uses the system with a “top-two” result. This
year, a Democrat influenced the first- round vote so that it would yield him a
second-round race against a Republican rather than against another popular
Democrat. In effect, he turned the
“jungle primary” back into a traditional run-off. That was not the intent.
As for the NPV, it supposedly would yield a single national
vote for president. Democrats favor it, given
two recent elections in which a Republican won the electoral vote while losing
the popular vote across the country. The
U.S. has never held a nationwide vote.
The NPV has been approved only in states under Democratic
control. The goal is to allow the
popular majority, which the Democrats have believed is theirs, to override the
electoral vote that enhances the influence of small, rural states. Their majorities in California and New York would
create a national popular majority that could swamp GOP wins in many small
states.
Obviously, the Democrats worried that, for a second time,
Donald Trump would win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote, again
making the case for NPV. By winning a
popular majority, President-elect Trump has undermined the NPV case.
Linked to the NPV is the call for ending the Constitution’s
electoral voting system under which each state automatically receives a minimum
of three electoral votes. That gives an
individual voter in a small state more voting power than one in a large state.
Aside from the historic fact that, in creating the United
States the 13 states demanded this system, it has usually produced a so-called
“qualified majority,” in which the popular vote is supplemented by a state
vote. It has worked that way in 55 of
the 60 American presidential elections.
This system is used in the EU and Switzerland, among other
jurisdictions.
The electoral vote will not be eliminated, because amending
the Constitution has become impossible.
There is no possibility that the constitutionally required 38 states
will be able to agree on any change. Reopening
the Constitution is now avoided because of concern that the amendment process
could allow for basic rights, long observed, to be modified or abolished.
Alaska, which narrowly adopted RCV, may turn out to have
narrowly repealed it this year. Several
states have banned it. NPV is either
futile or unnecessary. The Electoral
College is here to stay.
These unlikely or impossible reforms arise out of the
failure of political compromise. They
offer false hope. Possibly, the only way
the national government works these days is when one party dominates it. That is what has just happened.
