Crossposted from my personal blog in the nether reaches of the Internet.
One of the persistent issues for third parties in countries like the United States is the feeling by voters that choosing them rather than a Democrat or a Republican is a wasted vote. This is indeed a very real problem, and one I sympathize with- the top vote-getter of the Greens I voted for in 2010 got 3% of the vote, and I knew they had absolutely no actual chance of winning.
There are two main issues at play here, one has to do with how we elect most of our government in this country, and the other has to do with the staggering financial advantages the two major parties have. Below, I'll outline some of the proposed ways that elections can be made more competitive and truly multiparty.
Single transferable vote (STV)- A system used in many countries and in Cambridge, Massachusetts, it eliminates "wasted" votes by transferring a voter's preference to another candidate (the second most-preferred one) if the first one is elected or eliminated. This system is often used for elections like school boards where more than one person is elected at one, and "excess" votes from one candidate can help others get elected.
What it means for third parties: No more excuses from voters about not wanting to vote for a non-viable candidate. They can choose a Libertarian or a Green as a first choice, then if they get eliminated (if nobody in the first round gets a majority), choose a Democrat or Republican as a backup.
=
Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP)- Used a variety of places, most famously in Germany's lower chamber the Bundestag. It combines single-member districts, like we have right now, with proportional representation. Any party obtaining over 5% of the vote gains seats.
What it means for third parties: You don't have to get a ton of support in any one district! Instead, just get 5% support across the country, and you're in Congress. It also means that regional parties can still win in the single-member districts, but ones with wide appeal but not enough manpower to wrench a district away from a major party can also get in.
=
Party subsidies: In our neighbors to the north, parties receive cold, hard cash for votes. It sounds dirty, but it's what keeps parties solvent and keeps them from taking money from unsavory sources.
What it means for third parties: Pretty obvious, money is money. Along with a total cap on expenditure, it could really put the minor parties in contention for seats in a MMP system. In an age of the Internet and cheap media, a little bit of money goes a long way.
=
Electoral reform isn't sexy, but it is something that would make the country a better place. While I can't say it will happen soon, at the local level there is quite a bit of active experimentation with concepts like STV and proportional representation. Hopefully they catch on.
I know Daily Kos is in many ways about electing Democrats. But it's also about the grassroots, the netroots, and people-powered democracy. One way to make government more responsive is to make the way government is elected more responsive. Only purposeful and intelligent electoral reform can make that happen.
Thank you.