Ok, I "hate" third parties as much as you do. But look at this poll result in the recent
AP poll:9. And if the election for Congress were held today, would you want to see the Republicans or Democrats win control of Congress?
_Republicans, 32 percent (34)
_Democrats, 52 percent (51)
_Neither (VOLUNTEERED), 12 percent (13)
_Not sure, 4 percent (2)
They didn't even offer "neither" as an option. That's a volunteered response. What would that number have been if they had offered it as a possible answer? And what would have been the other number they didn't ask: "Or some other party besides the Democrats or Republicans."
And remember, no one in their right mind believes that third parties have a snowballs' chance in hell of winning.
What this means is that there is a lot of pent up frustration over the lack of third parties. When we have a system that locks out those feelings from the political discourse, then like a pressure cooker without a safety valve, it can blow. The last time it blew was 1860.
There are other ways the keep it from blowing, by turning down the heat, and that's what has kept it from blowing since then. It all came close in the 30's, but Roosevelt handled it.
The real solution is to restructure the electoral system. But we have enough problems just trying to get the Democrats to respect progressives, without trying to get them to support structural reforms.
Now the reforms are actually pretty easy and quite doable. There is a way to eliminate the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment. It merely requires that enough states, as few as eleven, pass local versions of a common compact that would direct their state's electoral vote go to the candidate with the most popular votes counted nation-wide. Indeed the process is well under way as we speak with several states already having bills in their system to join such a compact. See the National Popular Vote website.
With the recent passage of such a bill in the California Assembly, DailyKos and Mydd both have had recent posts on the topic. We may well be in the midst of an historical change in how we elect presidents in this country.
There is, however, a huge flaw in the idea. It is merely a plurality and not a majority-rule process. There is a simple fix for that but lets discuss why it is an important problem that very much needs fixing.
Democracy begins at majority rule. Less is oligarchy. As Democrats, we believe in democracy. We are not only willing to let the voters decide we insist upon it. But when you allow the fist candidate past the post represent the whole, you take a chance on minority government.
If the best organized "gang" gets to pick the winner, and your gang can never get its act together, you eventually quit the process. Declining participation in the electoral system is the result. Increasing influence of money is also a result, as money can go a long ways towards organizing a "gang" of people. Both declining voter participation and the increasing influence of money are characteristics of the current U.S. electoral system.
Another effect of plurality systems is the narrowing of the diversity of discourse. Since the tendency of such systems is towards duality, or two-party contests, the quality of the political conversation itself becomes two-sided. When new ideas are emerging within such a system, the true strength of the new idea is never directly represented or measured by the voting system even when they become adopted by one of the two parties.
Proponents of plurality often point to the supposed stability of duality based political systems. In reality the stability is an illusion. A forced quasi-consensus hides what should be gradual changes until a major break occurs. Revolutions and civil wars are possible outcomes in extreme cases.
What I am attempting to address are the objections to fixing the plurality problem that will be brought forward by those who are irrationally opposed to so-called "third parties." It is primarily because of plurality, the process whereby whoever gets the most votes wins, that third parties so consistently fail in this country. Folks do not want to chance that their vote for a third party will cause their most hated candidate to win. Ralph Nader is exhibit A.
Because of Ralph Nader and to a lesser extent Ross Perot, third parties are now viewed with pariah status, something to be shunned and ridiculed. It has not always been so. The progressives, the populists, the socialists, the libertarians, G. Wallace, T. Roosevelt, even A. Lincoln represent a vibrant third party tradition in the U.S. If it weren't for the structural impediments of plurality and gerrymandered districts, third party politics would thrive.
When Markos of DailyKos was speaking in Chicago during his book tour he stated mistakenly that it would take a constitutional amendment to make third parties viable. He is wrong. Were the National Popular Vote movement to amend their compacts to require a candidate to represent a majority of the popular votes cast, then third parties become immediately viable at the presidential level. Were their language to include a provision that provided for a process that allowed the losing candidates the ability to direct the votes cast for them to go to another candidate, in an IRV-like fashion, until one candidate represented a majority, then the issue of plurality is addressed and third party politics becomes reasonably possible in the U.S. without an amendment to the constitution.
What would a majority-rule process look like?
I don't know. But what people immediately try to do is to cut historical elections and paste them into a majority process like I described above. It is an interesting exercise but only that. Because the entire dynamic of the election would be changed, cutting and pasting past elections would create extremely un-realistic results.
Let's play with 2000 and 1992. The 2000 election seems to be a no-brainer. Nader gives his votes to Gore and Gore wins. But what about 1992? Who does Perot give his votes to? Maybe G.W. Bush, but then again maybe not. Perot came into the election without a political track record. Indeed it was one of his appeals. You have to believe that many voters just assumed that Perot shared their own beliefs. But if they knew that he might come in third and be called upon to direct the votes he received to Clinton or Bush, then suddenly Perot must either make his politics clearer or lose a lot of votes. The dynamic of the election is changed greatly in a majority rule situation.
A specific case - Ilinois HB5777
Here is the language of the Illinois version of the bill to join the compact. I have inserted in red one possible amendment to the bill. Perhaps you may have your own, better, language for the amendment.
Anyway food for thought. As if we didn't already have enough on our plates.
94TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
State of Illinois
2005 and 2006
HB5777
Introduced 03/30/06, by Rep. Robert S. Molaro - Jim Durkin
SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:
New Act
Creates the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote Act. Ratifies and approves the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote. Provides that the agencies and officers of this State and its subdivisions shall enforce the compact and do all things appropriate to effect its purpose and intent that may be within their respective jurisdictions.
LRB094 20029 BDD 57559 b
A BILL FOR
HB5777 LRB094 20029 BDD 57559 b
1 AN ACT concerning interstate compacts.
2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:
4 Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the
5 Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National
6 Popular Vote Act.
7 Section 5. Ratification and approval of compact. The State
8 of Illinois ratifies and approves the following compact:
9
"Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National
10
Popular Vote
11 Article I-Membership
12 Any State of the United States and the District of Columbia
13 may become a member of this agreement by enacting this
14 agreement.
15 Article II-Right of the People in Member States to Vote for
16 President and Vice President
17 Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular
18 election for President and Vice President of the United States.
19 Article III-Manner of Appointing Presidential Electors in
20 Member States
21 Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by
22 the presidential electors, the chief election official of each
23 member state shall determine the number of votes for each
24 presidential slate in each State of the United States and in
25 the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a
26 statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to
27 produce a "national popular vote total" for each presidential
28 slate.
29 The chief election official of each member state shall
HB5777 - 2 - LRB094 20029 BDD 57559 b
1 designate the presidential slate with the largest national
2 popular vote total as the "national popular vote winner."
------------Insert This-------
designate the presidential slate with a majority of the
popular vote total as the "national popular vote winner."
Should no slate have a majority then the presidential
candidate on the presidential slate with the smallest popular
vote total shall have the power to direct his or her votes to
be cast for any of the remaining slates. Should there still be
no presidential slate with a majority popular vote total then
the next presidential candidate on the presidential slate with
the next smallest popular vote total shall have the power to
direct his or her votes to be cast for any of the remaining slates.
This process shall continue until there is slate with a majority
popular vote total.
----------------------
3 The presidential elector certifying official of each
4 member state shall certify the appointment in that official's
5 own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in
6 association with the national popular vote winner.
7 At least six days before the day fixed by law for the
8 meeting and voting by the presidential electors, each member
9 state shall make a final determination of the number of popular
10 votes cast in the state for each presidential slate and shall
11 communicate an official statement of such determination within
12 24 hours to the chief election official of each other member
13 state.
14 The chief election official of each member state shall
15 treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number
16 of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate made by
17 the day established by federal law for making a state's final
18 determination conclusive as to the counting of electoral votes
19 by Congress.
20 In event of a tie for the national popular vote winner, the
21 presidential elector certifying official of each member state
22 shall certify the appointment of the elector slate nominated in
23 association with the presidential slate receiving the largest
24 number of popular votes within that official's own state.
25 If, for any reason, the number of presidential electors
26 nominated in a member state in association with the national
27 popular vote winner is less than or greater than that state's
28 number of electoral votes, the presidential candidate on the
29 presidential slate that has been designated as the national
30 popular vote winner shall have the power to nominate the
31 presidential electors for that state and that state's
32 presidential elector certifying official shall certify the
33 appointment of such nominees.
34 The chief election official of each member state shall
35 immediately release to the public all vote counts or statements
36 of votes as they are determined or obtained.
HB5777 - 3 - LRB094 20029 BDD 57559 b
1 This article shall govern the appointment of presidential
2 electors in each member state in any year in which this
3 agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively
4 possessing a majority of the electoral votes.
5 Article IV-Other Provisions
6 This agreement shall take effect when states cumulatively
7 possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted this
8 agreement in substantially the same form and the enactments by
9 such states have taken effect in each state.
10 Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except
11 that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end
12 of a President's term shall not become effective until a
13 President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve
14 the next term.
15 The chief executive of each member state shall promptly
16 notify the chief executive of all other states of when this
17 agreement has been enacted and has taken effect in that
18 official's state, when the state has withdrawn from this
19 agreement, and when this agreement takes effect generally.
20 This agreement shall terminate if the electoral college is
21 abolished.
22 If any provision of this agreement is held invalid, the
23 remaining provisions shall not be affected.
24 Article V-Definitions
25 For purposes of this agreement, "chief executive" shall
26 mean the Governor of a State of the United States or the Mayor
27 of the District of Columbia;
28 "elector slate" shall mean a slate of candidates who have
29 been nominated in a state for the position of presidential
30 elector in association with a presidential slate;
31 "chief election official" shall mean the state official or
32 body that is authorized to certify the total number of popular
33 votes for each presidential slate;
34 "presidential elector" shall mean an elector for President
HB5777 - 4 - LRB094 20029 BDD 57559 b
1 and Vice President of the United States;
2 "presidential elector certifying official" shall mean the
3 state official or body that is authorized to certify the
4 appointment of the state's presidential electors;
5 "presidential slate" shall mean a slate of two persons, the
6 first of whom has been nominated as a candidate for President
7 of the United States and the second of whom has been nominated
8 as a candidate for Vice President of the United States, or any
9 legal successors to such persons, regardless of whether both
10 names appear on the ballot presented to the voter in a
11 particular state;
12 "state" shall mean a State of the United States and the
13 District of Columbia; and
14 "statewide popular election" shall mean a general election
15 in which votes are cast for presidential slates by individual
16 voters and counted on a statewide basis.".
17 Section 10. Enforcement. The agencies and officers of this
18 State and its subdivisions shall enforce this compact and do
19 all things appropriate to effect its purpose and intent that
20 may be within their respective jurisdictions.