After the first presidential debate, there was one conclusion that almost everyone came to, which is that it was the worst debate in modern history. After such a disastrous debate and in the midst of a heated partisan campaign, an important issue arises. What can we do to change this?
In our view, the answer lies in opening up the debate process to unaffiliated participants. Does anyone believe the raucousness would exist if a third party candidate was there? Just look at the 1992 debates between George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot. We need to reform our voting system as a goal to make a level playing field for unaffiliated voters. Indeed, nearly 70 percent of all Americans and 80 percent of Americans below the age of 40 want unaffiliated candidates elected to office.
Our current system of “first past the post” voting allows two parties to dominate our elections by tagging any unaffiliated candidate who tries to run as a spoiler. This hurts our democracy by shutting out independent candidates. It has corrupted presidential debates as it gives the two major parties nearly absolute power. The two major parties can block third party candidates from participating by creating rules for entry that only their candidates can meet, specifically, the onerous requirement that a candidate have at least 15 percent support in national polls in September of a presidential election year.
ADVERTISEMENT
Together, our firms have previously challenged the Federal Election Commission on this rule and worked to reform the selection criteria for presidential debates. In the report, we calculated that an independent candidate needs to spend more than $260 million to run a viable campaign capable of reaching 15 percent support in polls by September of the election year, a sum that is impossible for all but the major party candidates. Further, under the current system, there are inherent biases against third party candidates in polling, and the determination that the third party candidate is not viable because they lack a certain amount of support becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Indeed, a polling threshold for debates effectively institutionalizes the Democratic and Republican candidates as the only options. Thus, a third party candidate who is excluded from debates loses the opportunity to demonstrate that they are a better alternative, the media does not cover the candidate, and the candidate does not get the public exposure necessary to compete in debates. Beyond opening up our debate process to offer a place to third party candidates, the past several presidential elections have also made it clear that we also need to transition from “first past the post” voting to a better alternative.
Ranked choice voting is a fairer and more democratic system that gives voters more choice, and allows independent and unaffiliated candidates to run for office without being tagged as a spoiler. Procedurally, ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in an election rather than vote for one. If a candidate has a majority of the first choice votes, they win. If no candidate has a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and ballots for that candidate then go to each voter’s next choice, and the process continues until a candidate wins with a majority.
Broadly speaking, with this system, every race will be competitive, and elections would no longer be decided on just a few battleground states. Officials need to be accountable to a broad coalition, not just their base, party, or a sliver of the electorate, because candidates who are opposed by a majority cannot win. In terms of the debates, this system would pave the way for multiple participants, instead of just two polarizing figures from each party who were chosen through a partisan nomination process.
Further, ranked choice voting would improve the tone of our politics, as candidates are encouraged to show more restraint when speaking about their opponents so that more voters rank them higher. This makes campaigns more professional and allows for a more civilized discussion of ideas and policies, unlike what we saw in the first debate. Ranked choice voting would allow the full scope of political views to be reflected in our government and debates, rather than just the radical extremes of the two major parties. The majority of Americans who reject extreme candidates with extreme policies can see that both sides lost the first debate.
With Donald Trump
Donald John TrumpJaime Harrison debates Graham behind plexiglass shield Doctors, White House staff offer conflicting messages on president's health Trump given second dose of Remdesivir 'without complication', 'not yet out of the woods', Conley says MORE having tested positive for the coronavirus, hopefully he will make a full and swift recovery in time for the remaining debates. However, for these debates, the commission would be wise to recognize that the issue is not turning candidates’ microphones on or off at strategically placed times, but rather fundamentally changing how we organize our debates and our electoral system. We must open our debates and explore fundamental systematic changes, like ranked choice voting, otherwise we may not have a system left.
Peter Ackerman is the founder for Americans Elect. Douglas Schoen is a consultant who served as adviser to Bill Clinton and Michael Bloomberg.
"choice" - Google News
October 04, 2020 at 09:00PM
https://ift.tt/3isHigz
Ranked choice voting is the best road forward to save democracy | TheHill - The Hill
"choice" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2WiOHpU
https://ift.tt/3c9nRHD
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Ranked choice voting is the best road forward to save democracy | TheHill - The Hill"
Post a Comment