Democracy To Do List: Three problems. One Reform.
Ok. The time has come. You all know I’m here for election reform. You know that I think election reform is a big tent and also that there is no single reform that is going to solve all of the problems our democracy faces. Now we have to get a little more specific. Not every reform does every thing, but some reforms do a lot. So let’s dive into a specific election reform I care about, maybe you’ve heard of it, maybe you haven’t, but let’s start with some of the problems most people agree on.
People feel trapped in this voting system. They are stuck with the lesser of two evils. Their ballots are sadly devoid of any nuance.
Candidates are trapped between a rock and a hard place. They have to run to the extremes to make it past the first round of elections and then they have to dash back to the middle. All so they can win a seat - forget actually fulfilling their promises.
Elections are run by special interests, they get their candidate elected and then they get their law passed. It’s a vicious cycle we’ve all seen.
You might be thinking right now that “yeah that all sounds right, and it sounds like we have pretty mediocre people trying to run for office. We just need new candidates.”
I agree with you, we do need new candidates. But that isn’t all we need. We need voters who actually want to show up. We need candidates to be able to participate in a system that actually allows them to represent their jurisdiction.
The Democracy Fine Print: Single-winner
I’m talking about single-winner right now. What does that mean? That’s when an election chooses someone to run for a seat that isn’t part of a body. Think Governors and Mayors. (You can think President if you want, but the electoral college is just…the worst.) I’m not talking about your State Representatives or your members of Congress. When they win seats they are part of a larger body. I’m talking about single-winners, there is one seat available and a single person will win it. There are many seats that aren’t like this, that’s not what I’m covering today. Today I’m talking about the solo-acts. The ones without real districts. Their cities haven’t been cut into smaller pieces based on red-lining in the 60s, their states haven’t been sliced up by gerrymandering so they can hang on to a seat for as long as they want. These are the folks who don’t get to pick their voters by redrawing maps.
Ok. So now we’ve determined the problem. We’ve determined one of the places we could solve this problem. So what’s the solution?
It’s ranked choice voting, you may know it by instant runoff voting. No matter what you call it, ranking candidates is an important step in solving the problems listed above.
It changes how voters interact with the system and it changes how candidates interact with the system. The system itself changes deeply. Alright. Onward.
1 - People feel trapped in this voting system. They are stuck with the lesser of two evils. Their ballots are sadly devoid of any nuance. Depending on where you live, it’s likely that you have 3-4 candidates running in the general election for Governor or Mayor. That list is smaller than it was at the start, the primary took care of eliminating the first round. But imagine if that hadn’t happened. Imagine if that could happen all at once. I’m not saying we don’t have primaries, I’m saying that we just combine the primary and the general to allow voters to express their nuanced opinions. No strategizing about who is likeliest to win in the general. No choosing one woman over another and then worrying about splitting the vote so that a man you don’t like gets through. Vote for who you want. Rank the rest. Instant primary.
2 - Candidates are trapped between a rock and a hard place. They have to run to the extremes to make it past the first round of elections and then they have to dash back to the middle. All so they can win a seat - forget actually fulfilling their promises. A lot of people in the election reform space come here because they are voters who feel personally hurt by the election system or they are academics who know the US can achieve more if we change our systems. I come from candidate world. I spent a decade working for candidates trying to navigate election systems so they could do the job they actually want to do - create and build policy that helps their constituents. The system we have now, where we divide the primary and the general by months, doesn’t work for them. They are forced to compete against people who have similar ideas and then to compete against those who may be diametrically opposed. That’s not actually helpful to anyone. Candidates turn themselves inside out trying to figure out how to win, and voters turn themselves inside out trying to figure out what exactly these candidates are saying. Ranking the candidates helps to minimize that. Ranking means you have to appeal to a wider number of voters. You aren’t just trying to be 50% +1’s favorite - you’re trying to be many people’s first choice, a lot of people’s second, and even aiming for some third choice picks. Candidates can run on who they are, they don’t need to go negative. In fact, slinging mud hurts them. Why would a voter rank them second if they’ve spent time dragging their number one choice through the mud?
3 - Elections are run by special interests, they get their candidate elected and then they get their law passed. It’s a vicious cycle we’ve all seen. Special interests have existed since our democracy started. I actually think some are good, some are mediocre, and some are bent on doing the most harm possible to our country. Ranking candidates doesn’t eliminate special interests. But it does reduce their effectiveness. It’s no longer a good idea to just pick a single candidate and put everything behind that candidate. Voters have more of a say, special interests have less. Special interests can still invest in candidates, sure, but now that policy matters more, the investment matters less.
If you’ve been a DTDL reader for the last few months then you know what I’m going to say next. Ranked choice voting is an upgrade to the system we have now - it is not a silver bullet. There is no silver bullet. (Which I guess is good because I’m uncomfortable with the metaphor that our democracy is a werewolf.) There are a lot of steps we need to take. Some focus specifically on voters, some on candidates, and some on special interests. Ranked choice voting covers all three.
Think about ranking candidates. Just think about it. Next time we’ll cover the RCV bans plaguing state legislatures across the country and why the establishment is focused on taking out the movement.
To Dos!
What to do if…
🏁 you’re going to close this email and never think about it again even though you loved it:
Go to an ice cream shop. Get ice cream. Quick question - did you decide which flavor you wanted before you got there? What would you have done if they hadn’t had it? If you said “I’d have gone with my second choice” then you are a ranking pro! Congratulations! I’m not kidding. That’s how easy this is.
🧶 you’ve got an hour this week
Host a mini-ranking. Family dinner? Book club? You pick. See what happens.
🍽️ you’re inspired and you (like me) want to make Election Reform your entire personality
Send me some non-food related ranking opportunities in your everyday life. All of mine have to do with food! I need some inspiration.