[EM] Fwd: 2008 election fiasco is preventable

[Kathy Dopp]

Excuse me if you've already seen this one.  Would something this simple
work?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: electionwatch2006 at yahoogroups.com <electionwatch2006 at yahoogroups.com>
Date: 13 Jul 2007 08:29:11 -0000
Subject: [electionwatch2006] Digest Number 1547
To: electionwatch2006 at yahoogroups.com


1. 2008 election fiasco is preventable
    Posted by: "Jan Kok" jan.kok.5y at gmail.com jankok5
    Date: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:49 am ((PDT))

2008 election fiasco is preventable

http://denver.yourhub.com/Denver/Stories/Sound-Off/Politics/Story~333530.aspx

If New York mayor and multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg enters the
presidential race, he could take votes from the most-preferred
candidate and cause the second-place candidate to win. However, the
Colorado legislature could prevent that by making a simple change to
our voting rules.

There is widespread speculation that Bloomberg could run for president
as an independent. He could finance his own campaign at a level
competitive with the major parties, leading to a close three-way race.
Note that it is too soon to tell whether he would take more votes from
his Democratic or Republican opponent.

Suppose 60% of voters prefer major party candidate X over the other
candidate Y. Now suppose Bloomberg enters the race and attracts most
votes from X, so the election results are, say, 34% X, 35% Y, 31%
Bloomberg. Thus, Y might win, even though 60% of the voters prefer X.
Imagine the shock and outrage at this severely undemocratic result!

The problem is that our "plurality" voting system allows voters to
vote for only one candidate, and forbids voters from indicating other
acceptable alternatives.

There is an amazingly simple solution: Keep the same, familiar ballot
format we have now. Just change the instructions from "Vote for one"
to "Vote for one or more." Count all the votes. The candidate who gets
the most votes wins.

With this change, most voters don't need to change their voting habits
at all. They can vote for their favorite (X or Y) and be done with it.
But, Bloomberg supporters can safely vote for him, AND, if they don't
expect him to win, they can vote for X or Y as their backup choice. X
would get votes from 60% of voters and win.

Thus, this "vote for one or more" solution eliminates the spoiler and
wasted vote problems and helps assure that the most popular candidate
wins.

Q: What about the "one person, one vote" principle? A: That principle
means that legislative districts should have roughly equal populations
in order to give people equal representation. It has nothing to do
with how people vote or how ballots are counted.

Q: But isn't it unfair to let some people vote for more candidates
than others? A: There is no inequity. Every voter has the same
opportunity to - in effect - vote "yes" or "no" for each candidate.

Q: What if everyone just votes for one anyway? A: Then we're no worse
off than we are now with the present "vote for one" rule.

Q: What if many Democrats and Republicans vote for Bloomberg as well
as their favorite? A: Obviously, Bloomberg could win. If you really
don't want Bloomberg to win, don't vote for him!

Q: What about other solutions? A. "Vote for one or more" is by far the
simplest and cheapest solution, and thus has the best chance of being
adopted in time for the extremely important November 2008 elections.
Adopting this solution doesn't hinder further improvements in future
years.

Conclusion: There is a substantial risk that our current voting system
could make a poor choice of winner in November 2008. "Vote for one or
more" greatly reduces that risk and can help assure that the most
popular candidate wins. The change can be handled with existing voting
equipment and procedures with very low cost (no equipment or software
upgrades are needed).

To express support (or criticism) or get involved, please visit
http://groups.google.com/group/COVoterChoice

Jan Kok
Cofounder of RangeVoting.org

Fort Collins, CO 80528
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20070713/88e172c2/attachment-0002.htm>