Portland Press Herald

Let's be sure winners always get more than half the vote


By Jim Brunelle

August 13, 2004


 Ralph Nader these days is doing what he has always done best: giving fits to any organized political entity within spitting distance.

Nader's people are working hard to get his name on the presidential ballot as an independent in as many states as possible. His supporters here claim enough signatures to get him listed as an alternate presidential choice.

Because Maine is considered a swing state, Democratic Party leaders are understandably concerned. They're hinting at a legal challenge to the Nader petitions.

In New Hampshire, a GOP-friendly political consultant is reportedly gathering Republican signatures for Nader petitions by saying the independent candidate will draw votes away from John Kerry and ensure George Bush's re-election in the fall. Granite State Democrats are thinking of asking for a federal investigation.

Meanwhile, Green Party leaders are upset because efforts apparently are being made to substitute Nader's name for that of David Cobb, the party's official nominee, on the California ballot.

That Nader could determine the outcome of a close race again - he almost certainly deprived Al Gore of the presidency in 2000 and handed it to Bush - has Democrats enraged and Republicans elated.

It need not be that way. There is a simple solution to the "spoiler" factor, one that would ensure not only that the most popular candidate wins an election, but also that he or she wins by a clear majority of the voters.

The solution is a modified version of a practice now in effect in most presidential democracies around the world and, indeed, in many states: runoff elections. There, the top two candidates in a regular election face off when no candidate wins a majority.

The trouble with two-round runoffs is that they are expensive, inconvenient for voters, require more campaigning by the surviving candidates and are often decided by far fewer voters the second time around.

The answer to all these shortcomings is something called "instant runoff voting."

That's a system practiced in Australia and Ireland, recently endorsed by Vermonters in non-binding town-meeting votes and soon to be applied to local elections in San Francisco.

It works this way: Instead of selecting a single candidate for a particular office whenever there are three or more choices on the ballot, voters are asked to rank their preferences: first choice, second choice and so forth.

If no candidate wins a clear majority of votes, the one with the fewest votes is dropped and the second-choice selections of that candidate's supporters are awarded to the remaining contenders. This continues - with ballots being counted and recounted through Election Night if necessary - until one candidate emerges with more than 50 percent of the votes.

It is uncomplicated, inexpensive, decisive, timely and emphatically democratic.

Maine, which is constantly trying to burnish its reputation as a high-voter-turnout state, may very well become a national leader on this issue. Secretary of State Dan Gwadosky, acting on orders from the Legislature - in a resolution sponsored by Rep. Thomas Bull, D-Freeport, that passed in April - is currently studying the feasibility of introducing the instant runoff process here.

His report will be filed with the next legislative session for further action. It deserves serious, thoughtful treatment.

Increasingly, with the emergence of multiple-candidate elections, we are being governed by minority victors. Each of the last five governors - John Baldacci, Angus King, John McKernan, Joseph Brennan and James B. Longley - has won election by less than a majority of the total votes cast.

Among those backing the instant runoff system is John B. Anderson, who ran for president as an independent in 1980 and was criticized then for being a potential spoiler. He wasn't, as it turned out, because Ronald Reagan piled up more than 51 percent of the vote that year.

But Anderson today rightly perceives the fundamental flaw in the electoral process: "We use a plurality voting system where voting for your favorite candidate can contribute directly to the election of your least favorite."

If a candidate like Nader qualifies for a place on the ballot, fine. He should be allowed to compete for as many votes as he can get and voters who like him and his policies ought to be able to cast their ballot without feeling guilty about throwing the election to someone they can't abide.

Instant runoff voting would rescue candidates from being condemned as selfish spoilers, rescue voters from wasting their ballots and rescue the nation from minority governance.

Maine should be in the forefront of this enlightened reform.