Plurality election rules allow candidates with less than 50% of the vote to win, thwarting the will of the majority and leading to unrepresentative outcomes.
The Non-Majority Rule Desk explores the causes and consequences of this all-too-common occurrence, suggesting ways in which reforms designed to promote majority rule could improve election practices.
11 - 14 of 14 results
This week at the Non-Majority Rule desk I’m going to focus on lessons from two important developments in statewide races: the U.S. Senate race in Alaska and the race for governor in New York. Recent developments in the two states’ races demonstrate another aspect of the dangers of plurality voting: How it can shortcut democracy even when majority victories are ultimately produced.
Third party and independent candidates continue to have a major impact on several statewide races for governor and U.S. Senate. Indeed, there are 8 states where candidates are polling at more than 10% - the latest being Lisa Murkowski, the sitting U.S. Senator from Alaska who lost her Republican primary, but who now is pursuing a write-in candidacy. At least one race might join them – New York, where Rick Lazio lost the Republican primary, but remains the Conservative Party nominee. Voters certainly seem hungry for more options – a Gallup poll found that 58% support a strong third party in the United States. Here’s a rundown of some of the week’s news from the “non-majority rule” desk.
2010 is a particularly important election. 37 states will elect governors to run their states – often with national implications through the central role governors typically will have in redistricting before the 2012 elections. Control of both the U.S. House and Senate are in play, with the outcome potentially hinging on votes in a handful of states.
This month I have blogged on state primaries held on August 3rd and August 10th about a serious, if often overlooked problem in our politics: non-majority winners in primary elections held with plurality voting.