New York City is holding its primary election today using a rank-choice-voting system that the citizens of New York approved in 2019. The system permits the voters to rank the candidates for a given office. Voters pick a second choice, third choice, etc., up to five choices, for example, in addition to their preferred nominee (No.1). This system enables the voter to have multiple choices with which to participate in what is in effect multiple elections, until one of the candidates has 50% of the vote; the candidates at the bottom having dropped off the list one at a time.
This certainly suggests a democratic process with the citizens being able to participate to the fullest extent possible in the primary election. Operationally, however, this system is a nightmare. It makes voting exceedingly complicated even for well-educated citizen. It encourages—as it has this year—multiple candidates to run provided they have a large campaign treasury. Voters have enough trouble remembering whom they wish to support. Connecting particular candidates with their position on a specific issue is totally lost in the mathematical barrage of candidates. In addition, election results probably will not be finalized in those contests where there is rank-choice-voting for three weeks. The results of the first-choice selections—which will not secure victory unless the person has obtained 50% of the vote--are not expected to be announced for a week.
Picking one candidate to support out of field of eight or ten is difficult. It also would guarantee that unless you have a second round of run-off elections, a candidate may well obtain the party’s nomination with as few as 30-35% of the vote. In fact, most voters have a preferred candidate. Asking the voter to pick a second, third, etc., choice is not genuinely reflective of voters making a choice they care about beyond their first selection.
It is also understood that maximizing public participation is truly the essence of democracy, but not when the people are so overwhelmed with administrative details. Then, democracy and the electoral process fails. In addition, many of the candidates in the New York primary have found themselves funded with enormous resources from their supporters. Should one or more of these candidates lose the primary, he/she may very well be able to obtain the resources to run in the general election as an independent. The advantage that such an independent would have is they already have established wide-spread name recognition during the primary.
The segue from observing this rank-choice-voting system is that it ought to raise questions in the minds of many about the consequences that might ensue in eliminating the Electoral College for presidential elections. Direct election of the President is much more democratic and undoubtedly eliminates much of the bias in the current system. As it functions today the electoral college gives political power to blocs of states, regions, and constituents at the expense of large, diverse, and heterogeneous states. It also would protect the integrity elections by placing more power in the hands of the people and eliminating the power that the electoral college gives to the states.
It is very difficult to deny the fact that a system of direct election of the President is far more democratic than the electoral college system, there are some serious operational problems and consequences to amending the Constitution. Open elections will become normative and as a result there will be multiple candidates running, with or without party designations or support. The amount of money that will be spent on these campaigns will dwarf the millions being poured into races already.
Obtaining at least 40% of the vote to avoid a run-off, as currently envisioned, may not be easily achieved. As a result, two people will vie in a run-off, both of whom will have received less than 40% of the vote in the first round. This will translate into a President being selected who was opposed by over 60% of the voters in the first round.
Finally, multiple parties with candidates running for President will spurn aspirants running for Congress who identify with a minor party. This will lead to multiple parties in Congress and an American version of coalition government. The consequence will be to change the American political system from a two-party system to a multi-party system, the results of which are unknown and potentially very disruptive to the system of Government.
In observing the primary contest in the New York elections today, Americans considering reforming the electoral college, ought to contemplate carefully what New York has wrought in its new rank-choice-voting system. Sometimes change may not be optimal even though it looks good on paper.
Comments