Amazingly, Americans continue to be enchanted with third party candidates and their chances of reaching the presidency despite the fact our voting system virtually renders it an impossibility. WSJ columnist William Galston, for example, observed in his recent column (Jan. 30, p. A17):
"Last September, I and two other members of the bipartisan Voter Study Group assessed voters' appetite for an alternative to the two established parties. Though 68 percent said they'd like another option, they didn't agree on what it should be."
In other words, the choices split to the left (of the Dems) and to the right (of the Republicans), as well as the perceived dead center, i.e. between left and right "extremes". Most interesting, Galston adds:
"Support for a candidacy of the center amonnted to about 22 percent of the electorate. not enough to carry a single state."
This is sobering and shows the immense difficulty of electing a third party candidate - whether of more left, center, or more right, gaining any traction in the U.S. electoral system. One reason for that is that our system of voting is skewed toward a majority of votes for the winner. This is in turn skewed by the Electoral College - where a minority popular vote winner can still claim top prize as Trump did in 2016. (Based on snaring 77,000 votes in 3 key states: WI, MI and PA).
The usual reason offered for the existence of the Electoral College is to give smaller, less populous states some leverage in national elections. The real reason is that the Founders designed it to protect slave -owning states from having their will thwarted by more populous non-slave states. The issue ought to have been settled in the Civil War, but the Electoral College continued as the anachronism it is today. (Of course some Founders, like Alexander Hamilton, argued for the Electoral College to be the final barrier against a populist demagogue becoming president. Well, we saw how that worked out.)
Anyway, it is clear or should be that the only way a third party candidate would stand a chance is to adopt a preferential voting system that departs from binary (A or B) choices. Instead, one has a ranked system such as illustrated below, which we also use in Mensa to elect officers. It is also used in one form or other in other nations. As my late German friend Kurt Braun explained to me in 1985, "The Greens in Germany would never have stood a chance of seating so many in the Reichstag" i.e. without preference voting.
This ballot example (from Wikipedia) shows five choices - which could be five presidential candidates in a primary. The voter - instead of being asked to vote one OR another, is asked to rank 3 in the order of preference. When all votes are finally tallied - say 100,000 - the candidate registering the highest frequency, highest rank (or 2nd highest in 2nd rank if tied for first) is declared the winner. In such an election scenario it is possible to conceive of a third party candidate (say Mary Hill) at least gaining enough leverage to take an election. (E.g. John Citizen: 25,000 "1's, 33, 000 "2's, 42,000 "3's"; Mary Hill: 25,000 "1's", 45,000 "2's", 30,000 "3's".) Mary Hill is awarded the victory because though tied with John Citizen for No. 1 rank, she bested him with 12,000 more 2nd rank votes.
I believe it is fairly easy to also see that such a voting method would also essentially eliminate "tied" election results such as we have seen in assorted national elections and ever since Bush v. Gore in 2000. Thus, the No. 2 rank higher frequency emerges as an automatic tiebreaker. No need for recounts- hand or machine, hanging chads or screaming mobs outside of voting stations while recounts are performed. Easy peasy.
So why isn't this more rational system employed? Because - the argument goes - it would be too costly and complicated to overhaul the existing binary, winner take all system.
All of this is relevant now as former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has announced his third party candidacy and the Dems are livid, as they should be. As William Galston put it (ibid.):
"Starbucks former CEO has no shot at the presidency and could help Trump win."
Indeed, he could well do that just as Jill Stein did in 2016 when she siphoned just enough votes off from Hillary Clinton in three states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) to enable Trump to grab 77,000 for an electoral college win. This despite Dan Henninger's codswallop (Jan. 31, p. 17, 'The State of Trump's Union'):
"He (Trump) won in 2016 in part because so many people voted against Hillary Clinton."
Actually, Henny, nearly THREE million more voted for Hillary than Dotard. What really happened is that too many nincompoops decided to toss their franchise away in the three "Brexit" states by voting for Jill Stein. Not that Jill isn't a proper firebrand and amiable - but she didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning given our current binary voting system.
Henninger, in his inimitable distorting style, then goes on to bloviate about Democrats and the Left in "hysteria over an outlier like Howard Schultz." No, not because Schultz is an outlier - like Jill Stein was- but because like Ms. Stein he could siphon just enough moderate Dem votes to get the piece of filth and traitor re-elected. Which would be a national catastrophe. But, of course, Henninger is such a DOtard suckup it's doubtful this aspect would register. Presumably he'd be just fine with 4 more years of Trump's antic, including" shutdowns if he doesn't get his way, hobnobbing in secret meets with Vlad, and dissing his own intelligence agencies. (Why Sen. Chuck Schumer recently called for an "intervention" by the intel group.)
Worse, as NY Times columnist Michelle Goldberg noted three nights ago on 'All In' Schultz doesn't even have a platform, a stance or an agenda. He just wants to be the "third choice" and maybe the "anti- Dem" - so like too many rich guys on the right with more ego than brains - wants to stir up a shitstorm against Medicare for All and higher taxes. . (The proposed program now facing a propaganda blitz in the reactionary media and also the corporate owned set.)
The best advice for Schultzy? Don;t event think of carrying through with this farce, and forever being labeled an accessory after the fact if this traitor Trump is re-elected. As Mr. Galston put it in his "open letter" to Schultz:
"Even if you could win, there's no reason to believe you would be an effective president."
But as I wrote, Schultz won't win - there's no universe in which he does- especially with a binary winner take all system. But he could and very well might be the unknown that get Traitor Trump re-elected, with all that implies.
See also:
And:
by Robert Reich | January 31, 2019 - 7:31am | permalink
Excerpt:
"His message is without substance (he uses empty catchphrases like “silent majority” and “common sense solutions”) and his policy proposals are zilch. When asked by John Dickerson on CBS This Morning what his “big idea” was, Schultz declared: “The big idea is very simple: to unite the country. For us to come together. To do everything we can to realize that the promise of America is for everyone.” To the extent Schultz has defined his candidacy, it’s focused on what he’s against—for example, Democratic proposals to raise taxes and provide Medicare for All .
No comments:
Post a Comment