Why vote when it doesn’t count?

I occasionally listen to an online episode of Radiolab. This 70 minute episode this week was, of course, about voting. The story starts by noting the rise conservative autocrats in various countries around the world, leaders who claim allegiance to democracy, but actually want to destroy it. When they get into power it is usually through a democratic vote. Don’t the citizens know what they are doing? A researcher worked through data from the World Values Survey which talked to many people around the world.

Three questions in the survey dealt with democracy: What do you think of a strong ruler who doesn’t have to bother with Parliament or elections? In 1995 24% of respondents thought this was a very good or fairly good thing. Recently that grew to 33% around the world. In France and Britain that has grown to about 50%.

How important is it for you to live in a democracy? About two-thirds of Americans born in the 1930s and 1940s put a great deal of importance to living in a democracy, saying it is really essential. For those born since 1980 it is less than one-third.

Do you think rule by the military is a good system of government? Twenty years ago about 6% of Americans thought that was a good idea. A couple years ago that had grown to about 16%. And among young, affluent Americans 35% thing military rule is a good thing.

This shows there is not a deep attachment to democracy. People are saying let’s try something new. How bad could it get? It can’t be worse. Can it?

But dictators are permanent. Democracy admits up front that we won’t get it right, things will always change, and that’s a good thing. In a couple years we can vote in new people.

So if people think democracy is broken, let’s fix it. Yeah, that means tackling corporate money, lobbyists, gerrymandering, voter suppression, Electoral College, and even the two-party system.

Yeah, that’s a lot to deal with, especially in an hour-long program. Perhaps we can deal with one – voting, or at least the idea that a person’s vote doesn’t count.

What we have now is similar to a 1980s computer. We need to update the operating system.

The last 50 minutes of the program worked through three examples of rank choice voting. The voter doesn’t just vote for a favorite, he or she also votes for a second choice, and third, etc. perhaps for as many candidates as there are. The voter could also refuse to put a candidate in his ranking.

When the ballot counting starts votes are all awarded according to the first choice on each ballot. If one candidate gets over 50%, we’re done. This process deals with majority, not plurality. If no candidate gets over 50% the candidate (if lots of candidates, maybe more than one) with the fewest votes is eliminated. The ballots listing that candidate as first choice are examined and redistributed according to the second choice. The process – eliminating the bottom and redistributing according to the next choice – is repeated until one candidate gets over 50%.

In places where this has been used, such as Ireland, San Francisco, and Maine, the debate has become more civil. Candidates want to be seen in a positive light to get the second choice.

A few years ago there were four candidates for San Francisco mayor. The bottom two teamed up – vote for me and vote for my partner candidate for second choice. It almost worked. One was eliminated immediately. The other got enough votes to eliminate the second highest and almost squeezed into first place.

This method of voting could have made a big difference in the 2016 election. There were enough Never Trump voters that as the bottom candidates were eliminated the second and third choices would have given another candidate the win over the nasty guy. And in the general election as the Libertarian and Green party candidates were eliminated, votes transferred to Hillary Clinton would have made a difference in the three close states.

Rank choice voting sounds good to me.

Here’s another case of a really good idea that won’t get implemented because the people currently in power don’t like democracy and benefit from the way things are done now. Sigh.