Home Page
News Area
Site Contents
"Your right to be represented"
Alan Shilepsky Op-Ed Piece
on Fair Share Voting
printed in the St. Paul Legal Ledger on January 17, 1998
The health of any democracy is directly related to the interest and involvement of its citizens in its political process. Judging by the rate that eligible voters turnout at elections in the United States the news is bad.
The United States consistently ranks among the lowest worldwide in voter participation. Western democracies typically have turnouts of 70 to 90 percent in national elections, compared to 60 percent in the US. Minnesota was proud to achieve 65 percent in 1996, an Presidential year, but in 1994--a US Senate race year--it only had 34 of 87 counties surpass 60 percent. We did well! That year only 39% of eligible Americans voted, down 20 percent from the 1960's. Alarming statistics considering the United States prides itself on being the creator and protector of modern democracy.
Our state officials usually try to increase voter turnout by making it easier to register and vote. Reforms have included postcard registration; "motor-voter" registration when you renew your driver's license; election day registration; and now talk of mail-in ballots so voters will not even have to appear at their neighborhood polling station
It is unlikely that making voting ever easier will increase involvement, though it does tend to trivialize the franchise and the democratic process, as well as increase the opportunity for vote fraud. I am old fashioned enough to think voting should be a serious civic sacrament celebrating our representative democracy. It should not be steadily downgraded to the equal of placing an order at a drive-through window.
Easier voting reforms are based on the questionable assumption that people are not registering and voting because it is too difficult and time consuming to do so. I dispute that. People are not voting because they believe voting has too little effect to be worth the effort. If they thought they had some clear choices and could register a meaningful opinion then turnout would increase. More people will vote if they think it can actually affect the way they are governed. (Political scientists call this "efficacy.")
There are efficacy reforms that would make voting more significant. They include "fusion candidacies", "instant runoff ballots", multimember districts, and the like. Many fall under the rubric "proportional representation," though some of us here in Minnesota are calling it "fair share voting" and have formed a group called Fair Vote Minnesota to increase public awareness of it.
Fair share techniques are used in other countries and were sometimes used in this country earlier in our history. These reforms have often been opposed by the two major parties because they tend to undermine their duopoly on political offices and would increase the possibility of electing mavericks over party stalwarts.
Fusion candidacies would allow two parties to endorse the same candidate for office and have the candidate's name appear on the ballot once for each party endorsement. Citizens could vote for Candidate X either on the Party A line or the Party B line. Candidate X would receive the combined total but the world could see the relative contribution each party supplied towards victory.
Fusion has been used successfully in New York for decades and allows voters to indicate not only their candidate choice but also their party choice (e.g., Liberal, Conservative, Pro-Life, etc.). Candidates who have benefited from it include FDR, Ronald Reagan, and former Senator Jacob Javits.
Minnesota came close to getting fusion in 1996. The state was sued after state election officials refused to put the Progressive Minnesota/New Party endorsement of State Representative Andy Dawkins on the 1994 ballot in addition to his DFL endorsement. The 8th Federal Circuit Court found for Progressive Minnesota and required the 1996 Minnesota Legislature to permit fusion candidacies going forward. The Legislature then passed a minimalist law that including a self-destruct clause in case the State was able to convince the Supreme Court to overrule the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court did just that in 1997 though a Minnesota Assistant Solicitor General had to argue to the Court that Minnesotans would be confused by fusion ballots--leading Justices Ginsburg and Scalia to scoff that New Yorkers must be smarter because they had no trouble understanding it.
Instant runoff ballots would help end the dilemma of voting for the "lesser of the two evils". Today many voters prefer a third party candidate like a Dean Barkley, Ross Perot, Harry Browne, or Ralph Nader, but they expect such candidates can not win. So instead of "throwing their vote away" they vote for their second choice who has a better chance of winning. This is sometimes called strategic voting because voters are basing their vote on what they expect other people to do, not on what they really want. This, by the way, is one reason why opinion polls are so influential and why a candidate running third in the final poll sees a big drop-off on Election Day!
The instant run-off (or preference) ballot would allow voters to rank the candidates -- 1st, 2nd, 3rd. During the counting the candidate with the fewest first choice ballots is eliminated and his or her ballots are transferred to the second choices indicated. This continues until one candidate has an absolute majority of votes cast. So in 1996 if you voted your first choice for Perot you would still have a say in the "instant runoff" between Clinton and Dole. Why should you lose your right to participate in the final decision just because you preferred someone who was eliminated in the first round?
Multimember Districts have two or more representatives per district, with each voter getting one vote at election time. This distinguishes it from "at-large" districts where a majority can win all the seats with just 51 percent of the votes. Since each voter gets one vote a minority of voters, be it ideological, racial, gender, or whatever, can be represented without an absolute majority. If two people are to be elected, 34 percent can win one seat, if three, then 26 percent makes a winner. In a three member district with instant run-off at worst 24 percent of the voters will not have voted for a winner and at least 76 percent will have a representative they voted for. In a close two person race today in our "single member, plurality wins" (SMP) districts fully 49 percent may be without a representative of their choice.
Multimember districts allow minorities to have a voice in our legislatures, and makes each vote more meaningful because there are multiple thresholds for gaining yet another seat. And it removes some of the incentive to gerrymander districts. US Representative Cynthia McKinney has introduced the Voters' Choice Act (HR 3068) that would allow states to use this form of voting to elect Congresspersons.
Reforms like these can increase voter turnout because they address the efficacy problem. They allow voters to fine-tune their message to the politicians, and they allow third parties to garner and display support without depriving their supporters of a say in the "main event". And they allow the eventual winners to have clearer instructions and larger mandates from the voters.
Don't expect to see reforms like these from the major parties. Given the current state of citizen disenchantment officeholders don't want to make it too easy for voters to send them bad news.
To learn more about Fair Share Voting contact Tony Solgard with Fair Vote Minnesota (724-5540) or check the Center for Voting and Democracy's web site at www.igc.org/cvd.
(Mr. Shilepsky has registered a campaign committee to explore a run for the office of Secretary of State on the Reform Party line. The Secretary of State has responsibility for overseeing the administration of elections in Minnesota. The Reform Party is a major party under Minnesota law by dint of its having achieved 5 percent of the vote in a statewide election, which it did both in 1994 (Dean Barkley US Senate race) and 1996 (Barkley Senate race and Ross Perot Presidential race).)
Back to the Top - - - Contents Page - - - News Index
Prepared and paid for by Shilepsky Campaign Committee
115 Hennepin Ave., Minnepolis, MN 55401 (612) 333-5181
Webmaster for
this site