The Key to Progressive Change Lies in Electoral Reform

In 2020, progressives once again watched with bated breath as progressive champion Bernie Sanders took on the centrist wing of the DNC. Once again, they hoped that he might triumph and take the party and country in a new direction. A year later, we know that that isn’t what happened. Once again, the dominant neoliberalism in the Democratic Party beat out Bernie Sanders. This progressive vs centrist story happens across the nation at all levels: local, state, congressional. Often, the centrists come out triumphant. Occasionally, a dark horse progressive manages to win over the party and win the primary (see AOC, Jamaal Bowman, Marie Newman, Cori Bush). But the very idea that we must look for change within the Democratic Party brings an important issue to light: the horrible state of our elections.

It is known to all that the US has always been a two-party system. Indeed, all Presidents bar Washington have belonged to one of the two major parties. The same goes for a majority of congresspeople, senators, governors, mayors, etc. This two party system, however, is not a coincidence. Instead, it is a direct result of the US’s electoral system.

The United States, on almost all levels, operates under a simple plurality system, meaning the winner need not receive a majority of votes cast, just more than the next best candidate. The plurality system essentially shuts out third parties, due to the “spoiler effect”, or vote splitting. There are many examples of this in US elections (2000,1992,1912). Because of this, a candidate must belong to one of the two major parties in order to win their election. Very rarely does an independent or third party manage to beat the major parties in a head-to-head contest.

This applies to progressives as well. Almost all progressives currently holding office belong to the Democratic Party, and had to fight their way through the primary. Essentially, progressives are dependent on the DNC in order to gain power. But when the progressive loses the democratic primary, as often happens, the voters are now presented only two choices: A far right Republican, or a center to center-right Democrat.

This is even more omnipresent on the Presidential level, as demonstrated by the last two presidential elections. Year after year, progressives are forced to back the DNC in order to prevent Republicans from gaining power. The solution to this,however, is not to vote third party, despite what twitter leftists will have you believe. Instead, it is to reform our elections so that voting third party does not automatically translate to a Republican victory. The solution is to reform our elections so we have real, major, powerful parties that represent progressivism.

The Electoral College

The Electoral College is the key obstruction in the path to election reform. This article will not explain how the electoral college works. For that, see its wikipedia page. The electoral college’s winner-take-all plurality means that a candidate can win less than half of a states votes, yet take its entire delegation. This is effectively the death knell for third parties. The vote splitting that occurs when a third party contests the election all but guarantees a victory for the candidate who is most different than the third party.

This is just one of the numerous flaws that exist in the electoral college, all of which will be explained in a later article. The point, however, is that the electoral college all but mandates progressives and other “ideological minorities” to contest the election through one of the two major parties.

The solution to this is quite simple. Abolish the Electoral College and use a national popular vote. While some think this requires a constitutional amendment, there is another way to effectively abolish the EC. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a bill that would mandate signatories to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Since the constitution does not mandate winner-take-all, this is in accordance with the constitution.

First Past the Post

The problem exists beyond the Electoral College as well. Almost every election at every level is conducted under a plurality system, allowing for candidates to win with most of the constituency opposing them. Once again, this forces third party candidates to seek a nomination through one of the two major parties if they have even a hope of winning.

This problem applies to the above mentioned National Popular Vote as well. The National Popular Vote compact will still award electoral votes to the candidate that wins a plurality of votes. This, however, is an easy fix.

Ranked Choice Voting is an idea that is quickly gaining speed. In fact, it has been signed into law in two states, Maine and Alaska. Ranked Choice Voting, or Instant Runoff Voting, requires voters to rank the candidates on the ballot. If a candidate has more than 50% of the votes, they are elected. However, if no one does, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and their votes are then awarded based on their voters second choice votes.

Ranked Choice Voting would solve the spoiler effect, as will be explained in greater depth in later articles. I am proposing to replace the EC with National Ranked Choice Voting.

As for Congress, I believe that Ranked Choice Voting would not solve the underlying problem of under representation. A better solution would be proportional representation. Proportional Representation is by far the most widely used method of electing lower houses. Proportional representation ensures every vote is counted. It bypasses gerrymandering, it ensures that congressmen who were elected with 50.001% of the vote do not have equal power as those elected with 80%, and overall, causes the house to reflect the will of the people.

The Size of the House

In addition to the backwards method of electing congresspeople, the size of the house is another issue with our congress. Currently, the average congressperson represents about 700,000 people. This number will surely go up, as the size of the house has remained stagnant since 1929, even when the population has almost tripled. The size of the house, coupled with the constitutional mandate that each state must have at least one representative, leads to severe representation issues. For example, Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island and Rep Matt Rosendale of Montana each cast equally powerful votes in congress, despite the fact that Rep. Rosendale’s speaks for almost twice as many people. This problem is solely due to the size of the House. The size of the House causes states to have districts that are not in proportion with their population. This leads to minorities, both ideological and racial, being “shouted down” by the majority in their district. An expanded house would both ensure all voices are adequately represented and that every US Representative represents roughly equal amounts of people.

The overall disarray of our elections is horrible for a number reasons, that have been highlighted over the course of this article and that will be further explained in future articles. The fact, however, remains. Progressives must add radical electoral reform to their manifestos if they hope to gain power and change this country. It has been showed time and time again that most of the DNC and all of the GOP are hostile to progressives and friendly to the status quo. And if progressives are to launch a successful extra-party challenge to the status quo, it will require our elections to be fixed. The time has come to make elections serve their purpose: representing the people.