Democracy Agenda

IMPLEMENT SYSTEMS OF RANKED CHOICE VOTING

UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURES

AN AMENDMENT MAKING IT CLEAR THAT CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE

TRANSFER THE VETO POWER TO THE PEOPLE OR PROVIDE FOR VETO OVERRIDES BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY

GIVE REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLIES (NOT PRESIDENTS OR GOVERNORS) THE POWER TO ISSUE PARDONS

MAKE JUDICIAL REVIEWS ADVISORY

LEGISLATION SETTING OUT THE DETAILS OF CONDUCTING AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION

REPEAL OF THE UNIFORM CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT ACT

CONDUCT BUSINESS DEMOCRATICALLY IN REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLIES

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)

A better way to conduct elections

As the name implies, Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is a method of voting that allows voters to cast votes for more than one candidate and rank their choices in order of their true preferences. If the candidate who is your first preference does not win, your vote is transferred to the candidate who is your second preference. If that candidate does not win, your vote is transferred to the candidate who is your third preference. Ranked Choice Voting not only gives voters more choices, it increases the chances that a candidate you support will be elected.

When used in an election where there is a single winner (an executive office, such as president, governor, et cetera, or for seats in a legislature with single-member districts) the tabulation method for RCV ensures that winning candidates have the support of a majority of the voters (at some level of preference) instead of just a plurality (the most votes, even if that is less than a majority). This is in harmony with the primary principle of democracy – majority rule.

Ranked Choice Voting is even more powerful when combined with multiple member districts or at-large elections for constituting legislative bodies because it results in proportional representation – with political parties or other collections of like-minded voters holding a percentage of the seats in a legislature equal to the percentage of the votes the top candidates from each party receive in an election. Legislatures with proportional representation more accurately reflect the will of the people – one of the primary principles of democracy.

In addition to eliminating wasted votes and the spoiler effect, research has shown that when combined with legislative districts of five or more members, Ranked Choice Voting neutralizes the effects of gerrymandering.

Ranked Choice Voting is also sometimes referred to as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), Single Transferrable Vote (STV), or “preferential voting”. Each of these alternative names suggests an advantage of this system.

It is sometimes called “Instant Runoff Voting” because it eliminates the need for run-off elections to ensure the winning candidate has the support of a majority of the voters.

It is sometimes called “Single Transferrable Vote” because, in the end, each voter is casting a single vote for each office, their vote is simply being transferred from one candidate to another if, and as, a voter’s top preference(s) are eliminated because they have fewer votes than other continuing candidates.

It is sometimes called “preferential voting” because it allows voters to express their preferences for each candidate by ranking them in order of preference.

It might not be a bad idea to conduct an election using this method, to determine what to call this method of voting.

All the problems with the way we conduct elections contribute to the central problem of a lack of meaningful choices for voters. Ranked Choice Voting (by any of these names) gives voters more choices.

The benefits of ranked choice voting are not theoretical, they are based on observable differences between our "winner-take-all" system with single-member districts and more genuinely democratic systems that have been in place in more and more countries around the world dating back to 1899. (Over 90 countries have some form of proportional representation.)

Tabulating Ranked Choice Votes

Votes are tabulated in rounds. In the initial round of tabulation, only first choice votes are counted. If a candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes, that candidate is elected.

If no candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated and the second-choice votes of voters who voted for that candidate as their first choice are distributed among the "continuing candidates". If a candidate then has a majority of the "cumulative votes", that candidate is elected.

If no candidate has a majority of the cumulative votes, the continuing candidate with the fewest cumulative votes is eliminated and the highest-ranked remaining choice votes of voters who voted for that candidate are distributed among the continuing candidates. This process is repeated for as many additional rounds of tabulation as necessary, until a candidate has a majority of the cumulative votes.

The simplest tabulation method for a legislature with multiple-member districts or at-large elections for legislators involves the same basic process as described above for single-winner elections. Instead of continuing the process of eliminating the candidate with the fewest cumulative votes until one candidate has a majority of the cumulative votes, the process is continued until the number of "continuing candidates” is equal to the number of members to be elected to a legislative body.

There are other more complicated processes for tabulating votes for legislatures with multiple-member districts. Some tabulation methods employ formulas involving “election thresholds” and for dealing with “surplus votes”. The end result of any of the commonly accepted methods is that the candidates with the broadest and deepest support are elected.

The Benefits of Ranked Choice Voting

Winning candidates have majority support

In elections with plurality winners, the candidate with the most votes (a “plurality”) wins. When there are more than two candidates, the winner may have less than a majority of the votes cast. The more choices we have, as voters, the smaller the percentage of the votes needed to win. If there are three candidates to choose from and the votes are evenly split, a candidate can win with as little as 34% of the votes cast. With five candidates on the ballot, a candidate can win with as little as 21% of the votes cast. This can be a major problem when several candidates have similar views on the issues and divide up the votes of like-minded voters. For example, if a public option for health care is supported by two-thirds of the voters in a state or district and there are four candidates on the ballot, if three of the candidates support a public option for health care and a federal job guarantee, they will split the votes of like-minded voters between them – averaging just over 22% of the votes cast. The candidate who is out of step with two-thirds of the voters may win with 33% of the vote.

When used in an election where there is a single winner (an executive office, such as president, governor, et cetera; or for seats in a legislature with single-member districts) the tabulation method for ranked choice voting ensures that winning candidates have the support of a majority of the voters (at some level of preference) instead of just a plurality (the most votes, even if that is less than a majority). This is in harmony with the primary principle of democracy – majority rule.

Eliminates concerns about "wasted votes" and "the spoiler effect"

In a “winner-take-all” system with plurality winners, and with major party candidates typically having a significant better chance of winning than minor party or independent candidates, voting for a minor party or independent candidate can make it more likely that the major party candidate you least support may win over the major party candidate who would be your preferred choice between the two major party candidates.

With ranked choice voting, you can vote for the candidates you support, in order of your true preferences, knowing that, as long as you include the major party candidate you prefer to the other major party candidate somewhere among your choices, you will not help the major party candidate you oppose and your vote will not be “wasted” by voting for a candidate you truly prefer, but who might not have as good a chance of winning.

Give voters more choices

With ranked choice voting you can vote for all the candidates you truly prefer, in order of preference, including minor party or independent candidates, without worrying about the “spoiler effect” or wasting your vote, if you choose one of the major party candidates among your preferences.

Discourages negative campaigning ("attack ads")

Most voters are tired of, and turned off by, attack ads and mudslinging. With ranked choice voting, candidates do best when they reach out positively to as many voters as possible, including those supporting their opponents. While candidates must still differentiate themselves to earn first choice support, attacking other candidates can alienate voters who might otherwise cast a vote for a candidate among their other choices. Having more than one opponent also makes it much more difficult to win by attacking other candidates.

Makes primary elections and run-offs unnecessary

The introduction of primary elections to determine the candidates of political parties was a significant victory for democracy and for the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, allowing citizens to have an important role in the process of nominating candidates. It is a reform, however, that has not aged well.

In addition to the financial cost to governments of conducting an additional election, primary elections (and run-offs in “Top Two” or “Top Four” elections) add to the cost of running for office for candidates. And the need to raise enormous amounts of money to win election to office is a major source of corruption within our present system.

Voter turnout is also typically much lower for primary elections. The citizens who do vote in primary elections are often extremely passionate about certain issues and candidates. When more moderate voters are not involved, candidates with extreme views (many of whom are well-funded by corporate interests) are more likely to be nominated. And when most of the congressional and legislative districts have been gerrymandered to favor one or the other of the two major political parties, the extreme candidates who are nominated usually win.

Ranked Choice Voting makes primary elections and run-offs unnecessary. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is sometimes referred to as “Instant Run-Off Voting” (IRV). With voters able to rank numerous candidates in order of preference, Ranked Choice Voting narrows the field of candidates and results in the candidate with the broadest support winning election to office.

“Top Two” and “Top Four” systems where the field is narrowed to two or four candidates in a primary is a form of ranked choice voting, but it is not as efficient as Ranked Choice Voting.

Increased voter participation

It should not be surprising that more voters vote in countries with some form of proportional representation experience. When voters feel that their vote matters, they are more likely to vote.

Change if you want it - but no big change if you don't.

A lot of people are intimidated by change. And ranked choice voting is a major change in the way we conduct elections. However, voters who are reluctant to embrace new ways of voting do not have to do anything different with ranked choice voting. They can simply cast a single vote for a single candidate and stop there. Voters who want to take advantage of RCV, however, should be able to do so. Voters should be able to list a reasonable number of candidates in order of preference.

Proportional Representation

The systems of ranked choice voting that have been adopted in the United States so far have only been for elections with a single winner. When ranked choice voting is used to elect the members of a legislative body with multiple member districts it results in a form of proportional representation. To use John Adams’ language - equal interests among the people have equal interests in the representative assembly. Legislatures with proportional representation more accurately reflect the will of the people – another primary principle of democracy.

Ranked choice voting is even more powerful when combined with multiple member districts for electing members of a legislature. It results in a form of proportional representation – with political parties or other collections of like-minded voters holding a percentage of the seats in a legislature equal to the percentage of the votes the top candidates from each party receive in an election. Legislatures with proportional representation more accurately reflect the will of the people – another primary principle of democracy.

Breaks the Duopoly (Two-Party System)

“Winner-take-all” systems with single member districts are nearly always dominated by two major parties. Countries with some form of proportional representation (like RCV with multimember districts) nearly always have more than two viable political parties. With more candidates running, both within parties and from different parties, RCV gives voters a much broader range of choices. No more "lesser-of-two-evils" elections.

Neutralizes Gerrymandering

Research has shown that the effects of gerrymandering are neutralized in legislatures electing at least five members from each district. With state-wide, at large elections, gerrymandering is eliminated completely. Electing members of a legislative body "at large" or from multi-member districts also neutralizes distortions in representation resulting from the uneven distribution of partisan voters.

More Voters are Represented

Increasing the number of members elected from a district also increases the chances that voters who support minor parties and independent candidates will be represented. Experience has demonstrated a strong correlation between the number of candidates elected from a multiple-members district and the number of parties represented in a legislature.

All Elections are Competitive and Every Vote Matters

The method by which we choose our representatives in Congress, state legislatures, and local governments has failed to even come close to constituting ideal representative assemblies. We have not managed "to prevent unfair, partial, and corrupt elections".

The fact that we have a two-party system (a duopoly) typically limits voters to a choice between the candidates representing the two dominant political parties, which many voters have come to consider a choice between the "lesser-of-two-evils". The combined effects of gerrymandering, natural distortions in representation resulting from uneven partisan distribution, and the advantages of incumbency make most districts "safe" for the candidates of one of the two major parties makes matters even worse. With less than 10% of the elections being competitive, voters in more than 90% of congressional districts are left with something worse than a choice between the lesser of two evils - no meaningful choice at all.

The fact that a challenger has almost no chance of winning keeps many potential candidates from running and makes it extremely difficult for those who do run to raise the money and recruit the volunteers necessary to run a viable campaign. With RCV in multi-member districts, every election is competitive. Every vote matters.

Ranked Choice Voting on Issues

Combining Ranked Choice Voting with referendums would provide voters with a simple method for choosing between several different proposals addressing a single issue or problem.

For example, rather than simply voting for or against raising the minimum wage to a single dollar amount, voters could be offered a range of choices (no increase, $15 per hour, $50 per hour, et cetera) and allowed to rank their choices in order of preference. Or, regarding a public option for health care, voters could choose between repealing the Affordable Care Act with no replacement (which has been proposed numerous times by Republicans in Congress), Medicare-for-All (which has been proposed by some Democrats in Congress), or a public option (sometimes described as “Medicare for All Who Want It”).

The tabulation method would be the same as for candidates.

Popular Election of Presidents Using RCV

Avoiding a foreseeable constitutional crisis

A majority of voters in America support replacing the Electoral College with direct election of the president by the people. That would be an improvement. Adding Ranked Choice Voting and all the benefits of RCV would be a major improvement and would avert a potential constitutional crisis.

All the candidates listed on the sample ballot (right) were on the ballot in one or more states in 2020. There are many other candidates on the ballot in most presidential elections, but without ranked choice voting, voters who cast their ballot for alternative candidates are almost certainly casting "wasted votes". If enough votes are cast for alternative candidates the "spoiler effect" may lead to the major party candidate, who would have won in a head-to-head match-up, losing in the Electoral College, as has happened in two recent presidential elections - in 2000 and 2016.

Candidates for President (on the ballot in one or more states) in 2020.

A candidate who wins the most votes losing the election is blatantly undemocratic. It is time to abolish the Electoral College and move to direct election of the president and vice-president by the people. Including Ranked Choice Voting in the process will ensure that the winning candidate has the support of a majority of voters (at some level of preference).

Replacing the Electoral College with direct election of the president using Ranked Choice Voting will also avert a potential constitutional crisis.

Within the system that has been in place since 1804, if a minor party or independent candidate were to actually win enough electoral votes to prevent any candidate from winning a majority of the electoral votes, that would trigger an even more anti-democratic process provided for in the 12th Amendment, with the House of Representatives electing the president, with each state having a single vote, regardless of population. (And the Senate electing the vice-president through a similar method.)

The only time that has happened, so far, was in the election of 1824. Andrew Jackson received a plurality, but not a majority, in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. Henry Clay, who came in fourth, was eliminated. He threw his support to John Quincy Adams (allegedly in exchange for being named Secretary of State – a deal that was labeled the “corrupt bargain”). Adams, who had finished second in both the popular vote and the Electoral College, became the president. Jackson had his revenge four years later, when he won the presidency.

We have, so far, avoided a repeat of what happened in 1824. If our luck runs out, it will trigger a serious constitutional crisis.

Amending our Constitution to provide for direct election of the president using ranked choice voting will not only give voters more choices, without triggering anti-democratic procedures, and ensure that the winning candidate has the support of a majority of voters (at some level of preference), it will also allow us to eliminate primary elections (saving a considerable amount of money.

See a draft of the Proposed Amendment

Unicameral Legislatures

Most other democracies have moved to unicameral legislatures. It's time for us to do the same.

The U. S. Senate was designed to be an "elite" assembly (originally elected by state legislatures instead of directly by the people) to give the wealthy a check on the will of the people. In a true democracy, absent a desire to check or limit the will of the people, there is really no reason to have a bicameral (two chamber) legislature. Nebraska implemented a unicameral in 1937 through a statewide referendum. It has proven to be more efficient and saved the taxpayers a lot of money. We should make Congress and the legislatures in the other 49 states unicameral legislatures.

Most of the other democracies that have moved from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature have simply abolished their upper chambers. The primary obstacle to abolishing the U. S. Senate is that the normal amendment process would require a two-thirds super-majority in the Senate to propose the amendment that would abolish the Senate (and do away with the lucrative and prestigious positions to which they have been elected). A constitutional convention is, at present, the only other way to enact any amendment abolishing the Senate or merging it with the House.

A proposal to merge the House and Senate might get more support in the Senate if we retain the concept (and titles) of both senator and representative with senators having more power than representatives. That could be accomplished through a system of proxies for citizens, with the members of Congress who have been assigned the most proxies nationwide holding the office of senator and the members who hold the most proxies in each congressional district serving as representatives.

If we do not move to a unicameral Congress, we will need to find some other way to democratize the U. S. Senate.

The U. S. Senate is, in and of itself, the most undemocratic element in the form of our government, with equal representation for states resulting in grossly unequal representation for the people of the larger states. Equal representation for the states in the Senate was “The Great Compromise” between the larger, more populous states (that wanted representation to be based on population) and the smaller states (that wanted to retain the equal representation for each state that they enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation). It was an unfortunate compromise, made necessary because the small states threatened to leave the convention (and the union) if they were denied equal suffrage in one house of Congress.

At a minimum, we need to extend a system of Proxies for Citizens to the Senate. That would make both the House of Representatives and the Senate considerably more reflective of the will of the people, which would presumably put an end to endless gridlock. It would also introduce an unnecessary redundancy. That might be necessary at least temporarily to get the necessary amendment enacted.

Abolishing the Senate, merging it with the U. S. House of Representatives to make Congress a unicameral legislature, or implementing a system of proxies in the Senate will require a constitutional amendment.

Amendments merging the Senate with the House of Representatives should be adopted in state governments. The primary reason we have a Senate at the federal level was to appease the small states at the Federal Convention of 1787. Our legislatures are also modeled on Great Britain's. We don't need a Senate to block the will of the people. We need a Congress and state legislatures that reflect the will of the people.

Corporations are not People

Corporations are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Corporations are not people. They are a form of business organization. The fact that five misguided, dark-robed Supreme Court Justices declared that corporations are people, with the same natural rights as human beings, does not make it so. The corporate form of business organization enables companies to reap enormous profits, grow very large, and become very powerful. We must prevent that power from being used to take control of our government.

[A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 54) has been introduced in the U. S. House of Representatives by Representative Pramila Jayapal. It currently has 75 cosponsors.]

See the Amendment that has been introduced

Transfer the Veto Power to the People or Provide for Veto Overrides by a Simple Majority

Allowing one person (a president or a governor) to negate the votes of a sizable majority of the members of Congress or a state legislature if support for a bill falls even one vote short of a super-majority in either the House or the Senate is extremely undemocratic. It borders on autocracy.

In a true democracy, the power to veto legislation is properly vested in the people. Whenever it appears likely that Congress or a state legislature has enacted legislation that does not have the support of a majority of the people, whether or not a president or governor has vetoed it, veto referendums, with every voter having a single vote, and the votes of a simple majority deciding whether legislation is approved or rejected should be conducted. And calling veto referendums should be a simple and relatively easy process.

People already have the power to veto legislation by calling a veto referendum in some states. We should extend that power to the people of America and to the states that do not provide for veto referendums.

In a true democracy, the role of the president or governor should be able to review legislation that has been enacted by the legislature, to share his or her concerns, and encourage them to reconsider. If we continue to allow a president or governor to veto legislation, to be consistent with the principle of majority rule, the legislature should be able to override a veto by a simple majority.

Make Judicial Reviews Advisory

Supreme Court Justices should be able to share their opinions, but not unilaterally nullify acts of Congress.

The power of the Supreme Court to nullify acts of Congress that have been signed into law by the president is not included in the Constitution. The power of "Judicial Review" is a power the Supreme Court gave itself early in our nation's history. Allowing a handful of Supreme Court Justices to unilaterally "veto" legislation through "Judicial Review" makes the judicial branch supreme rather than the legislative power.

The Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Courts in the states should have the power to notify representative assemblies of their opinion with regard to legislation being "unconstitutional" and offer suggestions for how to address their concerns. Representative assemblies should have the option of addressing or ignoring those concerns by a majority vote of the members.

The Details of a Constitutional Convention

Article V of the U. S. Constitution includes a provision for amendments to be proposed by means of a constitutional convention to be convened “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States” but does not include any details regarding how delegates to that convention would be chosen or how the business of the convention is to be conducted. If an Article V Convention is called without those details already in place, it will precipitate an unnecessary and avoidable constitutional crisis.

Several separate campaigns are actively seeking to call a convention, each of them calling for competing limitations on the amendments that can be proposed or considered at a convention. Twenty-eight states have adopted resolutions calling for a convention. That is only six short of the number required. It is not clear if Congress is required to call a convention if there are different limitations in some of the resolutions or if states legislatures have the power to set limits on the amendments that can be proposed the delegates to an Article V Convention.

The delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787, immediately upon convening, decided to disregard the language in the resolution that called the convention limiting them to do proposing nothing more than revisions to the Articles of Confederation. The delegates to an Article V Convention could presumably do the same thing.

Our greatest blessing, as Americans, is that we can change the form of our government peacefully, using ballots instead of bullets. (Although the amendment process is among the most anti-democratic provisions in our Constitution.). An Article V Convention is likely to be the best means of enacting the amendments needed to remove the other anti-democratic provisions from our Constitution. Absent legislation detailing a democratic process for electing delegates and conducting the business of the convention, there is good reason to fear an Article V Convention. With a democratic process in place, there would be good reason to celebrate a convention.

See a Draft of the Proposed Amendment

Repeal the Uniform Congressional District Act

The Uniform Congressional District Act requires that all members of the U. S. House of Representatives be elected from single-member districts. Repealing this act will enable states to neutralize the effects of gerrymandering and give voters more choices regarding who will represent them in Congress by electing representatives at-large or from multi-member districts using ranked choice voting.

Conduct Business Democratically in Legislatures

Rules and established practices in both houses of Congress and state legislatures empower minorities and, in some cases, even individual members to block action on legislation.

The filibuster is the most notorious example. Requiring a super-majority of 60 votes in the U. S. Senate to even discuss or debate, let alone pass, legislation has been one of the primary reasons that critical problems and issues are rarely addressed by Congress. Getting rid of the filibuster requires nothing more than electing senators who believe in majority rule (democracy) to a majority in the U. S. Senate.

The Power to Grant Pardons

Allowing one person to set aside convictions for crimes is a formula for corruption, placing too much power in a single person. Lord Acton's assertion that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies here.

The House of Representatives (both in Congress and in state legislatures) should have the power to grant pardons or commute sentences, by majority vote. (Ideally, within a system that includes Proxies for Citizens.)

The material on this website is adapted from a soon to be published book: Government by the People: A Citizen's Guide to Making America a Perfect Democracy by Winston Apple.

Permission is granted to share with proper attribution. All Rights are Reserved.

This website is paid for by Perfect Democracy - a 501(c)4 political action committee.

Government by the People