Very few ideas have had as profound an effect on me as that of the Single Transferable Vote, or STV. STV is a voting system that could allow the US to break out of the toxic cycle of two-party government and usher in a new era of accurate representation. Below is a video that explains how STV works.
There are so many benefits from such a simple idea that it continues to astound me. Under STV the voting constituency is more accurately represented. No longer are we subject to Democrats vs. Republicans all across the land. Can a Republican most accurately describe the political beleifs of both West Michiganders and West Texans? No, those two groups don’t have much in common. A West Michigander tends to be a further left leaning conservative than West Texans are. In an STV system representatives with more nuanced views can run without being squashed by powerhouse parties. Now the differences between West Texans and West Michiganders are represented in congress. The representative who is sent under STVis the most accurate portrayal of the real views of each place from Texas to Washington to Maine. Better representation leads to laws that more accurately portray what American’s want.
As I alluded to above, American’s have far more diverse political beliefs than two parties can accurately support. STV frees America from the shackles of a two party system. Do Democrats accurately represent the beliefs of both Angelenos and Massachusites? Again, no, those two groups have very little in common. The two party system that we currently have has many drawbacks: alternative views that make geographical areas different from one another are downplayed and unrepresented, it’s less competitive leading to apathy among the representatives, the only political choice constituents get is the choice given to them from the political parties, it leads to voter un-interest, and, finally, it leads to voting strategy.
In the current political climate people have to think about how others are going to vote then accommodate that into their vote. As a result people do not vote for who they really want. A great example of voting strategy is the Ralph Nader fiasco in 2000. Nader had similar views to Al Gore. As a result, many Nader supporters, believing Nader couldn’t win, voted for Gore. They did so because he was their next best choice and had a chance to win. Strategy should not have a place in voting because people do not vote for who they really desire. Whenever this problem arises it comes with a guaranteed skew in the result of political representation. Had voters used STV and been allowed to list Nader first, then Gore second, Gore would have beat Bush and been a more accurate representation of the constituency from 2000-04.
In an STV system Nader could have run and not garnered the hate of the Democratic Party because his voters second choice would have been Gore. With Gore as Nader supporter’s second choice their votes would have gone to him. Thus, we can see that inter-party political strategy also begins to decrease in importance. Currently the constituency only see candidates that are only ok’d by the two big political parties. In an STV system anybody can run without harming one another strategically. This difference allows for more parties to rise up and be embraced. When more parties rise up, there is a wider range of beliefs to vote for which leads to more accurate representation.
Quite possibly the biggest advantage of STV is that it decreases the strategic value of attacking other candidates. Under STV the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th votes of the constituents have a lot of importance. Therefor, candidates can not risk losing those votes. Because candidates can’t lose those votes they can no longer attack other candidates. If they insult a person’s preferred first candidate they will most likely lose that persons second or third vote. A lack of attacking also works it’s way into debates. Debates now focus on a more constructive and positive dialogue that can better inform voters. Imagine watching a debate when political candidates do not try to break the character of one another. Imagine watching TV and only seeing positive political ads!
STV, while incredible, does have its drawback. In an STV system it takes longer to tally the total vote. With all the moving of votes it will take at least an extra 24 hours. However, isn’t better representation worth the wait?
Daedalus' Workshop 