#34 - We use the worst voting system that exists. Here's how Aaron Hamlin is going to fix it.

Core Problem: Inadequacy of First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)

• FPTP (single-choice voting) is identified as a "terrible" system that produces suboptimal and occasionally disastrous election outcomes.
• Case Study (1991 Louisiana Gubernatorial Election):
  • A moderate incumbent (Buddy Roemer), who would have defeated all opponents in head-to-head matchups, was excluded from the runoff.
  • The runoff featured a corrupt politician (Edwin Edwards) and a Ku Klux Klan leader (David Duke).
  • The failure occurred due to "vote splitting," where moderate voters split their support, allowing extremist candidates to advance.
• The "Center Squeeze" Effect: In three-way races, the most moderate candidate often loses because their support is split between left and right-wing rivals.
• Duverger's Law: Plurality systems structurally encourage a two-party system by raising the threshold for third-party success and forcing tactical voting.

Proposed Solutions: Voting Method Analysis

• Approval Voting (Primary Recommendation):
  • Mechanism: Voters select as many candidates as they approve of; the candidate with the most approvals wins.
  • Key Benefits:
    • Highly robust against vote splitting and tactical voting.
    • Allows voters to support their "honest favorite" (e.g., a third-party candidate) while also approving a "lesser of two evils" frontrunner.
    • Accurately reflects support for minor parties and independents without marginalizing them.
    • Elects the "Condorcet winner" (the candidate who would beat every other candidate in a one-on-one matchup) almost always.
    • Simple to implement: Requires minimal changes to ballots or machines; compatible with "one-person, one-vote" principles.
  • Strategic Heuristic: Voters should approve their favorite candidate and any other candidate they prefer over the likely front-runner.
• Score Voting (Alternative for Small Groups):
  • Mechanism: Voters rate candidates on a scale (e.g., 0–5); the highest average score wins.
  • Use Case: Better suited for small groups (e.g., boards, committees) where statistical sampling error is high; provides more granularity than Approval.
  • Downside: Higher complexity for voters and election administrators compared to Approval Voting; susceptible to "burying" tactics (giving disliked candidates a zero).
• Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) / Alternative Vote:
  • Mechanism: Voters rank candidates; if no majority exists, the lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated and votes transfer to the next preference.
  • Critique:
    • More complex than Approval; the algorithm only utilizes a subset of the ballot (first-choice preferences) until the final rounds.
    • Susceptible to anomalies where ranking a candidate higher can cause them to lose.
    • Often suffers from voter confusion and confusion about the counting process, leading to repeals in some jurisdictions.
• Single Transferable Vote (STV):
  • Context: A multi-winner proportional system used in Australia's Senate.
  • Critique: Can be difficult for voters to navigate (e.g., requiring ranking of 100+ candidates historically); prone to tactical voting by micro-parties distributing preferences to avoid elimination.
• Consensus among Experts:
  • In an informal vote by the London School of Economics' voting experts, Approval Voting won decisively.
  • First-Past-The-Post received zero approvals from the expert panel.

Implementation Strategy and Tractability

• Current Status: Voting reform is highly neglected; advocacy is limited to a few non-profits (Center for Election Science, FairVote) and academic research.
• Funding: The Center for Election Science (CES) recently received a $600,000 grant from the Open Philanthropy Project to scale operations.
• Strategy:
  • Grassroots Approach: Focus on passing ballot initiatives at the municipal level first (e.g., Fargo, North Dakota; San Francisco; Cambridge, MA).
  • Scalability: Use local success stories to build momentum for state-level and eventually federal-level adoption.
  • Ballot Initiatives: Approximately half of US states allow ballot initiatives for local voting changes; historical track records for single-winner reforms suggest high success rates.
• Obstacles:
  • Invisibility: The voting method is often overlooked by the public ("fish in water" effect).
  • Incumbent Resistance: Politicians elected under the current system have a conflict of interest in changing the rules.
  • Major Party Dynamics: Major parties may resist reform but could benefit in primaries where plurality voting causes vote splitting (e.g., 2016 Republican primaries).
• Future Outlook: Approval Voting is projected to be implemented in executive offices (Mayor, Governor, President) as a long-term goal, potentially via an interstate compact for the Electoral College.

Social and Political Impacts

• Voter Turnout: Better voting systems may increase turnout by making voters feel their choices are more effective and representative.
• Candidate Diversity: Approval Voting is expected to encourage more third-party and independent candidates, breaking the two-party duopoly without the fragmentation risks of proportional representation in single-winner races.
• Policy Outcomes:
  • Proportional systems correlate with lower income inequality and higher female representation in government (per Pippa Norris's Electoral Engineering).
  • Approval Voting tends to elect moderate, consensus candidates, reducing polarization.
• Rejection of Unequal Voting:
  • The interviewee rejects "weighted voting" (e.g., giving more votes to the educated or wise) due to:
    • Violation of "one-person, one-vote" principles.
    • High risk of exclusion and manipulation by those in power.
    • Lack of accountability for politicians toward excluded groups.
• Voter Competence: While public knowledge on basic political facts is often low, the argument is that current systems prevent voters from expressing true preferences, making it impossible to assess competence accurately.

Career and Contribution Guidance

• Hiring Needs (Center for Election Science):
  • Director of Operations and Programs: Requires nonprofit experience, project coordination, and digital outreach skills.
  • Director of Philanthropy: Requires fundraising experience, donor cultivation, and grant management skills.
• Ideal Skills for the Field:
  • Nonprofit management and governance.
  • Statistical literacy and data analysis.
  • Experience in political campaigns or ballot initiatives.
  • Journalistic ability to raise public awareness.
• Recommended Reading:
  • Gaming the Vote by William Poundstone (focuses on single-winner methods).
  • Electoral Systems by David Farrell.
  • Real Choices, New Voices by Douglas Amy (proportional representation history).
• Key Conferences:
  • "Unrig the System" (Represent.Us).
  • "PoliCon" (Politico).
• Board Membership: Nonprofits seek board members with networks in politics/fundraising and experience in governance; joining a board is identified as a high-impact contribution method.