The United States is losing its democracy and making it harder for people to vote, which hurts almost everything, from the economy and health care to foreign wars.
Online references to politocracy come closest to describing the political stalemate in the U.S. right now. One observer says that a politocracy is a form of government in which “politicians work for the party, not the electorate. The point of such a system is to get the party elected by using more scientific ways to win elections. The political class becomes self-serving and is therefore separated from objective governance.” By this definition, a politocracy is a system with multiple parties that “converges toward the middle of the political spectrum, so there aren’t many policy differences between the main parties.” In practise, the system of multiple parties turns into one party that is controlled and driven by corporate money. Or, as Noam Chomsky says, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have both become parts of the “Business Party.”
An observer of the former Yugoslavia, on the other hand, said that it was a “single-party politocracy” in which “political elites, ruling through the single communist party, control the state and economy and, through those, the society.” In short, the power of a political party is more important to politocracy than democracy itself.
Given that the stranglehold of the two-party duopoly, which is mostly controlled by corporate money and writes policies to help the 1%, has paralysed Washington, at least some of the other 99% may be willing to think about other ways to open up the voting process.
Is there an alternative to the current “closed” and “narrowly defined” plurality voting system, which really only gives people a choice between two major political parties that depend on corporate money and only talk about a few issues? As a result of the two-party duopoly, the League of Women Voters lost control of the Presidential Debates in 1988, and the two major political parties took over by creating the Commission on Presidential Debates. Since then, the two sides have decided how and what to talk about in debates. Much of the talk in Washington is also written by corporate underwriters, which strengthens the power of the Military, Fossil Fuel, and Medical Industrial Complexes, no matter which party is in charge.
How to Vote in Other Ways
“Yes-no” voting is a different way to vote that would give people more options than just the two major party candidates. Initiative #106 was a little-known proposal that didn’t make it to the Colorado ballot in 2014. It would have let people vote “Yes” or “No” or not vote for any of the candidates on a general election ballot, except for city elections. Proponents of “Yes-No” Voting say that the ability to vote “Yes” more than once gets rid of the need to choose “the least of evils” and gets rid of the “spoiler effect” that says voting for a third-party candidate is a “wasted vote” and could give the election to the candidate no one wants.
Yes-No voting would not only make it easier for Independent and Third-Party candidates to run for office, but it could also open up the conversation about issues that were previously narrowly defined by the two-party duopoly and their corporate masters, as well as by the media, which keeps the political status quo by portraying every major election as a two-horse race. By letting people vote “No” for every candidate who accepts big money, the “Yes-No” voting option could also help stop big money from distorting elections. This would be a partial solution to influence peddling and corporate bribery.
“Yes-No” or “Approval Voting” is a type of Score Voting, which is also called “range” voting because each candidate can be given a number value, like -1,0,+1 or 0–9. With approval voting, you can vote “yes” for as many candidates or options as are on the ballot. In a statewide advisory referendum on school funding in 1990, Oregon used approval voting. Voters were given five options, and they could vote for as many as they wanted.
Score and Approval Voting machines that are already in use can be used, but voting methods would have to be changed for Ranked Voting (Instant Runoff Voting).
Fairvote.org supports Ranked Choice Voting (Instant Runoff Voting), a national popular vote for president, and “fair representation voting forms of proportional representation.” Voters rank candidates in order of preference using Ranked Choice Voting (IRV) (e.g., 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). Instant Runoff Voting has been tried in places like Aspen, Colorado, but was later overturned by a margin of 6 votes. The Chamber of Commerce fought hard against a 2011 initiative in Fort Collins to use ranked voting in city elections.
Frank Atwood, a member of the Libertarian Party and creator of the website ApprovalVotingUSA.org, says that Ranked Voting (IRV) is not enough electoral reform because it keeps the two major parties in power. Some people have noticed that a voter’s choice using simple ranked voting could lead to the election of the voter’s least favourite candidate.
Atwood judges Approval The spoiler effect or the apparent trade-off between “electability” and a wasted vote are problems that can happen when there are only two parties. He says that sabotage, division, and lack of civility could all be stopped if people could vote for more than one candidate. Using Republican money to try to get Ralph Nader to run for senate in Pennsylvania is an example of sabotage. Some people say that putting Nader on the ballot is 10 times more effective than spending money on ads for a Republican candidate.
Some people think that Approval Voting will make people more honest when they vote, which will lead to more accurate feedback from voters. Gary Swing, a Green Party member and candidate for the U.S. Congressional District 6 seat, thinks that a more accurate picture of voter preferences would come from using a Scored form of Approval Voting, such as a numerical rating from -2 to +2, with each number being paired with a word like “poor,” “fair,” “good,” or “excellent.” This would make the voting process more open. In the end, Swing argues that proportional representation in the legislature is the best way to make sure that everyone is fairly represented. Such a change would have to be made through a state initiative or a change to the U.S. Constitution.
Atwood has twice pushed for a bill in the Colorado state legislature that would give cities and towns the option to use “Approval Voting” in non-partisan elections. This would let people vote for as many candidates as they want. SB 13-065 and HB 14-1062, sponsored by Republican State Senator David Balmer and Democrat State Representative Jonathan Singer, were both versions of the same bill. Each time, the bills were shot down in committee, even though Common Cause, Secretary of State Scott Gessler, and the League of Women Voters all backed them. Atwood sees the effort as a way of “failing forward.” On one level, they failed to pass a bill, but on another level, they moved the ball forward. He says that the proposal usually has a hard time getting passed because the party in power who wants to stay in power usually fights against it.