It's basically an enduring legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. Legally, the Tenth Amendment -- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" -- is the biggest obstacle.
<blockquote>The Nation <http://www.fairvote.org/righttovote/jackson-thenation.htm> November 19, 2001 For a Voting Rights Amendment By Jesse Jackson Jr.
. . . The fundamental problem with proposals for electoral reform is totally unrelated to November 7, 2000, or September 11, 2001. Every independent study, Congressional hearing and good legislative election reform proposal I have seen -- including those from liberals and progressives, which I support and am a co-sponsor -- is premised on the Tenth Amendment. The reason they will fail to solve our fundamental voting problem, even if they succeed legislatively, is because of their underlying ideological assumption -- that voting is a state function, not a universal human or federal right.
Therefore, even if Congress passes legislation establishing national standards for voting technologies and procedures, and adequately funds them, no state is under a constitutional obligation to adopt the changes or accept the funds. Based on the Tenth Amendment, states can still reject reforms and continue down the current state-centered election path.
Many state political parties, both Democratic and Republican, see the current system as working in their self-interest. But which system makes the most sense for the public's interest? One modern electoral system with consistent national standards? Or a bureaucracy of fifty state, 3,067 county and thousands of municipal election systems and standards -- all separate and unequal?</blockquote>
Jon Johanning jjohanning at igc.org, Mon Oct 25 21:12:09 PDT 2004:
>>The more you think about it, the more impossible it seems to
>>achieve any meaningful reform of the US electoral system. Within
>>the system that is.
>
>Quite true. Which is why I am amazed that third party advocates are
>forever hopeful that their earnest efforts will amount to something.
>
>Third parties are basically, at their most successful, a kind of
>pressure group. And there are all sorts of pressure groups, some a
>lot easier to organize.
The 2000 elections gave Instant Runoff Voting a major boost at the national and local levels -- in large part because the 2000 elections practically demonstrated third-parties' potential to cause the dominant political parties to lose elections.
<blockquote>On November 6, 2001 U.S. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Illinois) introduced three pieces of electoral reform legislation. The three bills are:
H.RES.3232: Instant Runoff Voting in Presidential Elections To direct the Federal Election Commission to make grants to States which have adopted an instant runoff voting system for presidential elections. Bill Summary & Status Information Online <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03232:> Bill Text (.rtf format)
H.J.RES.72: Constitutional Right to Vote Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right to vote. Bill Summary & Status Information Online <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.j.res.00072:> Bill Text (.rtf format) <http://www.fairvote.org/irv/jackson_hjr72.rtf>
H.CON.RES.263: Presidential Debates Expressing the sense of Congress that any Presidential candidate should be permitted to participate in debates among candidates if at least 5 percent of respondents in national public opinion polls of all eligible voters support the candidate's election for President or if a majority of respondents in such polls support the candidate's participation in such debates. Bill Summary & Status Information Online <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.con.res.00263:> Bill Text (.rtf format) <http://www.fairvote.org/irv/jackson_hcr263.rtf>
The Center urges you to contact your representative to support and co-sponsor H.RES. 3232. To read Rep. Jackson's argument for IRV, click here <http://www.fairvote.org/irv/more_perfect_excerpt.htm>.
<http://www.fairvote.org/irv/jackson_bills.htm></blockquote>
<blockquote>S.F. takes lead with instant-runoff voting Steven Hill <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/11/EDG2796ALQ1.DTL> Monday, October 11, 2004
On Nov. 2, San Francisco will embark on an innovation in democracy that has the rest of the nation taking notice: The city's voters will elect seven seats on the Board of Supervisors using a method called ranked-choice, or instant-runoff voting.
Proposition A, passed by voters in March 2002, enacted ranked-choice voting for use in all local offices, including mayor, district attorney and city attorney (but excluding school board or community-college board). Ranked-choice voting, which has been used for decades in other nations, simulates a series of runoff elections in a single election. With ranked choice, voters mark their first-, second- and third-choice candidates for each race. If your first choice gets eliminated from the "instant runoff," your vote goes to your second choice. Your second and third choices will be your "insurance choices" in case your first choice can't win.
The runoff rankings will be used to determine which candidate has support from a popular majority (more than half of voters), and accomplish this in one election so that we don't need to hold a "delayed runoff" in December. Millions of tax dollars will be saved, candidates won't need to raise more money for a second election (holding down campaign costs) and the election will be decided in November when voter turnout tends to be highest. . . .
Because ranked choice also frees candidates from the spoiler charge, it allows independent candidates to run and introduce fresh ideas into electoral debate. New candidates can push important issues that often are ignored in this era of poll-tested campaign bites and appeals to undecided swing voters. Voters are liberated to vote for these candidates knowing that, even if their first choice can't win, their vote will go to their more realistic candidate as their second or third choice.
With bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats like John McCain and Howard Dean, legislation for ranked choice has been introduced in 22 states. Los Angeles, Seattle and New York City are monitoring San Francisco's rollout. . . .
Steven Hill is a San Francisco resident and senior analyst with the Center for Voting and Democracy. He was co-author of Prop. A, the 2002 ballot measure for ranked-choice voting, and is author of "Fixing Elections: The Failure of America's Winner Take All Politics" (www.FixingElections.com).</blockquote>
<blockquote>Major Victory for Voting Reform By Steven Hill and Rob Richie and Eric C. Olson, AlterNet. Posted March 6, 2002. <http://www.alternet.org/story/12568>
. . . San Franciscans voted 56 to 44 percent to pass their city's "Proposition A" and become the first major city in the United States to use instant runoff voting (IRV) to elect its local officials. The comfortable margin caught city observers by surprise, given editorial opposition from the paper's dailies and a slick, well-funded opposition campaign from political consultants and downtown business leaders fighting for traditional "delayed" runoffs.
In Vermont, more than 50 town meetings debated adoption of IRV for statewide offices. Of the 51 reporting results, 49 towns gave a big thumbs up, most by overwhelming margins. Several bigger towns like Burlington supported the issue by two-to-one margins. The Vermont League of Women Voters led the campaign, but backers include a range of supporters, from Governor Howard Dean and Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz to 2000 Republican gubernatorial nominee Ruth Dwyer, Progressive Party leaders and the Grange. . . .
Imagine if instant runoff voting had been in place in 2000 when Ralph Nader and Al Gore together won a clear majority of the presidential vote, both in Florida and nationally. Many voters for Gore or even for Bush might have supported Nader if they had not been worried about the "spoiler effect." Not only would Nader's vote have been a truer reflection of his level of support, but ultimately the Nader vote would have pushed Gore to clear wins in Florida and the national electoral count. . . .
The March 5 wins for instant runoff voting could start a national trend. California is developing into a hotbed of enthusiasm for instant runoff voting, with strong interest in Oakland, Pasadena, Santa Clara County and San Leandro. Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg last year introduced legislation to implement IRV for special elections to fill congressional and legislative vacancies.
Vermont's grassroots success promises to boost state legislation already backed by the governor and secretary of state. Instant runoff voting advocates in states like Alaska, Florida, New Mexico and Washington are poised to capitalize on the San Francisco victory and the clear message from Vermont's towns. . . .
Rob Richie, Eric Olson and Steven Hill work for the Center for Voting and Democracy (www.fairvote.org), a national nonprofit organization. Steven Hill was the campaign manager for San Francisco's Proposition A.</blockquote> -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>