Those with Gold Make the Rules (10/19/02)

By Dean Hartwell

In a recent episode of the West Wing, the president, facing re-election, persuades a third-party candidate to drop out of the race and endorse him. Suddenly, this television show proved that art sometimes imitates life.

Third-party candidates rarely get much media attention, let alone endorsements or invitations to debate. They suffer from a “chicken and egg” dilemma in that they need money to pay for media time and to encourage people to endorse but also need the latter to raise money.

John Anderson, 1980 independent presidential candidate, told me that his Democratic and Republican opponents, President Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, each raised more than five times the amount of money that he did. Anderson was a rarity among third-party challengers: he had twenty years experience in Congress and national recognition for leaving the Republican party after running in its primaries early in the year.

When the League of Women Voters decided not to invite him to a debate with his main party opponents, his standing in the polls declined sharply. So, too, did contributions. Ultimately, he took seven percent of the vote.

In contrast, Ross Perot lacked Anderson’s experience but contributed millions of dollars from his private fortune. He bought thirty-minute “infomercials” during prime time, which gave him opportunities to explain his positions on issues in detail. Due at least in part to his money, the debate planners allowed him to debate Democrat Bill Clinton and Republican President George H. W. Bush.

Not surprisingly, Perot climbed steadily in the polls. On Election Day, he shocked many political observers by garnering 19 percent of the total vote, including close second-place finishes in some states.

In the 2000 Presidential Election, many Democrats complained that Ralph Nader would draw votes from the Democratic candidate, Al Gore. Some called publicly for him to withdraw. Others warned the voters that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

With an exceptionally close contest between Gore and Republican George W. Bush, Nader’s three percent of the vote may indeed have thrown some states, and the election itself, to Bush. If one added Nader’s popular votes to Gore’s, the sum would be a clear majority that voted against Bush’s policies.

A highly qualified candidate like John Anderson couldn’t make double digits in the election. A wealthy candidate like Ross Perot could buy a fifth of the electorate. A candidate like Ralph Nader could throw an election to a candidate of distinctly different ideas. Given these disturbing outcomes, something is seriously wrong with our election system.

Here is how to fix this problem at all levels of government: allow voters to choose several candidates in order of preference. This system, known as Instant Runoff Voting, allows voters to choose a third party candidate if they wish and then still have a say in which major candidate will win.

As a result, the John Andersons will gather a larger share of the vote. The Ralph Naders will have their voice heard but will not swing the election. The Ross Perots will not use their money to influence a contest. Then, a new rule will emerge – voters will choose their leaders.