Plurality vs. Majority-based Democracy

What do Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and the Hamas Party have in common? All owe their rise to power to plurality-based democracy. Pluralities are considered too dangerous a method for choosing the mayors of Redondo Beach and Los Angeles, yet all fifty states are willing to choose their presidential electors based on a plurality vote. And pluralities are dangerous; just think about the governments that might be favored by your least favorite 30% of the electorate.

The consequences of a plurality-based system are twisted, yielding disproportionate spoiler powers to the likes of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. The system also makes third party victory virtually impossible, because the average voter is adept enough at game theory to understand why a third party vote is a wasted vote, and will usually vote for the least offensive Democratic or Republican candidate. A majority-based system, which employs either runoff elections or preferential voting (aka instant runoff), lets voters simply vote for the candidate they like best with no repercussions. What a revolutionary concept!

After the 2000 election, the electoral college system was under fire again, perhaps deservedly so. However, a constitutional amendment that eliminates the electoral college will never pass - too many small states benefit from the system. Let's concentrate on what can be fixed. A majority-based runoff system could be implemented on a state-by-state basis, and in many states could be introduced through initiative amendment. Initiatives would bypass the mainstream party controlled legislators, which have an interest in perpetuating the plurality-based system.

Many of those interested in electoral reform are third party advocates. I'm not particularly troubled with having only two strong parties; however, like all monopolies (or duopolies), the threat of competition can only inspire them to do a better job.