8 June 2018 — 1644 mdt

Weak plurality wins undermine democracy

There were several close elections on 5 June, a normal outcome. There were also several elections decided by narrow pluralities, also a normal outcome. And there were several elections in which the winning candidate received less than 40 percent of the vote, also a normal outcome — but not an outcome that strengthens democracy.

The table below displays the outcomes of several statewide, regional, legislative, and countywide, elections in which there were three or more candidates.

Article IV, Section 5, of Montana’s Constitution, written in an era of paper ballots and primitive vote counting machines, declares that the candidate receiving the most votes wins the election:

This is known as the First Past the Post system. Not all states use it, instead requiring a run off election between the two two vote getters if no one receives a majority. A modified First Past the Post system allows winning by plurality, but requires reaching a threshold (for example, 40 percent) to avoid a runoff. Some venues, such as the city of San Francisco, use a ranked choice system, popularly known as Instant Runoff, to ensure that the winner receives a majority. For a more detailed explanation of these and other voting systems, I recommend Gaming the Vote, by William Poundstone.

In four of the elections in the table above — GOP U.S. Senate; GOP PSC-1; GOP Flathead Commissioner; Dem U.S. House — the winning candidate received less than 35 percent of the vote. In three of the under 35 percent victories, the winning margin was under five percent; in one case, under one percent.

These pluralities are wins, but they’re far from mandates. It may be that no harm will come of these outcomes in Montana’s primary. But not requiring a majority discards an effective defense against delivering power to would-be dictators with strong followings that do not comprise a majority. In a crowded field in a First Past the Post election, the Jesse Venturas and Paul LePages can and do win, with adverse consequences for the governments they seize, and the people they govern.

The technology required for an Instant Runoff system in Montana exists. The degree of popular understanding that we are running foolish risks, and the political will and courage necessary to adopt a better voting system, do not.