The one positive thing
about the recall election.

24 September 2003—In the 2000 U.S. presidential election I voted for Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate. In that election, the Democratic Party candidate was beaten (in the courts) by a Republican opponent who should have never gotten nearly that far, an anti-intellectual who had weaseled his way into prominence simply by virtue of his pedigree.

In the 2002 California gubernatorial election I voted for Peter Camejo, the Green Party candidate. In that election, the incumbent, a Democrat who had won handily in his first election, was almost beaten by a Republican opponent who should have never gotten nearly that far. a far-right-wing zealot who had bought his way into prominence.

In both elections I voted my conscience. I couldn’t get behind either Democratic candidate, even as I abhorred their Republican opponents. In 2000 my vote was virtually safe, as Al Gore had California pretty well locked up. In 2002, my vote should have been just as safe, as Bill Simon had absolutely no business beating Gray Davis. But as I watched the election results trickle in, for most of election night the percentages were roughly 50-50, and I was scared: my Green Party vote might just throw the victory to Simon.

Fortunately, in the end it didn’t: Davis won with 47.4% of the vote, Simon received 42.5%, and Camejo got 5.2%. Had Davis’ and Simon’s numbers been reversed, however, Camejo would have been the spoiler.

I don’t agree with the likes of Nader and Michael Moore when they argue that there are no differences between the two major parties. That said, the Democratic Party has been far too reluctant to stand up to the Republicans on crucial issues such as the invasion of Iraq, the gradual decimation of the environment, and the constriction of civil liberties, to name but a few. I think a lot of Green Party members, like me, would support the Democrats more strongly if we felt they were actually living up to their principles.

Absent that, we need a strong third party on the left. Though I do feel that it would be best if we had the time to let the Greens develop slowly — working our way up through city councils and school boards to statewide legislatures and Congressional offices, to executive state positions and Senate offices, and perhaps all the way to the White House — I think it is still appropriate to run Green candidates at the highest levels even as we build our strength locally.

I don’t expect the Greens to win a gubernatorial election in California anytime soon. But I still want the option of voting for a Green candidate, even if that person can’t win the election. I don’t want the Democrats to get the false sense that I approve of how they’re doing things. I want to let them know, through the democratic process, that my goals are different than theirs, though I’d still generally prefer that a Democrat beat a Republican. The best way to do that is to institute a system of preferential voting.

And that’s the only good thing about the recall election we’re about to have here in California: we have the historic opportunity to demonstrate that a more sophisticated voting process can actually work.

I’m dead set against the recall. Davis won fair and square against an opponent who did far better than he ever should have, and the Republicans have bought this recall election in an attempt to hijack the governor’s mansion the same way they did the White House three years ago. People signed recall petitions for spurious reasons, if they had reasons at all. The whole thing is a circus that has made us the laughingstock of the world, and it’s costing us tens of millions of dollars we don’t have. It’s a travesty.

But since it’s here, and all the legal challenges have been exhausted, we might as well make the best of it. And the best of it is this: it’s a two-part election. Whereas every other election in this country is a single choice either among a field of candidates or between yes and no on a ballot initiative, this election is both. First you vote whether to approve or reject the recall, and then you vote for a replacement. Regardless of how (or whether) you vote regarding the recall, you still have a voice as to who the replacement should be if the recall passes.

Getting people to understand the two-part process is difficult. Even smart people I know initially thought that if they voted against the recall they wouldn’t have the option of voting for a replacement, because in their minds they were effectively voting for Davis, and you shouldn’t be able to vote for two people. Now that they understand they can vote on both questions, they’re faced with a more complicated decision.

There’s a concept in voting analysis called “rolloff” or “dropoff” that examines how many people vote for the top items on a ballot, such as president, governor, or Senate, but then don’t vote for items further down which haven’t gotten as much publicity. Same thing for ballot propositions, where some people vote on candidates but not on propositions, or they vote on the most controversial propositions but not on others they know far less about.

This is what it comes down to: I assume that more people will vote on the recall question than will vote on a replacement. If there is no significant rolloff from the recall question to the replacement question, however, then I think it will demonstrate that voters are capable of a two-step election.

It’s a relatively short leap from there to preferential voting (also known as instant-runoff voting), where voters can select, say, their top two or three (or more) choices for a particular office.

For example, let’s pretend we’re back at the 2002 gubernatorial election, where there were seven candidates. But now let’s suppose California has a system in which I’m allowed to vote for up to three candidates in preferential order. I rank the candidates as follows: #1, Camejo; #2, Davis; #3, Iris Adam (the Natural Law party candidate). Other people vote for their top three choices out of the field of seven. All the votes initially go to their respective #1s.

If a candidate receives more than 50% of the #1 votes, that candidate automatically wins. If no one gets more than 50%, then the candidate with the fewest #1 votes gets knocked out, and all of that candidate’s ballots get redistributed to their respective #2s (usually at a fraction of a vote each, but let’s ignore that for this argument).

Now the remaining candidates have a combination of #1 and #2 votes. Again, if someone now has more than 50% of the ballots, that person wins. If not, the person with the fewest ballots is eliminated, and that candidate’s ballots get redistributed to the next in preference. In my pretend system, whoever ends up with the most ballots wins. (In actuality, however, someone will probably have received a majority by this point.)

Preferential systems differ, but the gist is the same: you get to register your conscience at the ballot box, but you can still vote for the “safe” candidate you would have voted for, had you only had one option. If your safe candidate wins, he or she knows you are holding them to a higher standard.

Preferential voting in this country is long overdue. They do it in other countries without incident, and now that we have touch-screen voting, it’s easier to implement than ever.

If you’re in California, show the world that we’re ready for a sophisticated voting system — vote on both questions. If you’re not in California, encourage your family and friends here to turn out and vote on both questions. It’s time for California to be the leader, not the laughingstock.