Civic engagement through democracy is one of America’s core values. Across all 50 states representatives are elected by the wishes of the people, and while voting rights have expanded over the centuries, still only a fraction of the eligible voting-age population engages in elections. A common reason given by those that don’t vote is that they feel disillusioned with the voting process, either because they don’t believe that any of the candidates represent their views, or because they feel that their vote would be wasted on a non-major party candidate. These issues can be addressed by the single-transferrable vote system.

Currently, public elections that are held in the U.S. for one office (e.g. President, Congressperson) typically use a single-choice voting system where a candidate wins the election if they obtain a simple majority of the votes. It is a basic time-tested method that everyone is familiar with, but it has some notable shortcomings. Voters are pressured to vote strategically for candidates that they think will win rather than according to their actual preferences. As a result, minor parties either dilute their views or combine with major parties to gain support. According to Duverger’s Law, this leads to a two-party system where the only candidates that have a reasonable chance of winning are members of two major opposing parties. Other voting systems, however, have devised ways around these problems.

 The single transferable voting system, in the most basic sense, is a way of conducting multiple rounds of the single-choice voting system with one ballot with the additional guarantee that votes are not wasted. Instead of making only one choice on a ballot, a voter marks their preference for multiple candidates in order by number. In the initial round of counting, all the primary choice votes are compared and the candidate with the lowest percentage of votes is eliminated. The votes they received are then transferred to the voter’s secondary choices. Successive rounds of counting are repeated until two candidates are left and one receives over 50% of the vote. This process ensures that voters are not penalized for voting for their ideal candidate first because a major party candidate can always be used as a backup. As a result, small parties have a greater chance of winning elections.

In our current two party system, many diverse sets of values and beliefs are placed into two rigid blocks with no room in between for nuanced views. As we can tell from opinion polls, there are many values that Americans hold that cannot be so easily merged. With the single transferable vote system, more political parties will form that can represent the views of the voters in ways that aren’t possible in a two party system. In countries where this voting system has been implemented, the political landscape tends to evolve from two party to multi-party systems. This is beneficial because it promotes groups to cooperate to achieve action in the government, as opposed to the gridlock that comes with two party systems.

One feature of this voting system is that it prevents candidates with similar values from splitting their voter-base between themselves and leaving a singular opposing candidate with a majority of votes, despite a minority of overall support. This effect is best characterized by the 2000 Presidential election where representatives from the Democratic Party and the Green Party, who have arguably similar views, lost to a candidate from the Republican Party by a slight margin. In the single transferable vote system, it can be reasonably assumed that voters will mark candidates with views similar to their first choice as their second choice, and on until the most dissimilar candidate is at the end of their list.

Understandably, voters may be averse to adopting such a seemly complex system as this one. It requires more research and personal investment than a single-choice system. However, I would argue that public elections should use the best system possible regardless of how complex it may be due to the importance of selecting who should be a part of our government. Single-choice elections also have deep cultural roots in America, but I believe that American values lie in the outcomes of their actions, not necessarily the processes used. A democracy is only as strong as the voting system it uses, and I believe that this one will allow America to go grow just as it did with the initial system.

Works Cited

Benoit, Kenneth. “Duverger’s Law and the Study of Electoral Systems.” Duverger’s Law and the    Study of Electoral Systems. Palgrave Macmillan Journals, 1 Apr. 2006. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

Zuesse, Eric. “Ralph Nader Was Indispensable To The Republican Party.” The Huffington Post.          TheHuffingtonPost.com, 07 Nov. 2013. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.

Powell, Betsy. “Strategic Voting: A Troubling Factor in Toronto’s Race for Mayor?”             Thestar.com. Toronto Star, 19 Oct. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Amy, Douglas J. “A Brief History of Proportional Representation in the United States.” A Brief           History of Proportional Representation in the United States. Mount Holyoke College,        1997. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.

Lundell, Jonathan. “STV PR In Practice.” Proportional Representation Foundation. Proportional    Representation Foundation, 20 Aug. 2010. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

“FairVote.org | Comparing IRV With Plurality Voting.” FairVote. FairVote.org, n.d. Web. 26          Nov. 2014.

Editorial Board. “Gridlock: Two-party System Shows Shortcomings.” Kearney Hub. Kearney          Hub, n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.