Do Away With Plurality Voting

When it comes to elections we generally think of winning candidate as representing a majority of those who have come out to vote. However, most general and primary elections in the United States require candidates to only receive a plurality, not an absolute majority in order to win. This goes largely unnoticed as winning candidates often receive an absolute majority anyway, or may come very close to an absolute majority. In districts safe for either republicans or democrats it is very common for the winning candidate to receive 60, 70, or 80 percent of the vote.  However in swing districts races are often much closer, with third parties siphoning off enough votes to deny a candidate 50% plus 1 of the votes.

The plurality requirement has a number of clear effects. The first is that it allows candidates to be elected when a majority of voters voted for other candidates. In a three-way election a candidate receiving 34% of the vote would win if the other two candidates evenly split the remaining 66% of votes cast. The second effect is that it highly discouraged voting for third parties. Imagine a conservative party candidate, a Republican Party candidate, and a Democrat candidate competing for the same seat. You might agree with the Conservative party candidate the most; however, by voting for the third party candidate, you might split the conservative/republican vote. Even if the conservative and republican together receive more votes than the democrat, the democrat will still win if he receives more votes than any other single candidate.

The final effect of the simply plurality requirement is that by discouraging third party voting, it strengthens the two party system. It would be unusual for a third party to come into a new election with enough support in order to win. More likely it would split up an existing party coalition and swing the election to the opposite side of the political spectrum. While this benefits both major political parties by enforcing cohesion, it hurts the voters by discouraging a broader choice of candidates.

The effects of the plurality requirement, or first-past-the-post as it is known by political scientists, are seen in primaries as well as general elections. In the primary for the Republican Nomination for the 4^th congressional district in Indiana, there are an astounding 13 candidates competing! If in the unlikely circumstance these candidates split the voter fairly evenly one of them could win with as little as 7.7% of the vote. The ultimate winner will likely receive a far more significant percentage of the vote; however, it would be surprising if a candidate could receive an absolute majority in such a crowded field.

Congress has the power to regulate the manner in which elections are conducted for US Senators and Representatives.  An example of such regulation is that US law mandates single seat districts for all US House Seats. The Congress should amend current law to require an absolute majority of votes in order to win a seat in the US Congress, both in primary and general elections. This would likely require runoff election in some primary and general election contests.  But it would guarantee a more legitimate winning after these contests. It would also allow for other parties to compete without the risk that their participation could swing the election to a candidate outside the political philosophy of the majority of voters.