First Past The Post Voting vs. The Alternative Vote

We are all familiar with the first past the post voting system: each person gets one and only one vote that they can cast for only one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins. This voting system works fine until more than two people run for office. With two candidates, to be elected you need more than half of the population, at a minimum, to vote for you. With three candidates, that number drops to one vote more than 33% of the population's votes. This is a bad system because it can leave a country with a leader whom two-thirds of the country did not vote for. You could theoretically win without the majority of the vote. And that's exactly what happened in the 1912 election when Woodrow Wilson was elected by 42% of the population; although there were fewer votes cast for the other candidates, the majority of population is not satisfied as 58% did not vote for the man in power. Over time, Bull Moose party supporters knew they would always be voting for a losing candidate, so the Bull Moose party lost its popularity shortly after the 1912 election, and the U.S. has had a two-party system in almost every election since. There was also the 1992 election in which the victor, Clinton, only garnered 43% of the popular vote when independent Ross Perot split the republican vote (although there are some blurred lines whether minority victories in American politics are cause by the first past the post voting system or the electoral college).

Setting aside the flaws with the electoral college, a simple popular vote with first past the post voting is flawed as well because a majority of the population can only be happy with a two-party system, thus giving the populous less options. The same phenomenon happens where the losing parties continue to lose support each election cycle until they dissolve. So what is the solution? The alternative vote, also known as instant runoff voting.

The alternative vote can simulate multiple elections where the least popular candidate is eliminated after each round without the time and expense of running multiple campaigns one after another. The least popular candidate is eliminated each round until someone wins a majority (51%) or only one candidate is left. This is different from the French election system in which there are two rounds of voting, and the runoff is not instant. The alternative vote also assures no vote goes to waste, allowing voters to vote for their favorite candidate without worrying about their candidate's popularity with others. Instead of voting for one and only one candidate, voters rank their most favorite candidate to their least. Because the votes are cast with an order, we know what would happen if the least popular candidate did not run, and the peoples' first choice votes for the least popular candidate are passed along to whoever was their second choice. The spoiler effect (voting for a third party and splitting the vote) does not spoil the outcome of elections because the ranked votes are passed along should they not count for a winning team. This system also maintains a citizen's right to abstain as they can stop filling out their alternative votes at any time should they be indifferent to the remaining candidates.

Most of us have already voted in the school's student elections, which still uses the first past the post voting system. Do you like this voting system? Do you think the alternative vote would change the United States' approval rating of our current president? Arguments for and against the alternative vote are always welcome. Before you reply I would encourage you to read a more detailed analysis that relates this issue to the UK elections, which can be found with the following link: https://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/.