Pundit Finds Voting To Be Flawed

Asked about their faith in our voting system, I suspect a large number of college students would reply positively—at least since this past Tuesday, when Barack Obama prevailed with all the gusto of a hurricane. Yet, were the same question posed eight years ago, responses might have ranged from ambivalent to enraged, with a fair amount of grumbling about Floridians and Ralph Nader.

So just how effective is plurality voting in choosing the “right” candidate—the one preferred by the greatest number of people? Pulitzer Prize nominee William Poundstone explores this question, and others, in his new book “Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren’t Fair (and What We Can Do About It).” His conclusions are quite surprising.

A quick read by almost any standard, the book embodies political writing at its best. Poundstone’s discussions are timely, colorful, and compelling, even when one might expect the subject to be rather dull. He deftly balances the many elements of his text, alternating seamlessly from historical analysis to mathematical explanation, all the while providing relatable characters—and a good dose of humor—for his readers.

Poundstone begins by investigating a number of elections in which “spoilers”—like Nader—tipped the scales in favor of a less popular candidate. His examples include not only five presidential campaigns, but also a Louisiana gubernatorial race in which spoilers led to a final vote between an egregiously corrupt Democrat and a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. In exhaustive detail, Poundstone describes the machinations of political camps as they seek to exploit minor parties for their own gains.

Poundstone’s central argument boils down to a repudiation of the plurality voting method. Although plurality voting is widely accepted and is generally believed to be the fairest possible way to make political decisions, Poundstone contends that its flaws outweigh its benefits. Time and time again, he highlights the ease with which political consultants and strategists manipulate voters, a task that is all too easy because they understand the inherent faults of our system.

Yet Poundstone knows that his call to action is meaningless unless he can provide a viable alternative. He begins by examining the history of voting theory, finding a rich tradition of discussion on the subject extending back to ancient times. Indeed, the narrative of voting philosophy flows through the French Revolution, finds an unlikely mouthpiece in author Lewis Carroll, and continues to 20th-century economist Kenneth Arrow’s famed “impossibility theorem.” The theorem, which roughly proves that no ranked voting system can be fair, had an enormous impact on democratic thought.

But by amplifying the discussion, the theorem also led to consideration of various other voting methods. Poundstone evaluates these alternatives, highlighting the merits and faults of each. He finds that no method is perfect, and each can be “gamed” by strategic voters or clever political aides. Nonetheless, he comes out in favor of “range voting,” a system in which voters rate their degree of approval for each candidate. Computer models have found that range voting is the most consistently accurate system, and the method is already widely utilized on the Internet, on web sites such as IMDb and hotornot.com. Poundstone advocates that the method be implemented on a trial basis, finishing his book with the question, “Surely there are a few American communities willing to volunteer?”

What distinguishes Poundstone’s work from blander political writing is his command of characters and anecdotes. He is not merely discussing a policy puzzle; he is also telling a story—or rather, many stories. Poundstone evokes a world of idiosyncratic intellectuals and delusional politicians, a world gone slightly mad under the weight of the democratic system.

His offbeat academics tend to be endearing if egotistical, and Poundstone captures the intriguing dynamics that characterize both their personal lives and their work.

On the other hand, Poundstone’s politicos, with notable exceptions, tend toward corruption and megalomania. He spends ample time discussing the stranger-than-fiction behaviors of Nader and Ross Perot, and also sheds light upon more obscure third-party candidates. Perhaps most memorable are Kinky Friedman, a Jewish country singer who made a run for Texas governor in 2006, and Ilona Staller, an Italian porn star who was elected to Italy’s Parliament in 1987.

The author further enlivens his text by employing clever examples. Many concepts of voting theory are quite difficult to understand, but Poundstone skillfully presents them within relatively simple contexts. His discussion of vote splitting is aided by an explanation of why “Crash” beat “Brokeback Mountain” for Best Picture in 2005; he explains a voting method known as a “Borda count” by discussing its use for MVP selection in Major League Baseball. These relevant, often humorous examples—coupled with political cartoons and illustrations—add another level of dynamism to Poundstone’s work.

Yet the book is not without flaws. While the first two thirds of the text are quick-paced, Poundstone hits a snag as he delves into his analysis of voting methods. Having already constructed a vast edifice of characters, anecdotes, and terms, Poundstone threatens to undermine his foundations with dense descriptions of “instant runoff voting,” “range voting,” and “Condorcet voting.” While necessary, this section represents the weakest point of “Gaming the Vote.”

Nonetheless, “Gaming the Vote” is a book with enormous relevance to the modern age. Poundstone formulates a powerful case for voting reform, and his argument should not fall on deaf ears. Plurality voting may have succeeded in this presidential election, but it could easily fail in the next. And placing the choice of our leaders in the hands of a failed system is a mistake that no informed citizen should make.