The United States Should Adopt the Single Transferable Vote

Before we begin with this debate, it needs to be said, the FPTP system is not constitutionally entrenched. The system is made law through the US code.Contention 1: First Past the Post Is Not Proportional, STV is Proportional and Allows for Fair RepresentationThe First past the post system does not allow for the views of the electorate to be accurately represented. This is because FPTP is a plurality based system, which only requires a simple majority to elect a single candidate. In an election with three candidates, the candidate who wins could win with only 40% of the vote, meaning that he was elected by a minority of the electorate. As this candidate is now the only representative for that district, more than 60% of the voters in that district are without a representative.And by separating states and the nation into single winner districts, it eliminates the need for parties to obtain a majority of all votes cast in the state or nationwide. And this is not hypothetical. In the 2012 Congressional elections, Republicans nation wide received 47% while Democrats received 48%. However, the Republicans still won the majority of the seats in the House of Representatives. And in Kansas (my home state, which I will use as a main example from hereon out), in 2014, the Republican Party won 62% of the vote, while Democrats won 34% of the vote. Logic would state that Republicans should have won around 3 out of the 4 seats from Kansas, while Democrats would have 1. However, under the current system, 62% of voters receive 100% of the representation in that state. Under the single transferable vote system or STV, there would be multiple members per district, and will results in a fairer distribution of seats. It will also make the national legislature more proportional, as seen in Ireland, Australia and other examples (which will be addressed in due course).https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net...Contention 2: FPTP creates the spoiler effect, STV solves thisAnother major problem with the FPTP system is that it creates something called the spoiler effect. The spoiler effect is when a third party or independent candidate pulls votes from a stronger candidates, causing that candidate to lose. The fear of being a spoiler makes it hard for third parties to win elections, and harder for them to grow. This results in tactical voting for the largest parties, creating a two party system, an effect referred to as Duverger’s law. While in other FPTP systems, like the UK, some smaller parties have emerged with some degree of success, this success is very minimal and it remains hard for smaller parties to break out into the mainstream. In the US, it is even harder.The Single Transferable Vote allows for smaller parties to gain influence and gives third parties a fair chance at winning elections.Right now in the US, more than 50% of voters align themselves with a third party, or no party at all, however no seats in the House of Representatives belong to a third part or to independents. While two independents currently sit in the US Senate, one of them was a well known politician and former Governor, and the other was endorsed by the Democratic Party. For a lesser known candidate to win without the support of one of the two parties, it would be impossible to win in the status quo.http://archive3.fairvote.org...http://rangevoting.org...http://janda.org...Contention 3: STV solves for GerrymanderingGerrymandering in the status quo is dependent upon the fact that each congressional district elects only one member. By drawing the single member districts in such a way that it means that each of the seats are guaranteed to a certain party. This allows one party to hold an absolute monopoly in that district, and for that state to send a majority of that party. As shown in this image.https://upload.wikimedia.org...Under the single transferable vote, districts would be larger and consist of three or more representatives. Under STV, gerrymandering would be essentially neutralized. Since it would be impossible to draw the narrow boundaries of current district or to block a certain group of voters into an area like you would under the current system.Using the image I posted before. Under the System of STV that would most likely be used in the US, that state with 5 districts in the status quo would now have 1 super district, and 5 representatives, and would be base on the first series of boxes in the image.http://lawreview.richmond.edu... Contention 4: Examples ProveSTV is currently used in Ireland to elect the Dail (parliament), in Australia for the Senate and for Regional Elections, in Malta and in Northern Ireland. In each example the system has demonstrated to have all the effects that I have noted in this debate.Ireland has used the system since 1922 when they separated form the United Kingdom. The intention was to protect the protestant population from being deprived of representation in the mostly Catholic nation. The result has been a very close level of proportionality between the percentage of votes cast for each party and the percentage of seats they obtain. While two parties still are heavily dominant in the country, since its introduction, there has never been fewer than 3 parties and always at least 9 independents sitting in the Dail.Gerrymandering has never once occurred and is all but unheard of.At two different times the Fianna Fail party attempted to amend the constitution to replace STV with FPTP, however in both cases it failed, the most recent time by a margin of 22% against FPTP.In Northern Ireland it was implemented to halt sectarian gerrymandering by the Protestant led government against the Catholic population. Since its introduction, the percentage of Nationalist (Catholic) and Unionist (Protestant) seats has been dependent on the percentage of votes, which has better mirrored the population. It also has allowed non-sectarian parties to enter the political process. Previously, voting was tied closely to your sectarian group and voting for a non-sectarian candidate could introduce the spoiler effect and cost the election to go to the candidate from the other sectarian group.In Australia STV has allowed for smaller parties, which were underrepresented in the House of Representative, to obtain a larger number of seats and have a greater say in the government. The Australian Greens for Example, have consistently held seats in the Australian since the Early 2000s, however no green took a seat in the House of Representatives until 2010. This allowed them to become a significant force in Australian politics and provide representation for Australians who agree with the Greens, or other parties.http://www.idea.int...http://aceproject.org...