Proposed Constitutional Election Amendment

[Leslie Goldstein]

replying to Mark T's request:
I don't think one can sensibly project impact of run-off on "third
or minor" parties because of variability across political systems.  The main
impact of, and problem with, run-offs is the expense; the excellent
suggestion by  Guinier& the member-of-this-list-whose-name-I've-forgotten to
have people list second choice while voting on first ballot eliminates this
problem.  I know of no country or state that currently uses such a system,
but maybe someone who's read the Guinier article can enlighten us if there
are some.  Most of the countries (if not all) that use a run-off system
would be multi-party systems, so predicting from them to us would be
unreliable and unwise.  One might look at some US states that have such
sytems for state or local office, but , again, they would be likely to be
missing the key variable that is currently (or was most recently) pushing
the efforts of minor party candidates (and this may evaporate after the
Buchanan /Nader fiascoes of 2000), namely the bonanza of fed. funds to
anyone who can capture the party LABEL (for little beyond that links
Buchanan to Perot) of a "party" with 5% of the previous vote.  In short, my
guess is that the run-off system (with instant 2d vote)would have little
impact on our party system, and that it would be good for liberal
democracy.  The electoral college has outlived its usefulness.
Leslie Goldstein, political scientist

Mark Tushnet wrote:

> Some of the comments on Bryan Wildenthal's proposal speculate about the
> implications of a run-off system for third parties and for the major
> parties.  Couldn't the political scientists on the list inform us about
> what's known about the impact of run-off systems on party systems?
> Bryan mentioned the French experience, but (I think) there are run-off
> systems in some U.S. states (aren't there?) and in other countries.  My
> guess is that seat-of-the-pants speculation (or even rational-choice
> modeling) is likely to be less helpful than real-world evidence, which I
> take it exists.