To the editor: Earl Ofari Hutchinson said he cast his vote for a third-party candidate to protest his lack of choice. But in our current system, he just prioritized personal gratification over meaningful action.
Yes, it is pathetic that Americans must be satisfied with choosing between two candidates they do not like. Improving that system would help make our elections more democratic.
Such a system exists and is used within the U.S. and elsewhere. It is ranked-choice voting, where voters can mark their preferences by ranking candidates first, second, third and so on. This reflects their true choices without having to worry about “spoiling” an election.
Under the current system in most places, in an election with three or more candidates, whoever gets the most votes wins, even without a majority. With ranked-choice, a candidate must get at least 50% to win. If no candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes, the lowest-polling candidate is eliminated, and those who voted for the lowest-polling candidate have their selections redistributed to the next candidates they marked.
It sounds complicated, but the process is straightforward for voters, who simply vote for as many candidates as they want, ranked in order of preference. The two political parties don’t like the idea, but their objections are obviously self-serving.
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
..
To the editor: I enjoyed Hutchinson’s piece about voting third-party for president.
What we really need is a third party built from the ground up, not one trying to run for president when they don’t actually have people holding offices in local government.
Give me a party that has shown it can govern in my town, county and state. Let me know what your legislative accomplishments are in the House and Senate. A viable third party needs to show the people what it can do.
With so many registered independents out there, the time is right to try to get a viable alternative party off the ground.
Dana Bingham, Apple Valley
..
To the editor: I can understand Hutchinson’s unhappiness with our two-party system. Unfortunately, we do not have a parliamentary system where third parties could come into being and flourish.
The founders did not anticipate the rise of political parties. They did to some extent expect that there would be factions, but they didn’t expect them to coalesce into two political parties.
Yet that is exactly what happened, and quite quickly. Essentially, the die was cast when John Adams faced off against Thomas Jefferson in 1796. And two parties were firmly in place in the election of 1800, when Adams and Jefferson once again competed for the presidency. It’s been downhill ever since.
There have been third parties that attempted to muscle their way onto to the scene, but none has been able to compete on an equal footing with the two major parties.
I don’t have an answer to Hutchinson’s problem. I suppose it’s possible that both the Democratic and Republican parties could splinter, but I’m not holding my breath.
So in the meantime, we’re stuck with our present system.
Martin Parker, Thousand Oaks
..
To the editor: Well, Hutchinson should be sorry — his party did not win. I’m sorry too — my party did not win.
I’m also a progressive California Black man, and I know why “our two-party system’s limits are not true to the spirit of democracy.” And he should too.
Lionel Bain, Los Angeles