Insanity means doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. As this applies to politics, the system needs to be changed if you want to see change. Our nation’s political problems are more fundamental than hanging chads. We are impaired by our continued use of a geographic-based and two-choice political system. We are using 18th Century tools, designed for a nation of farmers ruled by 200,000 white men with property. The price we pay: distorted policy, plummeting voter participation and citizen involvement, underrepresentation of some voters, overrepresentation of others, superficial McCampaigns of mudslinging, sound bites, “crafted talk” and “simulated responsiveness” and worsening polarization that are threatening to divide our nation.

Steven Hill, author of “Fixing Elections: The Failure of America’s Winner Take All Politics,” has made a powerful case that many of our political problems are due to our 18th Century “winnertake- all” election system. These weaknesses were made worse by modern technologies that, for example, make possible “gerrymandering,” where district boundary maps are redrawn to make “safe seats” for one political Party. The result is that almost 80% of US Congressional districts are one-party districts. Republicans in San Francisco, Democrats in Bakersfield and Greens everywhere, are effectively orphan voters, with no promise of representation. Cynicism is a rational response under those circumstances.

There is widespread ignorance of our electoral system and what alternatives are available. Many people wish to set up a coalition of Greens, Democrats, etc. But they don’t realize this coalition is not possible under current law. But we don’t have to be stuck with a two-party system. Over the past century, almost all other democracies in the world have changed their rules to better represent their citizens.

America needs two powerful electoral reforms: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), and Proportional Representation. Using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), voters rank 1st choice candidate, 2nd choice, etc. If no one gets over 50%, the lowest vote-getter is dropped, and their 2nd choice votes are counted. Repeat until a candidate gets a majority. No more spoiling! And less negative campaigning since candidates would want at least your 2nd choice vote.

For Legislatures, Proportional Representation is the best way to represent voter diversity. California could use Proportional Representation for the State Senate. If the Democrats got 60% of the vote, they would get that percentage of the seats. The Green Party could get 10% of the vote, and win 10% of the seats, instead of zero. Racial minorities as well as ideological minorities could be represented in such a system. Proportional Representation means representation based on how you think, instead of where you live.

These reforms work, as is proven year after year in most elections held around the world. Consider turnout of eligible voters (not just those registered): 39% in US Congressional races, 51% in the 2000 US Presidential election. Steven Hill discovered many races in America, such as for Dallas Mayor and Virginia Attorney General, with voter turnouts of only 5-8%! In Europe, voter participation is 80% or more. The reason is not that they are better people; it’s the stupid voting system in America that discourages our participation.

How can we get IRV? Just have the State Legislature pass a bill, and the Governor to sign it. We don’t have to be stuck with a two-party system. IRV will probably be implemented gradually and locally, such as in student bodies and City Mayoral elections. The Utah Republican Party uses IRV in their primary. San Francisco County recently passed IRV by initiative, and it will be used in this fall’s elections. Steven Hill, author of “Fixing Elections,” was the campaign manager for the initiative.

Reform probably won’t be accomplished overnight. The presidential voting system would take a constitutional amendment to change directly. However, with mere legislation, all the states could agree to apportion their electoral votes by proportion, instead of winner-take-all. Thus California’s 54 electoral votes would be divided by the percentage won by the candidates, instead of 100% to the Democrat. Similarly for reliably Republicanvoting Texas, and all the other states. The advantage is candidates would no longer write off or take for granted the 42 states that reliably vote for one or the other party.

Hill says there are no opposing special interests to IRV, other than the campaign consultant industry. The main obstacles to adoption of IRV are widespread ignorance and resistance to change. It is deeply ironic that entrepreneurs are extolled for innovation, but when it comes to the technology of democracy, we are bogged down by tradition and defenders of the status quo, stuck to the fly paper of old ideas. We can change this. Our democracy depends on it.