I appreciate the sentiment in Olin Rose-Bardawil’s recent column about our unfortunate two-party political system [”Americans want more than two choices,” Gazette, June 14].
Mr. Rose-Bardawil speculates that many readers will dismiss him as “starry-eyed.” He’s right about that, but not for the reasons he suspects. Saying “there’s no such thing as a spoiler in a democracy” is absurd to the point of misinformation. There will be spoilers as long as we vote the way we do. To claim otherwise is to ignore basic math and history.
We currently use a voting system that allows you to waste your vote on a nonviable candidate, which benefits the viable candidate you dislike the most. If this sounds problematic, that’s because it is. If you hate Trump and vote for Kennedy, you’re helping to elect Trump by not voting for his most viable opponent; this is called “strategic voting,” and it’s something our current voting system requires us to do instead of picking our actual preference.
Pretending that voting doesn’t work this way for sentimental reasons is irresponsible and dangerous. The two major parties cynically fund third-party candidates precisely because they act as spoilers. Third-party candidates will only become viable when we change how we vote, and we need ranked-choice voting.
We must fight passionately for this change at all levels of government. We deserve a spoiler-free democracy and a voting system where third-party candidates can run without helping their most extreme opponents win.
I don’t think of third-party candidates as spoilers; our current voting system is the spoiler. Until we change it, the only logical choice is to vote to defeat the candidate you hate most, whether or not you believe the fate of democracy is at stake. Mr. Rose-Bardawil is correct in pointing
out that commentators will, hyperbolically or not, frame every significant election as existential, but that’s not a reason to vote illogically. I urge you to assess the viability of each candidate before you vote; naivety is pretending that you don’t have to. If you’re frustrated by this state of affairs, get involved in local politics or follow Mr. Rose-Bardawil’s example and speak passionately, starry-eyed or not, about what matters. Your voice and actions are crucial in advocating for ranked-choice voting. Once we adopt it, we’ll never have to talk about spoilers again.
Note: Easthampton uses ranked-choice voting for single-winner municipal races. Amherst and Northampton approved the use of ranked-choice voting for all municipal races but have been unable to use it because House Speaker Ronald Mariano (Ronald.Mariano@mahouse.gov) is preventing them from doing so.
Daniel Gilbert lives in Easthampton.