If Al Gore ends up losing this election to George W. Bush, Democrats and pundits should not rush to blame Ralph Nader's Green Party for playing a spoiler role. The real blame, in this case, is an outmoded electoral system that has no provision for a runoff.
In our brand of plurality, winner-take-all voting, third parties are cast as spoilers, even as they enliven our democratic process. Instead of being credited with strengthening politics with new faces and new ideas, third parties (such as the Green or Reform parties) only end up taking away votes from potential winners. Thus, many voters will not vote their first preference for fear of wasting their votes or, worse, inadvertently handing the election to someone they strongly oppose.
Our electoral system, by design, suppresses the competition and debate brought by new parties, new candidates, and new alliances. The result is a frozen two-party system where we negate rather than value new ideas. What's more, under plurality rules, you can win even though the majority of voters voted against you.
Only a voting method that allows some kind of runoff allows third parties to compete in a winner-take-all election and elect a true majority winner. Some would argue a second runoff election is expensive and impractical. But with modern voting methods, you don't need a second election.
Countries such as Australia, Ireland, and, more recently, England have adopted a simple improvement called Instant Run-Off Voting. This form of voting is on the ballot next year in Alaska and is being actively considered in several other states.
It allows voters to give a first or second choice on their ballots. If it becomes clear that the first choice has no chance of winning, his or her votes are automatically redistributed to the second choice among the top two contenders. A real majority winner is elected. It gives voters the opportunity to actively support their first-choice candidate without wasting their votes. Third-party candidates can run vigorous campaigns without spoiling it for a front-runner.
But the Nader problem or - looking back - the Perot or Anderson problem, reflects only part of our electoral shortcomings. Equally important is the lack of choice that voters have had.
On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters lacked choice up and down the ballot. For president, we Bay Staters knew in advance where our electoral votes are going. There was not a serious race in any of our 10 congressional districts or for the US Senate. In state legislative balloting, two-thirds of incumbents had no challenger.
Pundits often ask where are the voters? The real question is where are the candidates?
If our democracy is to survive and thrive into the next century, we must put an end to ''no choice, no debate'' elections. Choice is not something to be afraid of, and competition is as important to politics as it is to economics; just as we encourage entrepreneurship in the economic marketplace, so should we encourage it in the political marketplace.
Of course, no single change is a cure-all. But adopting instant run-off voting to ensure a majority winner and to allow third parties to compete without becoming spoilers is a good place to start. We also should:
Let go of the Electoral College. It is confusing and dubious democracy to elect someone who lost the popular vote. But, the Electoral College's most serious problem is that, in the context of a national election, it leaves half the states - from Wyoming to Massachusetts - on the sidelines while the candidates understandably focus their attention on the other 25 ''swing'' states.
Overhaul campaign financing. Money is one of the greatest obstacles to new candidates and a huge source of cynicism about politics. Change must come at all levels - municipal, state, and federal. A good place to start in Massachusetts is to make sure the voter-enacted clean election law goes into effect without further delay next year.
Make redistricting independent and nonpartisan: How is it we allow our elected officials every 10 years to handpick their voters? Isn't is supposed to be the other way around? Other democracies with districts use independent commissions to redraw the lines, not the incumbent holders of those districts.
Improve voter access: One way to do that is to rethink the current advance registration requirements. They are already null in six states, allowing new voters to register on Election Day without any problems. Another is to find good alternatives to voting on Tuesday, which for many is a busy workday. (What worked well in 1845 when enacted by farmers works less well today.) If we want to maintain the tradition of Tuesday voting, let's at least modify it to include on-line voting, time off for voting, or the option to vote near your workplace as well as near home.
The right to vote, a fundamental underpinning of American democracy, assumes choice. It is devalued if new candidates become spoilers or cannot run at all. It is undercut if debate is limited or voices are not heard. And, it is less than meaningful if, as is the case in most state and federal elections, voters cannot choose from among all the contesting candidates.
As one of the world's first and oldest democracies, we have a lot to be proud of. But there is a great deal to improve in this outdated election system - much of which was only intended as a transition from a monarchy to a fledgling republic more than two centuries ago. One of its chief architects, Thomas Jefferson, said its electoral arrangement should be revisited every 20 years - not to mention every 200. Let's make democracy itself an issue now and in future elections - demanding that our electoral system move out of the 18th century into the 21st.
George Pillsbury is the policy director of Boston VOTE. Kevin C. Peterson is the former executive director of Part of the Solution.
