“…Houston, where the homeless population has more than halved since 2011. Specifically, the 2011 point-in-time count identified 8,471 homeless individuals in Houston and surrounding counties, of whom 4,418 were unsheltered. By 2020, homeless and unsheltered individuals numbered 3,974 and 1,656, respectively. Clearly, Houston is doing something right.
One thing Houston is doing right is finding permanent supportive housing for its homeless population, with over 16,000 housed since 2011…Houston also coordinates homeless services with nearby cities and counties that are part of the same Continuum of Care administrative unit. This governance structure fosters collaborative problem-solving across a diverse political landscape, inculcating a culture that respects both progressive and conservative sensibilities.” - A Tale of Governance and Politics: Homelessness Trends in Texas and California/Exploring the Problem Space September 14, 2021
How to propagate cultures of governance that foster “collaborative problem-solving across a diverse political landscape”? Change the voting system so that elected officials have to work across ideological and party lines to keep their jobs.
“Economists are not alone in thinking religious competition healthy. ‘If there were only one religion in England,’ argued the French writer Voltaire in the 1730s, “there would be danger of despotism. If there were two they would cut each other’s throats, but there are 30, and they live in peace and happiness.” - The world’s religions face a post-pandemic reckoning/The Economist January 8, 2022.
As in religion, so in politics. We need more political parties whose candidates have a real shot at being elected. How to get there? Possibly through Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Here’s how RCV would work, at least in theory and according to its advocates:
Ranked choice voting (RCV) is an electoral system where voters rank candidates from favorite to least favorite on the ballot. This way, if your top candidate does not win, your vote still counts toward your second preference. If more than 50% of voters rank one candidate as their top preference, that candidate wins, just like in our current electoral system. However, there is a chance that no candidate will receive more than 50% of the first-preference votes. In this case, the candidate with the lowest number of first-choice votes is eliminated. The voters who chose that candidate as their first choice will have their second-choice votes counted instead. This process, which is called instant runoff, continues until there is a majority winner.
Ranked Choice Voting encourages candidates to build positive, issue-based campaigns rather than focusing on bringing down one opponent. That’s because candidates also compete for second choice votes. If they smear one candidate, they are likely losing the second-choice vote of those whose first choice was treated poorly. - 4 ways ranked choice voting would fix America. Katherine Hamilton/Represent Us
Under ranked-choice voting, the incentives push candidates to build broader coalitions. Since no candidate knows whether someone will garner enough votes to win in the first round, each candidate is incentivized to capture the votes of those who may not have picked them as their first choice. To do this, they must try to appeal to a wider array of voters than they would have otherwise. - How Ranked Choice Voting Can Increase Inclusivity and Voter Participation. Georgia Lyon/Campaign Legal Center May 21, 2021
The one thing I would do to fix American democracy is to have as many states as possible move to ranked-choice voting…Party primaries are one of the big drivers of polarization and extremism, and RCV will reduce their importance since the loser of a primary could still come back and run in the main election. RCV will also encourage cross-party cooperation for second preferences, once politicians learn how to play the game. It can be enacted on a state-by-state basis (as Maine has already done) and does not require a constitutional amendment. RCV will generate huge opposition from the two existing parties but is something that potentially could find favor with both the left and right once it is clearly explained. - How to Fix Polarization: Ranked-Choice Voting Francis Fukuyama/Politico
Change the electoral incentives, which are now biased against moderation and compromise. Today, members of Congress, state legislators, governors and other state officials have to first win a low-turnout party primary, in which ideologically militant voters are more likely to vote, and then win a general election by plurality vote. Compromise is politically dangerous, so candidates appeal to their bases. General election voters can’t vote for a third alternative without wasting their vote on a “spoiler.” Switching to ranked-choice voting would enable general election voters to give their first-place votes to independents and moderates who promise to defy this polarizing logic. - How to Fix Polarization: Ranked-Choice Voting Larry Diamond/Politico
Of course, a switch to RCV can’t always deliver on its promise to increase political diversity within the governing class. For example, Berkeley California has been using RCV since 2004, and it’s still a one-party town. Then again, Berkeley is politically diverse in its own way, meaning our elected officials include Socialists, Progressives and a few left-center Democrats. Maybe without ranked choice voting, the ideological spectrum would have been even narrower.