One voting system, two candidates, infinite possibilities of outcome. This year's US elections see two very different candidates pitted against each other, Kamala Harris e Donald Trump, but there is one more element that could prove decisive: the chosen voting system.
If the outcome of this vote is expected in the Italian night between November 5 and 6, the consequences of the electoral choice could extend well beyond. In fact, beneath the surface of political competition, another scenario is hidden: how much can the voting method influence the electoral results and even the future of American democracy itself? There is a fact to consider, which perhaps many Europeans underestimate. In the United States, “ideological loyalty” to a party is a pure illusion. A Gallup Poll 2023 found that 43% of Americans considers himself politically independent: this makes us understand the constant, creeping discontent of the voters, whatever the “color” of the Administration in office. And so, my easy prediction has served its purpose: between Trump and Harris, the voting system will surely win, and whoever loses will surely take it up on this to denounce the irregularity of the result. But is there a way to get everyone to agree? Can the future of societies be stabilized and democratized also through the way of voting?
Plurality: simplicity or limitation?
In the United States, the plurality voting system (or “first past the post”) is the traditional one. A simple system: each voter chooses a single candidate, and whoever receives the most votes wins. It is easy to understand, with a direct link between the number of votes and the winner, but this system has limitations. It does not guarantee that the winning candidate will be the one preferred by the majority of voters. With a competition of three or more candidates, it often happens that the winner represents only a minority. This generates the risk of the so-called "spoiler effect", in which a minority candidate steals votes from one of the main ones, altering the result. As highlighted by Romain Lechat at Sciences Po, plurality is a clear but sometimes limiting choice, especially in a climate of strong political polarization.
“It’s a system that everyone understands and where the result is immediate. But if we look deeper, we understand that it does not always reflect the overall will of the electorate.”
Ranked choice voting: a new voting system
In recent years, some American cities and states have adopted a different system, the ranked choice voting (RCV). This method allows more than one preference to be expressed, by ordering the candidates by priority. If no one immediately obtains a majority, the second-choice votes of the voters who had chosen the last-placed candidate are counted, and so on, until one candidate obtains an absolute majority. Caroline Tolbert of the University of Iowa praises its benefits: In addition to reducing polarization, this system could encourage a more calm and open campaign, with candidates aiming to win second and third preferences as well.
“It’s a system that encourages dialogue and moderation, allowing a winner to emerge with broad support. And that could lead to happier voters.”
However, RCV is more complex and presents challenges for voters less familiar with its logic. There is also the risk that incorrectly filled out ballots will be thrown out, especially where the system is new. For now, RCV has been tested in a few states such as Maine e alaska, as well as in cities like New York and San Francisco. But widespread adoption would still take time and extensive testing.
Approval vote: an easy way out?
A still different option is the vote of approval, in which each voter can express their approval for one or more candidates. In this case, the winner is the one who receives the highest number of overall approvals. According to Whitney Hua from the Center for Election Science, this method solves the problem of the spoiler effect and is simple to understand even for those unfamiliar with alternative voting systems.
“It’s an accessible method that allows multiple preferences to be expressed without having to order them. It’s suitable for both local elections and broader contexts.”
Approval voting has been tested recently in cities such as St. Louis e Fargo, but it has not yet found widespread diffusion. A nationwide adoption could lead to greater political pluralism, favoring independent candidates and broadening the range of options for the electorate.
US Elections: Implications for the Future of Democracy
Which voting system would be best suited for a country as diverse as the United States? Each of these methods has its own advantages and limitations, and the choice could affect democracy itself. According to the Arrow's impossibility theorem1, no voting system can satisfy all the criteria of fairness: a truth that even scholars such as Dan Ullman at George Washington University never stop emphasizing this to their students.
“There is no perfect method. Each system satisfies some criteria at the expense of others. It is a question of choosing what is more important.”
Ultimately, the choice of the electoral system represents an act of faith in the priorities that one wants to privilege. Simplify the process? Guarantee a majority? Favor independent candidates? Give a voice to moderates? Or maybe to an AI? Each of these options leads to a different kind of democracy.
What will be the ideal future voting system?
As new technologies advance and the debate continues, the voting system in the United States may evolve. We may see more alternative systems like RCV or approval voting, especially in local contexts. In an era where voter participation and representation are more important than ever, experimenting with different methods could be the key to a more vibrant and inclusive democracy. However, real reform would require the support and political will to move beyond conventions and embrace a vision of democracy that reflects an increasingly complex and interconnected society.
And in the end, it all comes back to the initial question: Harris or Trump?
Whatever the outcome on the night of November 5-6, and no matter what voting system is adopted, this election represents more than a choice between two candidates. It is a reflection of the challenges of modern democracy, which continues to evolve to reflect the complexity and divisions of a changing society. The future, in the end, will depend not only on the leaders elected but also on how we choose to elect them. And let's hope it is not so bleak. as some might expect.
- In practice, Arrow mathematically proves that it is impossible to create an electoral system that simultaneously satisfies some reasonable conditions that we would expect from a democratic decision-making process, such as: Considering the preferences of all voters - Not being influenced by irrelevant options - Not having a "dictator" who decides for everyone - Always producing a clear and consistent result. Therefore, according to Arrow, every voting system will inevitably have some flaws or paradoxes. There is no perfect method for aggregating individual preferences into a collective choice that always respects all the desirable criteria. This theorem highlights the intrinsic limits of democracy and group decision-making processes, showing that it is mathematically impossible to have an ideal voting system that always functions fairly and rationally in all situations. ↩︎
