Praxis hosts lecture on electoral reform
Thomas Currey
Issue date: 11/20/08 Section: News
Political candidates in U.S. elections should take turns in office or store up votes from election to election, said T. Clark Durant of New York University in a Tuesday evening lecture in Kendall Hall. Approximately 50 people attended the event, hosted by the political economy club Praxis.
In his speech, titled "Making Elections and Other Forms of Limited Government More Compatible," Durant said the current system encourages candidates to concentrate on divisions in society to eek out a plurality of the votes.
"When you appeal to win, you don't appeal to everybody, you're not trying to build a consensus, you're trying to get 50% plus one," he said. "Right now if you're a genius political operator, you'd probably be better off knowing how to divide people than to figure out what their common policies could be."
He suggested two alternatives: First, after a close election, the winner could serve for the first part of the term and the loser for the second.
Second, candidates could "spend" the votes they receive to win an election, while voters for the losing candidate could "save" their vote (but no more than one at a time) until the next election.
"I liked that he had ideas and solutions, instead of just lamentations about the sad state of American politics," said Praxis President Hannah Mead, a senior.
Mead said Praxis heard about Durant from Assistant Professor of Economics Nikolai Wenzel, with whom Durant attended graduate school.
Wenzel said he and Durant looked over one another's dissertations, and he agrees that the current "one man, one vote" voting system requires a major overhaul.
"I'm very intrigued and I'm sympathetic overall, but I still have some curiosities to resolve about how Clark's system would work," Wenzel said. "I think what it may be is that he's offering one great solution among 10. It's a big picture problem, and he should be commended for presenting such a unique solution."
In his speech, titled "Making Elections and Other Forms of Limited Government More Compatible," Durant said the current system encourages candidates to concentrate on divisions in society to eek out a plurality of the votes.
"When you appeal to win, you don't appeal to everybody, you're not trying to build a consensus, you're trying to get 50% plus one," he said. "Right now if you're a genius political operator, you'd probably be better off knowing how to divide people than to figure out what their common policies could be."
He suggested two alternatives: First, after a close election, the winner could serve for the first part of the term and the loser for the second.
Second, candidates could "spend" the votes they receive to win an election, while voters for the losing candidate could "save" their vote (but no more than one at a time) until the next election.
"I liked that he had ideas and solutions, instead of just lamentations about the sad state of American politics," said Praxis President Hannah Mead, a senior.
Mead said Praxis heard about Durant from Assistant Professor of Economics Nikolai Wenzel, with whom Durant attended graduate school.
Wenzel said he and Durant looked over one another's dissertations, and he agrees that the current "one man, one vote" voting system requires a major overhaul.
"I'm very intrigued and I'm sympathetic overall, but I still have some curiosities to resolve about how Clark's system would work," Wenzel said. "I think what it may be is that he's offering one great solution among 10. It's a big picture problem, and he should be commended for presenting such a unique solution."
Be the first to comment on this story