Example Image
Civitas Outlook
Topic
Politics
Published on
Jan 27, 2025
Contributors
David C. Rose

How One Simple Reform Can Improve Voting and Reduce Political Extremism

Contributors
David C. Rose
David C. Rose
David C. Rose
Summary
Give voters the ability to vote against a candidate instead of only for a candidate.
Summary
Give voters the ability to vote against a candidate instead of only for a candidate.

Ranked-choice voting is proving to be a bust in America. But we shouldn’t give up on trying to improve our democracy. An alternative voting method exists that would constitute a much better reform, one that would give voters the ability to express their preferences more accurately. It will also help reduce growing political division in America.  

Now, not just before the next election, is the appropriate time to begin discussing it.  

My proposal is shockingly simple: Give voters the ability to vote against a candidate instead of only for a candidate. This sounds trite, but it is a transparent way to give voters a more meaningful voice in the democratic process by increasing the precision with which they can convey their political preferences.  

When there are three or more candidates on a ballot, a voter might not prefer that candidate A is elected over B or C as much as he prefers that C not be elected regardless of who else might be elected. This is no small thing since we often feel more strongly about what we don’t want than what we do want.  

Here is how it could work. To the right of each candidate is a “for” circle and an “against” circle. For each race, the voter can blacken in only one circle for that office. When the votes are tallied, the number of against votes is subtracted from the number of for votes for each candidate. The winner is determined by who has the most votes from what’s left over.  

Why is this better? If a voter prefers to express a positive preference for a given candidate, then this option changes nothing – vote for that candidate as before. But the option would now exist for a voter to express opposition to a given candidate above all else.  

The benefit of being able to vote against candidates is largely unappreciated because in a two-person race, it is irrelevant. A vote for A is effectively a vote against B. In two-person races, the present system already allows voters to oppose a particular candidate above all else by voting for the other.  

But if there are three or more candidates and your strongest desire is to keep C from being elected, you can’t directly vote against C. In this case, the best you can do to express your desire is to vote for A or B, but it is impossible to know which of these votes will most likely work most effectively against the election of C. Moreover, the greater the number of candidates, the weaker a vote for anyone other than C will express a preference for opposing C.  

Being able to express preferences more precisely in the voting booth is sufficient to warrant making such a simple change to how we vote. But this procedure has other benefits that are important for civic culture.

A brilliant mathematician and economic theorist, Harold Hotelling, helped political economists understand why voting in a two-candidate race tends to mollify political views. With most issues, political views are distributed along a bell curve. Few people take extreme positions, while most are near the middle. Consider defense spending. Some would favor spending zero and some favor spending as much as possible, but these people are rare. Most normal people are somewhere in between.  

This turns out to be very important. In a two-person race, it is easy to see why it’s in a candidate’s best interest to state a position as close to his opponent as possible. Suppose candidate A is left of center on a particular issue. Candidate B could choose a position equally to the right of center, but that would leave the middle up for grabs. The better strategy is for B to take a position that abuts A’s position. This is because few, if any, on the right will choose A over B, but now B grabs all of the people in the middle, plus his base.  

This sounds crass, but it’s actually a good thing. Both candidates are incentivized to do this, which drives them to take positions that best reflect what the lion’s share of voters actually want. With two candidates, being extreme is a very bad strategy. This is a powerful bulwark against political extremism and tribalism.  

One could argue that this doesn’t describe politics today, where everyone seems focused on their base, and the base positions are separating over time. That’s a fair point, but it gets the causation backward.  

In most races, the candidates have to win primaries first, and primaries often have more than two candidates. This dramatically weakens the Hotelling effect described just above because, in a 2+ candidate race, there is no clearly defined position to abut. Instead, the better strategy is to find a way to achieve plurality, which in most cases requires the candidate to focus on giving his or her base what they want above all else. This stakes out the policy positions of the two candidates before the final race, even if the final race has only two candidates. But if voters could also vote no in primary races, the primary is more likely to produce non-extreme candidates for the final election.  

This is because the more extreme any candidate is, the more likely he or she will attract “no” votes. Think of your likelihood of choosing to vote against a given candidate as being affected by how far they are from you over the distribution of political preferences. The farther into the tail of that distribution a candidate is, the farther he or she will be from you unless you are also in the tail (which is unlikely because most voters aren’t in the tail). When voters can choose to vote against specific candidates, candidates quickly figure out that being extreme is a sure way to get lots of “no” votes.  

One might argue that ranked-choice voting allows voters to express their disdain for a particular candidate by ranking him last. But it does so in an even more complicated way than traditional voting. In contrast, the ability to vote against a candidate allows that preference to be fully and precisely expressed and tabulated.  

The option to vote against a candidate does not eliminate the possibility that no single candidate wins a majority in a race with more than two candidates. But how that issue is addressed is a separate matter. The option of being able to vote against candidates you deeply dislike is still a better way to vote, regardless of how the problem of no candidate winning a majority is addressed.

Right now is the time to begin discussing proposals for voting reform. Doing so now will maximize the time before the next election, thereby minimizing the likelihood of it being viewed as another ploy to gain a short-run political advantage.  

David C. Rose is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, a Professor Emeritus at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and a member of the Missouri Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

10:13
1x
10:13
More articles

Relief for Trump in Sight — If Supreme Court Special Session Reins in Rogue Judges

Politics
Apr 25, 2025

The Sound of Five Thousand Banks Collapsing

Economic Dynamism
Apr 25, 2025
View all

Join the newsletter

Receive new publications, news, and updates from the Civitas Institute.

Sign up
More on

Politics

Liberal Democracy Reexamined: Leo Strauss on Alexis de Tocqueville

This article explores Leo Strauss’s thoughts on Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1954 “Natural Right” course transcript.

Raúl Rodríguez
Politics
Feb 25, 2025
Long Distance Migration as a Two-Step Sorting Process: The Resettlement of Californians in Texas

Here we press the question of whether the well-documented stream of migrants relocating from California to Texas has been sufficient to alter the political complexion of the destination state.

James Gimpel, Daron Shaw
Politics
Feb 6, 2025
Who's That Knocking? A Study of the Strategic Choices Facing Large-Scale Grassroots Canvassing Efforts

Although there is a consensus that personalized forms of campaign outreach are more likely to be effective at either mobilizing or even persuading voters, there remains uncertainty about how campaigns should implement get-out-the-vote (GOTV) programs, especially at a truly expansive scale.

Grant Ferguson, James Gimpel, Mark Owens, Daron Shaw
Politics
Dec 13, 2024
National Poll from Civitas Institute: Trump Victory Driven by Voters Who Reject Status Quo

The poll asked 1,200 Americans an array of questions about how things are going in America.

Daron Shaw
Politics
Dec 11, 2024

The Three Whiskey Happy Hour

Steven Hayward brings you the Power Line Blog's perspective on the week's big headlines.

View all
** items
Relief for Trump in Sight — If Supreme Court Special Session Reins in Rogue Judges

Nationwide injunctions have proven a disaster for the federal judiciary.

John Yoo
Politics
Apr 25, 2025
The Dangers of the Political Gender Gap

Young women and men are gravitating towards opposite political extremes, with potentially explosive consequences.

Joel Kotkin
Politics
Apr 24, 2025
What Trump Can Learn from George W. Bush on Immigration Strategy

The White House should follow the Bush administration’s example and avoid antagonizing the Supreme Court.

John Yoo
Politics
Apr 23, 2025
Trump Could Have a Strong Case to Revoke Harvard’s Tax-Exempt Status

Thanks to a 1983 opinion widely hailed by progressives at the time, the administration could be on solid ground.

John Yoo, Robert Delahunty
Politics
Apr 21, 2025

John Yoo: The DOJ Is Being ‘Tricky’ but They May Be Right

Politics
Mar 18, 2025
1:05

John Yoo: How Will Trump Try to ‘Redirect’ the Justice Department Toward ‘Public Order and Safety’?

Politics
Mar 14, 2025
1:05

John Yoo: Musk’s Audits Are Part of Alexander Hamilton’s ‘Energetic Executive’

Politics
Feb 10, 2025
1:05

Lord Andrew Roberts on Winston Churchill and the US-UK Special Relationship, Then and Now

Politics
Sep 26, 2024
1:05

Justin Dyer on Civic Education: Live at AEI's Future of the American University Conference

Politics
May 14, 2024
1:05
No items found.
No items found.
A Tariff Crisis Delayed, not Averted

Rapid policy change through the executive branch is incompatible with how our Constitution was designed to function.

Joseph Postell
Politics
Apr 24, 2025
Woke Despotism Meets the Counterrevolution

The turn against wokeness must be cemented in a durable political settlement that transcends executive orders.

Richard M. Reinsch II
Politics
Apr 21, 2025
Can We Replay McKinley-ism?

There are notable connections between McKinley's rhetoric and political visions and President Trump's, but several important caveats apply to the comparison.

Nicholas Mosvick
Politics
Apr 18, 2025
The Art of the Political Biography

Studying biography was considered the principal means for anyone wishing to acquire wisdom about political life.

Steven F. Hayward
Politics
Apr 11, 2025
No items found.