I wish to make a suggestion so radically paradoxical there can scarcely exist an excuse for its being printed. The suggestion is this: an electoral process that punishes many voters and produces non-majority "winners" is both undesirable and undemocratic.

The impetuosity of my suggestion is clear, as it seems to question the efficiency of our two-party system — one that is hitherto beyond reproach — and the electoral process that keeps that two-party system in place. Nonetheless, the current method of electing the American president is in fact undemocratic, in effect granting an unfair advantage to the two mainstream parties.

There are two problems with the current electoral method. First, it forces any third-party supporter to choose between voting his conscience and voting his fears. Should he vote for the candidate he believes in and thereby waste his vote, or should he vote for the less evil of the two mainstream candidates and thereby violate his own convictions? Second, it splinters voters amongst numerous candidates and thus often yields a "winner" who lacks the approval of the majority of the electorate.

The solution to this problematic electoral process is very simple, and therefore it will never be adopted. The solution I am thinking of is instant runoff voting. IRV is an electoral process that allows the voter to rank candidates in the order of her preference. In the first round of counting, all the first choices are tallied. If one candidate secures a majority of the vote, he is declared the winner. However, if there is no majority winner, a second round of counting ensues. In this round, the candidate who received the fewest first choice votes is eliminated from consideration. Anyone who chose this candidate as his first choice now has his second choice counted instead. If a candidate receives a majority of the vote in this round, she is declared the winner. If again none secures a majority, the process is repeated once more. This occurs until a majority winner is determined.

One sees the obvious virtues of this method. It is fair, democratic and produces a clear majority winner — something that has not happened in a presidential race since 1988. Further, this electoral process allows one to vote based on his beliefs rather than on his fears. For instance, a supporter of Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik may choose Badnarik first and Bush second. This person's vote will not end up being wasted, since if Badnarik does not win, the vote will instead be considered as for Bush.

It is, of course, silly to expect this very reasonable electoral method shall ever be adopted. Those in power — Democrats and Republicans — have nothing to gain in the long run by supporting fairness and democracy. I merely want to state IRV is an electoral method much fairer and more democratic than that which is currently in use.

Svoboda is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences.

Click here to comment on this viewpoint on the Tribune Forum.