The NYT “Room for Debate” column is hosting a discussion between five pundits under the rubric, “When is it Smart to Abandon your Party?”(The question actually refers to the wisdom of politicians themselves, and not voters, doing just that, with a focus on the Charlie Crist campaign in Florida). Sadly, all of the pundits themselves are in thrall to the system, and are more interested in how to strategize within it than in proposing solutions–in other words, trying to figure out what’s best for politicians–not voters.

I posted the following comment in the thread (still awaiting moderator approval as I write):

It’s interesting to see how many of these commentators note that the game is, in effect, rigged, to the benefit of the two majors. 1) Removing constraints to ballot access and 2) implementing clean elections funding laws would go a long way towards opening up opportunities for voter choice–but equally critical is 3) instituting instant run-off voting, which solves “the Nader problem” (voting for your preferred choice can lead to election of your least-favorite candidate) along with one of the most depressing aspects of current electoral politics–the woefully unexciting decision to vote for “the lesser of two evils.”

The need for such a system was well-evidenced here in Massachusetts during the recent special election. Many voters decided (unhappily, in my view) that the race for Ted Kennedy’s seat was a referendum on healthcare reform. For the relatively small percentage of true conservatives, that was no problem: their preferred choice was Scott Brown. But what of progressives who opposed a HCR bill that didn’t include a public option (along with a process that never even broached the subject of single-payer)? Alas, some voted for Brown, biting off their nose to spite their faces; many others simply stayed home. The ultimate effect: electing someone who is never going to be a friend to their own crusade.

Now we have a governor’s race–which is in fact a three-way race, as Dem State Treasurer Tim Cahill wages an independent battle, squaring off against presumptive GOP nominee Charlie Baker for conservative votes. At the same time, progressives’ dissatisfaction with Gov. Deval Patrick runs high. There’s an alternative there, too–the state Green party (Green-Rainbow Party) is running a first-rate candidate in Jill Stein (who garnered some 18% of the votes a few years back when she ran for Sec of the Commonwealth). The Party is sufficiently well-organized to overcome ballot access hurdles–but the money issue (GRP candidates don’t accept corporate contributions), lack of media attention (the media consortia who hold debates don’t want third party candidates), and, most of all, the fear of the spoiler effect aren’t easily resolved. The Libertarian Party faces the same dilemma. And it’s not just a dilemma for the parties, but for voters who are clearly VERY hungry indeed for more choice. But until the three reforms I noted above are put into play, too many voters will once again go to the polls holding their noses, while the corporate donors who fund BOTH major party candidates laugh all the way to the unregulated banks.