I wish I could vote for Aaron Dixon. There shouldn't be any problem with this: he's on the ballot, running for Washington State Senator, and his views are similar to mine on many issues. But Dixon is in the Green Party, and has been vilified for the same crime as other third-party candidates: being a "spoiler".

To say there's a general lack of confidence in elected officials is an understatement. Worse, I think, is distrust in the electoral process itself. In an era of voting machines that can be hacked by eleven-year- olds, it's tempting to give up and declare the whole process broken. Democracy is stifled in situations like the 2004 presidential election, which left Green Party candidate Ralph Nader accused of siphoning votes from the Democrats' base. In Washington State the voter's pamphlet reminds readers that after the infamous 2004 election for Governor, the candidates "stood 46 ten-thousandths of 1% apart" - and neither had a significant percentage of the total vote. Supposedly, reforms have been made, but none prevent the reoccurrence of elections ultimately decided in court rather than the voting booth. A major change in the voting process to a new system, Instant Runoff Voting, could restore belief in the integrity of the vote.

IRV is fairly simple: voters rank candidates according to preference. If any candidate wins a majority of the vote, the race is over; otherwise an instant runoff occurs where the least popular candidate is removed, their votes distributed according to voters' second preference. This continues until two candidates remain, one with more than 50% of the vote. It eliminates the spoiler affect and reduces the chance of results within the margin of error.

IRV increases turnout by allowing voters to choose the candidates they want to win, instead of who they think can win - and only requires them to show up once. It's easier for administrators and candidates, who avoid raising money for two elections as in the current century-old runoff system. There's also the "nice factor": candidates spend less time and money on backstabbing, which obviously makes them less desirable as a second choice. Eliminating the spoiler makes an opportunity for a larger third party presence. And as in genetics, political diversity increases fertility.

It's mainly the last that leads major parties to oppose IRV. Obviously, a two-party system is advantageous for them, however little it actually represents voter's views. And resistance to IRV often comes in the form of cynical, defeatist claims that actual election reform will never occur. But IRV is used successfully in a large, diverse group of electoral bodies. San Francisco became the first US city to use IRV for local officials, London's mayor is elected through IRV, and it's used exclusively on an entire continent, in Australian parliamentarian elections. At least thirty-six colleges, including most of the Ivy league, have switched to IRV for their student government elections, and several states have long utilized it for overseas voters. It's currently on the ballot in Pierce County, WA, and Minneapolis. Finally, it's the system preferred by the people who should know best: the American Political Science Association - along with several science-fiction awards, NCAA ranking, and the Muppets - use IRV in their internal elections.

In our national midterm election next week, however, I don't have the option of ranking the candidates. As a third party candidate, Dixon is less likely to win than my second choice, the Democratic candidate. I'm left in the position of deciding whether to vote by my views or by my fears. Although in this race the Green Party will ultimately have my support, it's enough to make me declare a no-confidence vote in the system - and maybe move to Australia.