Politics are a contact sport. In the quest to receive more votes than the others in the race, you try to put your opponent on the defensive – let them explain details about a certain situation or even problem they have.I became involved in government issues because of laws and rules that were bad for the music scene. Along the way I recognized fundamental problems with our elections here in Washington and the United States.I could have picked a sexier political cause to promote. Perhaps something heart wrenching like saving baby wombats from losing habitat? But I had to go and get into election reform!I got intrigued with elections early in my political involvement after public officials asked me to get involved in encouraging voter turnout. The hook is the Nirvana celebrity could turn out young voters. So I went about and did try to get out the vote and I soon noticed that there are few opportunities to do so.Most elections in Washington are uncompetitive and uncontested. Lawmakers occupy so-called safe seat districts – featuring elections with scant debate or discussion where it’s taken for granted the incumbent will get re-elected. My point is: why have a get out the vote rally in these safe seat districts.In good faith and compelled by a spirit of altruism I set about advocating ways to make elections more competitive and in the course of this quest, you are now reading an article from the Chair of the leading election reform organization in the United States.Here’s the usual situation with FairVote: A local group wants to promote a voting system like Instant Runoff Voting. We work with them on a campaign and voters usually pass it. As far as international elections go, the only other nation that I’ve worked in this field is Canada. I’ve recently written about the BC-STV effort in British Columbia and I’m sorry to report that voters rejected the Single Transferable Vote (STV) method. STV ballots are different than what we’re used to here in the United States. Instead of a single choice on a ballot, voters get to rank their preferences. Counting the ballots works similar to the show American Idol where the lowest-ranking performer is voted off the show until the field narrows.Instead of the usual post game analysis of how and why STV in British Columbia lost, I’ll break it down to the classic dynamic in political campaigns – the offense and defense. BC-STV was always on the defense. The opposition just had to say it was confusing and that made the proponents have to give a math lecture, of sorts.The ballot also had races for the provincial legislature. In the campaign the Right would say, “We want a stronger Economy” and the Left, “More economic opportunity”. BC-STV proponents were usually forced to say, “After a candidate crossed the threshold for election, the subsequent voters choices are moved to the remaining candidates at a transfer value that is established by dividing the number of votes for the winning candidate…………..” You get what I mean.The opposition didn’t have to defend the status quo voting – which is also complicated. They had to force the agents of change to constantly explain a ballot that looks different from what people are used to. Election reform advocates in the United States find themselves defending ballots where voters rank candidates. Opponents of reform try to put us on the defensive by claiming our proposals are complex, confusing and even Un-American! Is American Idol complex or Un-American? Proponents of Washington’s Top-Two election system never have to defend it to the public. However, they currently have to defend it in front of judges because the system is in court – and that’s a complicated situation. On the surface, the Top-Two system sounds easy – the top two vote getters in a primary advance to the general election. But there are huge legal issues with this Top-Two system that speak to the very foundations of the American way. I can explain these issues – but not in the space of this column. If you like reading legal rulings, please feel free to visit the link provided. (I’ve also written about this subject in previous columns.)In politics there’s something known as the elevator speech. It’s about pitching an idea in less than three minutes. With the Top-Two voting system, proponents say you have more choices on the primary ballot, and it’s apparent. They don’t have to say how the Top-Two harms association and explain in the context of constitutional law. Perhaps one would need to be in an elevator in the Burj Dubai – the tallest building in the world – to give a comprehensive explanation of the complexities of the Top-Two and how it harms private association. And I find that when I take the time to explain the Top-Two vote to people, they don’t like the legal problems with it either.Political insiders are always thinking about the ins and outs of elections. They use the pulpit of their incumbency to shape the debate in a way that benefits them. So there you have it – an easy pitch and would only take us between a floor or two in the edifice that is the democratic way.