Three words describe the way we elect our representatives in this country: unreliable, outdated and non-inclusive. This kind of system may have worked fine 200 years ago, before ballots were even printed, and people wrote their favorite candidates’ names on blank pieces of paper, but it is the 21st century and it’s time we updated the voting-process.

First, let us look at what is wrong with the system. For starters, we do not actually elect the president; this is done by electors who cast all the electoral votes for their state. Such a system is not only an unnecessary step in the political process, it creates the most insane situation in modern voting: the election of someone who did not receive a majority of the votes.

In addition, if you think the whole Florida debacle in 2000 was a mess, have you ever considered the possibility of an electoral tie? It happened in 1800 and could very well happen again this year. While some may say the Electoral College ensures representation to smaller states, I ask: When was the last time a presidential candidate visited North Dakota?

Second, the United States and Canada are the only Western nations in which a person can win an election without winning a majority of the votes. In fact, the last person to win a presidential election and receive a majority of the votes was George Bush Sr. in 1988. Such plurality voting means that, in a three-way race, two candidates can get 33 percent each, but it is the candidate who gets 34 percent of the vote that wins, even though a majority (66 percent) of the people did not want that person in office.

Lastly, our present system excludes the kind of vibrant discussion that other Western nations enjoy during elections. In the United States, third-party candidates are seen as spoilers and “wasted votes;” people are discouraged from voting for candidates they like in favor of voting against candidates they despise. However, other industrialized nations enjoy the representation of coalition governments, composed of different parties that work together toward common goals.

So what is to be done about this? One simple change in our voting system could breathe new life into the electoral process in this country: Instant Run-off Voting.

Instant Run-off Voting gives the voter an opportunity to rank candidates on the ballot. If one person gets a majority of No. 1 votes, they win; that part is simple enough. However, if no one gets a majority of No. 1 votes (as is often the case in modern politics), the votes of the person with the least number of No. 1 votes go to whomever each person who voted for him or her ranked as their second choice.

This continues as often as is needed until someone has a majority of No. 2 votes. For example, if we had been using an Instant Run-Off Voting system to elect the president in 2000, Nader’s votes would have likely gone to Gore, and our president would have received a majority of the popular vote.

This system eliminates winners who do not receive a majority of the votes. It also eliminates the spoiler effect that third parties can have on an election while, at the same time, giving them a chance to actually get elected since no vote is wasted. Lastly, it gives people more choice in who they vote for and will increase voter turnout.

It is about time we pull our voting system out of the 18th century and bring it up to speed with a more sophisticated system that will encourage greater participation and representation. Two parties do not represent enough choices for a populace as vibrant and culturally diverse as our nation.

We need to follow the example of our neighbors in Europe and build upon models of successful democracies worldwide.

We have everything to gain and only our lack of adequate representation to lose.