ELECTION RULES NEED TO BE CHANGED NOW.

Byline: Steven Hill and Rob Richie

THE spoiler dilemma of Ralph Nader's candidacy is back, like the hockey-masked villain from a ``Friday the 13th'' horror movie that refuses to die.

Once again, the audience is on edge. Democrats are fuming, using legal tricks to keep Nader off the ballot, while Republicans are cackling with glee, even helping Nader to qualify for the ballot in some states.

But Republicans shouldn't cackle too loudly, because they also have been hurt by the spoiler dilemma. Many observers believe that Bill Clinton beat George H.W. Bush in 1992 only because Ross Perot drained away enough votes from Bush. What goes around, comes around.

The problem is not candidates like Perot or Nader, but the lack of a ``majority requirement'' for electing our president. The winner of our highest office is not required to win a majority of votes, either nationwide or in each state, to win that state's electoral votes. Because of the presence of Nader and other candidates like Pat Buchanan in 2000, nine states awarded all their electoral votes to a candidate who did not win a popular majority.

In 1992, fully 49 of 50 states were won without a majority. It is the lack of a majority requirement that leads to so much confusion. In a split, multi-candidate field, we can't be certain that the winner is the one preferred by the most voters.

A lot is at stake to make sure that the winner in November can claim the presidency and try and heal a polarized red vs. blue America. Yet neither Republican nor Democratic Party leaders have done enough to fix this undemocratic defect of our electoral system.

What can they do? The U.S. Constitution mandates the antiquated Electoral College system for electing the president, and recently The New York Times and various political leaders have called for the Electoral College to be abolished. But that's not likely to happen soon, and there's other stop-leak fixes that can be used in the meantime. That's because the Constitution specifically delegates to states the method of choosing its electors. Nebraska and Maine already do things differently than the rest of the nation, awarding one electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district and two electoral votes to the winner of the statewide vote.

Each state legislature could pass into law - right now - a runoff or instant runoff system with a majority requirement for president to ensure that whoever wins, either John Kerry or George W. Bush, he will command support from a majority of the nation's voters. Time is growing short, but it's in the public interest to protect majority rule and allow for voter choice.

One approach would be to adopt a two-round runoff system similar to that used in most presidential elections around the world, most southern primaries in the U.S., and many local elections. A first round with all candidates would take place in mid-October. The top two finishers would face off in November, with the winner certain to have a majority.

But two elections would be expensive and time-consuming, both for taxpayers and candidates. Better still would be to adopt instant runoff voting (IRV), which accomplishes the goal of electing a winner with majority support, but getting it over in one election. Used in Ireland and Australia, and recently adopted for San Francisco's elections and for congressional and gubernatorial nominations by the Utah Republican Party, IRV has drawn bipartisan support from John McCain, Howard Dean and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.

IRV allows voters to pick not only their first choice, but also to rank their runoff choices at the same time, 1, 2, 3, etc. If their first choice can't win, their vote goes to their second choice. The runoff rankings are used to determine a majority winner in one election. Perot or Nader voters are liberated to vote for their favorite candidate without helping to elect their least favorite. IRV also saves candidates and taxpayers the costs of a second-round runoff.

Many people are criticizing Nader for risking a repeat of 2000, but only Democrats and Republicans have the power to change the rules of the game. Their failure to use that power begs the question: Would both parties rather engage in electoral shenanigans and name-calling than create a fair and democratic system for electing our nation's highest office?