Nevada is not California. Because California does it is not a valid reason for Nevada to do anything. I know of very few Nevadans who would not agree with these two sentiments.

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) is not like California’s Top-Two system. It is superior! When discussing NEMRA, it is therefore like comparing apples to oranges to compare it to California’s, or for that matter any other state’s Top-Two system.

The key to success of any election system is how it encourages citizens to participate in the election. Does it foster open and honest discussion of the issues? Is there a real opportunity for all candidates to fully and meaningfully participate? Are all voters treated equally? Do all votes have a true impact on determining the outcome?  Does the system create interest and motive voters to go to the polls? Are there benefits to all involved in the political process? Does the system result in a government that is representative of the state as a whole and works towards to best interest of all the residents?  Under NEMRA the answer to all the questions is “yes”. Not the case under Top-Two.

Regardless of one’s opinion of the two-party system, this country’s political system is firmly grounded to it. Recent polls show over 40 percent of voters considers themselves independent. Voters are leaving the two major parties and registering as non-partisan (independent).However, this does not necessarily transfer into votes for non-partisan or minor party candidates. Rather, it usually means the voter will consider both the Republican and Democratic candidate and vote for the one they consider best. They may even vote for candidates from both parties in the same election.

Because only two move forward under Top-Two, the ideas presented by minor party and independent candidates are truly irrelevant. There is little, if any chance they will finish among the top two. Unlike the old system where they appeared on the general election ballot, competing in a two-party system Top-Two primary virtually eliminates them. No need for a totally inclusive discussion of the issues. No chance for major party candidates to voice an opinion on possibly new or innovative ideas presented by minor party or independent candidates. All candidates are not afforded the opportunity to meaningfully participate.  Not so under NEMRA.

Under NEMRA, the top three move forward. Depending on the field of candidates, there is a real possibility a minor party or independent candidate will advance. Their ideas are relevant to the debate and the discussion is broadened. Major party candidates, as I’ve stressed in conversations with legislators, have the opportunity to provide their input on innovative ideas they may not have considered. Voters benefit from this comprehensive discussion. All qualified candidates have full and meaningful participation. Candidates and voters benefit.

All voters, regardless of party affiliation are allowed to vote in the primary and general election under both Top-Two and NEMRA. But when evaluating true equal treatment of all voters, I think you have to include impact on the outcome. Since under Top-Two, the likelihood of a non-major party candidate advancing to the general election is just about nil, voters who prefer such a candidate are marginalized. Their primary vote is no different than a general election vote under standard systems and they have no opportunity to vote for that candidate in the general election. Not so under NEMRA.

Since NEMRA places three candidates on the general election ballot and uses Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff voting (RCV / IRV) all voters have a direct impact on the outcome. In the primary, all voters determine whether the candidates advancing to the general election will include a minor party or independent candidate. In the general election RCV / IRV requires voters to mark a second choice that is counted if one candidate does not get a majority; at least 50 percent plus one of first choice votes. No voter is marginalized.

Top-Two is meant to increase voter interest and motivate voters to turnout for the primary. Statistics show turnout in states that use Top-Two surpass Nevada in primary election turnout.

But what is possible if voters are not marginalized as I point out above? Under Top-Two, if one of the top two finishers receives a majority of the vote, at least 50 percent plus one in the primary, they still must run in the general election where they could lose. This means increased expense for candidates and reduces the importance of a primary vote. Voters are faced with a valid question; why vote in the primary, why not just wait for the general election? Not so under NEMRA.

NEMRA specifically states that if a candidate receives at least 50 percent plus one of the votes in the primary, they are elected. The office is not contested in the general election. Current Nevada law includes this provision. However, as I have pointed out previously, such a win is only representative of a small plurality of a plurality of voters; 20 percent of voters registered to a particular party. Since NEMRA allows all voters, regardless of party affiliation or registration as a non-partisan, to vote, a win in the primary under NEMRA is representative of a much larger share of the voters. Knowing a winner could be declared in the primary is motivation to vote. Another motivation under NEMRA is the use of RCV / IRV in the general election. Second-choice votes could determine the winner. Every vote counts in both the primary and general elections. This is not the case under Top-Two.

Does Top-Two benefit all those involved in the political process? Do the resulting legislative bodies more represent the state as a whole? Given available studies, the answer is yes.

I have to be subjective here, but I can’t help believing that NEMRA will do a better job restoring confidence in our electoral process, that NEMRA will be a greater help to the major political parties in regaining lost membership and attracting new members. Why? Because NEMRA does not marginalize any voter. Under NEMRA, the discussion of issues and solutions will be broader. Under NEMRA, every voter matters.

Some I’ve spoken with say “Let’s see what happens in California”. The Top-Two system in California is not the same as NEMRA. Legislators need to evaluate NEMRA on its own merits. It is superiorto the Top-Two system being used in California or any other state at this time. Once NEMRA is signed into law, Nevada will have the most inclusive voting system in the nation. According to the leaders of both the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada (EDAWN) and the Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance (LVGEA) this could be a positive discriminator to companies looking to locate in the state.

We need to have the discussion on how NEMRA will benefit Nevada and all Nevadans during the upcoming legislative session. By filing a Bill Draft Request (BDR), a legislator is agreeing to start the conversation.

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) held a panel discussion on “Bridging the Ideological Divide” as part of its 2014 Legislative Summit. The discussion with a panel of four distinguished former state and federal legislators is well worth the 89 minutes needed to view. The discussion further reinforces the need for the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA).

The overview provided by the NCSL states in part, “The problem of gridlock can’t be laid at the feet of one political party or the other. So what is causing it?” The panel will “draw from their experiences and offer ideas on specific reforms that might help improve our system of government, overcome ideological roadblocks and avoid unnecessary conflict based on party rather than principle.”

Since not everyone can take 89 minutes out of their schedules, the following summary will give you the focus of the panel members. However, whether at one sitting or over the course of a day or two, I encourage you to watch.

The moderator for the discussion was Tom Loftus (D), former Wisconsin House speaker and U.S. ambassador to Norway. Panel members were Tom Berg (D), former state legislator and U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Mickey Edwards (R), former Oklahoma congressman and current vice-president Aspen Institute, and Christopher Rants (R), former speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives.

Tom Loftusopened the session stating our institution of government is broken, that the current divide does not allow for the identification of unifying issues. As a former Ambassador, he raised a point I’ve never thought about; how the current dysfunction in government is viewed by the rest of the world and the resulting impact on foreign policy. Loftus stated that the driving argument in this nation’s foreign policy is that our system of government is the best. The current gridlock and inability for legislative bodies to agree on even the simplest of things raises many doubts. As I link in Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – The Details, studies show that open, non-partisan, blanket primaries result in legislative bodies more willing to have honest debate to resolve issues.

In an earlier blog post, “Bipartisan Policy Center Recommendations and Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act Go Hand-In-Hand”, I cover how the current political divisiveness permeates all aspects of our daily lives. Tom Berghighlighted this in his opening comment. There is now an App “BuyPartisan” that identifies companies by political philosophy allowing for purchasing decisions to be made based on closeness to our own. Berg goes on to stress the need for legislators to develop personal relationships not based on partisanship as a way to break through the rhetoric and reach consensus. Legislative leaders must set the example in this. During the question and answer period, Berg suggested legislatures establish a non-partisan research staff. He closed by saying legislators need to stop the stagnation and start acting on what is best for the state or nation and not just the party.

 Mickey Edwards started his remarks by stressing he is a party person, always has been, always will be. This is important because he goes on to say the political parties should not control ballot access. That by restricting the number of candidates, that are normally chosen by a very small plurality of voters; he gives several examples including his own nomination, and not allowing voters to have the widest possible choice, we are contradicting the intent of the Constitution. Edwards stated he supports the open, non-partisan, blanket primary system. This is what NEMRA is all about.

The system is not to blame, we are. This was the premise of remarks by Christopher Rants. He dwells on the fact that this country is more divided now than at any other time in recent history. We view people with opinions different from our own as idiots. One reason for this according to Rants is that we can now hand-pick our information sources. No more do all media get their information from the same source such as the Associate Press. All we have to do it look and we will find a source of information that “fits”. We are unwilling to listen, to find out why a person with a differing point of view holds that opinion. Because of this, collaboration, resolving problems is virtually impossible. What’s interesting is that as a former majority and minority leader in the Iowa House, Rants emphasizes resolving differences and solving problems can be done without forfeiting principles. NEMRA broadens the scope of discussion allowing various points of view to be discussed and debated by all candidates creating an atmosphere where listening can take place.

The NCSL provides tools, information, and resources to state legislators. They also serve as a major force supporting or opposing legislation in Congress that impacts the states. Nevada should be proud that our own State Senator Debbie Smith (D-Sparks) was installed as President this week.

The need for election reform is recognized as a major issue at all levels of government. The NCSL recognized the importance by including this panel discussion during their annual summit. All members of the panel agreed change is needed.  The 2015 Nevada legislative session can resolve this issue in Nevada by debating and passing the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act. 

Having disenfranchised voters is never a good thing. Having a significant portion of a single demographic disenfranchised by choice is worse. 

That is the situation with voters and potential voters between the ages of 18 – 34; the Millennial generation.

As of the end of July this year, this age group comprised 26 percent of the total registered voters in Nevada. What should be of interest to both major political parties is that 27 percent of Millennials have registered as Non-Partisan. Another 8 percent have registered with minor parties. Both the percentage registered as Non-Partisan and the total 35 percent who have chosen not to affiliate with either the Democrats or Republicans is nearly 10 percent higher than the overall state percentages. (See Major Party Registration In Nevada Declines – Non-Partisan Registration Up 18% – UPDATE on this blog)

These figures only show part of the picture. What about those Millennials who do not register to vote. According to a recent Harstad Strategic Research, Inc. study highlighted in The Atlantic, 26 percent of Millennials nationally do not intend to register to vote. An assumption has to be made that younger voters in Nevada maintain a similar attitude.

Of those not registered to vote, 30 percent made that choice because they are cynical of the system. They do not believe their vote makes a difference and they don’t trust the parties. Another major reason for both the voter registration rates and choice to not affiliate with a major party if they do register, is that the parties do not represent their views on the major issues.

With only 28 percent of Millennials planning to vote this November nationally, something needs to be done to reverse this trend. Those in a position to act should not ignore these statistics.

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) might be the change needed. As studies linked in the post; Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – The Details show, open, non-partisan, blanket primaries and the use of a ranked choice / instant runoff system for the general election brings the focus back towards the median voter and results in a less contentious legislative body. The inclusion of all candidates and all voters participating in the primary election allows for a broader discussion of the issues. The fact that the top-three finishers in the primary move on to the general election where the winner is guaranteed to have a majority of at least 50 percent +1 and the possibility for a winner to be declared in the primary election with a similar majority makes every vote count.  

This is what Millennials want to see before they get involved. 35 percent of this age group who are registered to vote have voluntarily disenfranchised themselves from the primary. Another 26 percent have chosen not to participate at all.

The challenge to the 2015 session of the Nevada legislature is to show this generation you are concerned, you genuinely want their participation. This can be accomplished by openly discussing NEMRA in committee hearings followed by a vote in both chambers. Will the legislature accept this challenge? For the sake of an entire generation, let’s hope so.