Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting Could Change Campaign Spending

The overwhelming perception, and there’s much truth behind it, is that money plays the most important role in American politics, from the lowest level campaigns and policies to those of national and global importance. Whether that power is rightfully earned or is the result of voters, candidates, and elected officials unwittingly bestowing it is a question up for debate. Given the apparent level of distain for the influence of money in our political system, is there a way to curtail it?
While data is extremely scarce given the relatively short period of time the process has been used in elections, there is a belief that Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff voting (RCV / IRV) could provide a path towards loosening the grasp of money on our political and governing system.
In a March, 2014 MinnPost opinion piece, former Minnesota United States Senator David Durenberger explains how. RCV / IRV changes the dynamic of elections and policymaking possibly reducing the need for excessive dollars. His opinion cannot be discounted.  Could voters be ready to cause a shift away from money’s influence in state and local races?
In state and local races, national super political action committees (Super PACs) are increasing their spending in an attempt to influence election results. The goal is to elect candidates that share their positions on national issues. This can redirect campaign debate away from important local and state issues towards the hyper-partisan national debate. However, this needn’t be the case.
Elections where voters go to the polls once, for a general election using RCV / IRV, requires candidates speak to a wider audience. Appealing to the small party base as is done in a low turnout primary will no longer ensure election. They must focus on appealing to all voters, general election mode, but with the added advantage that besides first-choice votes, they are looking for second-choice votes that could be the difference between winning or losing. According to Senator Durenberger, this type of campaign requires increased use of forums, town halls, and knocking on doors. Talking directly to voters, addressing the issues, is what wins the election. Attack ads and mudslinging will not guarantee victory on Election Day. Meeting and speaking with voters costs less. A candidate or incumbent running for re-election is a safe district, one where voter registration overwhelmingly favors one party over another, may still have an advantage, however, given the continuing growth of voters registered as Non-Partisan, even safe districts are not so safe. At the end of January, 2016, the number of Nevada voters registered as Non-Partisan or when combined with those registered in a minor party either exceeded or was within five percent of those registered as either Democratic or Republican in 11 of the 21 (52.38%) state senate districts and 25 of the 42 (59.52%) state assembly districts.
I’ve been told that holding a single election in November using RCV / IRV will increase the money needed to be spent because a candidate in a safe district has to be in general election mode, appeal to the greater electorate. The ability to win the election in the primary, where the focus is on only the smaller party base would not be present. I’ve also been told that large donors such as major companies would have to change their donation practices, either increasing the amount of money they allocate to political purposes or reducing the amount of individual donations. Supposedly these donors give to several candidates in the primary election so their chance of having influence following the general election is increased. I do not refute the validity of these statements. However, is it possible the opposite would happen? Less cash available across the board would require candidates to conduct their campaigns as alluded to by Senator Durenberger. RCV / IRV could actually decrease the influence of money in our political system. It is also possible that because RCV / IRV has the potential to increase interest in the election, the amount raised from individual voters could grow.  
Change is not easy. But where would we be today if society had not embraced the many changes that have occurred over the past 50 years? Baby Boomers (my generation) gave way to Gen X and Millennials (our children and possibly grandchildren). The Millennials, those 18 – 34 years of age are now the largest generation. They also are registering to vote as Non-Partisan at much higher rate than other generations. All indications are they are not embracing and will not embrace the politics of the past.  If our cities, counties, state, and nation are to make progress, the younger generations must believe their participation now will make the difference between success and failure.  
In one year, February, 2017, the Nevada legislature can take a major step in showing the generations that are our future their opinions matter, that their participation in our governing processes is important by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).  

Caucus Time – Voter Registration for January Favors Major Parties – UPDATE

Voter registration statistics for January, 2016 are in. Not surprising is that given the emphasis on the presidential caucuses and voter registration efforts by both the Democratic and Republican Parties along with their presidential candidates, the numbers show movement in their favor.
During the month of January, 2016, the state gained 15,949 voters over the previous month. The following tables show the impact.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
% Difference in Voter Share
D
7,142
1.34
39.15
0.08
R
6,720
1.54
35.16
0.09
NP
1,810
0.78
19.46
-0.11
Other
277
0.37
6.23
-0.06
Total not D or R
25.69
-0.17
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
% Difference in Voter Share
D
5,860
1.70
42.94
0.05
R
4,767
1.91
31.15
0.10
NP
1,698
1.04
20.14
-0.11
Other
330
0.71
5.77
-0.05
Total not D or R
25.91
-0.16
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
% Difference in Voter Share
D
925
1.15
35.35
0.15
R
914
1.04
38.57
0.12
NP
-81
-0.19
18.97
-0.17
Other
-93
-0.57
7.10
-0.09
Total not D or R
26.07
-0.26
  
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
% Difference in Voter Share
D
357
0.91
25.07
-0.03
R
1,039
1.31
50.96
0.13
NP
193
0.74
16.63
-0.05
Other
40
0.35
7.34
-0.05
Total not D or R
23.97
-0.10
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
% Difference in Voter Share
D
3.628
3.47
38.06
0.41
R
1,692
2.41
25.24
0.01
NP *
1,060
1.31
28.90
-0.30
Other
179
0.81
7.80
-0.12
Total not D or R
36.70
-0.42
*NOTE – Non-Partisan registration exceeds Republican by 3.66%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
% Difference in Voter Share
D
1,538
0.72
40.18
-0.08
R
3,154
1.47
40.83
0.22
NP
200
0.27
13.85
-0.09
Other
-32
-0.12
5.15
-0.05
Total not D or R
19.00
-0.14
The above trend is similar when looking at individual state assembly and senate districts. In spite of the changes, there are still 11 (52.38%) state senate districts and 25 (59.52%) state assembly districts where the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or total not registered as either Democratic or Republican either exceeds or is within 5 percent of one of the major political parties.
Will state and local candidates be able to maintain this shift in voter registration following the caucuses up to the June primary election? Will any gains in registration equate to increased voter turnout? Only time will tell. What is certain is that the importance of the registered Non-Partisan voter cannot be ignored.

UPDATE
Interesting statistic from Ralston Reports on February 10, 2016. Jon Ralston looked at the annual growth in overall registration for the year preceding the last three presidential elections, 2007, 2011, and 2015. The rate of growth of Non-Partisan voters far outdistanced the growth of either the Democratic or Republican Party. As shown below, the rate of growth for Non-Partisan increased while the rate of growth for both major parties decreased. Ralston did not include minor parties in his analysis.
2007
Party
Increase in # Voters
% Share of Increase
D
19,782
47.69
R
14,316
34.51
NP
7,384
17.80
Total
41,482
2011
Party
Increase in # Voters
% Share of Increase
Change in Rate of Increase
D
15,898
37.76
-9.93
R
15,153
36.00
+1.49
NP
11,046
26.24
+8.44
Total
42,097
2015

Party
Increase in # Voters
% Share of Increase
Change in Rate of Increase
D
33,677
36.58
-1.18
R
31,045
33.73
-2.27
NP
27,331
29.69
+3.45
Total
92,053