Month: March 2016

Posted on

Are Legislators, Candidates, and Political Parties Ignoring the Future? (Opinion)

I am a Baby Boomer. Since I turned 30, I have looked forward to every new decade of my life, 70 is rapidly approaching. Every year has gotten better and I relish the idea that this will continue.
Since the 1960’s, Baby Boomers have held the distinction of being the largest generation. That changed in 2015. The honor now belongs to the Millennial Generation, those born between 1981 and 1997. This generation is our future. Boomers and to some extent older Generation Xers need to not only accept this but embrace it.
While leading the pack as the most populous generation, Millennials are trailing when it comes to voting. In Nevada, Millennials are 31 percent of the population but make up only 24 percent of registered voters (41 percent of eligible voters are not registered to vote). Since there is a lack of participation in the process it is not surprising that only 4 percent of Nevada legislators are Millennials.
Millennials do not embrace political parties to the extent of Boomers. Nearly 28 percent of Millennials registered to vote are registered as Non-Partisan. This is nine percent higher than the overall state total. It is important to note that prior to the presidential caucus the percentage was close to 30 percent and a clear 10 percent higher than the state.
Millennials are turned off to the political climate. To be encouraged to participate, they want answers not rhetoric. They want to know how elected officials and candidates will address issues important to them. They do not fit the standard party mold or comprise part of the so-called party base. In a study released by Pew Research in September, 2014, 84 percent hold positions that are not on the ideological fringe.
Given they are our future, it makes no sense to not take the steps necessary to get this generation involved, not only as voters but as candidates and elected officials. Holding on to the politics of the past will not serve our communities, our state, or our nation well.
One way Nevada legislators can demonstrate their commitment to engaging the Millennial Generation would be to enact the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA- 2017) during the 2017 legislative session. NEMRA – 2017 will engage not only the Millennial Generation but all voters who feel rejected by the current hyper-partisan political landscape. NEMRA – 2017 will make our electoral process fully inclusive, welcome all voters’ participation at all elections, encourage meaningful discussion of the issues rather than rhetoric and talking points, and demonstrate every vote, not just those from a small portion of each major political party, truly matters.

We can welcome the future and all the promise it holds or stick with the past, leaving our political decisions in the hands of an aging small party base that is not representative of the overall population. The choice is ours and the 2017 Nevada legislature’s to make.
Posted on

Automatic Voter Registration and NEMRA-2017; Companion Bills?

Approximately 41 percent of eligible voters in Nevada are not registered to vote. Of the 59 percent who are, less than 46 percentvoted in the general election of November, 2014. Or to put it bluntly, 73 percent of eligible voters in Nevada just didn’t care.1
Eligible voters do not register to vote, or do not vote if they are, for basically the same reasons, mostly no interest or lack of time. Missing the registration deadline or not knowing where or how to register are also major reasons for not registering followed closely by lack of knowledge about the candidates or issues, lack of confidence in government, and voting doesn’t make a difference.
 In an attempt to fix low voter registration, states are starting to consider automatically registering eligible voters when they apply for a driver’s license or state identification card. The governors of Oregon and California signed bills in 2015 implementing such a system. Similar bills are pending in 25 states and the District of Columbia. The concept of automatic voter registration (AVR) initially had bipartisan support. However, with the increased partisan rhetoric of the presidential campaigns, support is now aligning along party lines, Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.
I’ve heard that in keeping with their Nevada Blueprint, Democratic lawmakers in the Silver State plan on filing a bill draft request (BDR) for the 2017 Nevada legislative session seeking to bring AVR to the state. But will automatically registering a person to vote get that person to actually vote or will the impact of AVR be simply to decrease election turnout rates?
For those who fail to register to vote because they missed the deadline or did not know where or how to register, automatic voter registration will resolve their issue, provided they apply for or renew a driver’s license or state identification card. But what about the remaining 75 percent of eligible voters not registered to vote? 
Simply being registered to vote will not convince the person who didn’t register because they were not interested, didn’t want to take time to learn about the candidates or issues, have lost confidence in government, or don’t think their vote matters, to vote. Opponents of AVR stress voting is a personal responsibility. I believe these reasons for not registering support their argument. However, if those voters’ interest were piqued, if they saw government return to being an institution that embraced respectful disagreement and worked towards collaborative consensus, if they were given a reason to learn about the candidates and issues, and saw that their vote did matter, would the likelihood of them becoming active voters increase? The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) is a means to make the answer, “yes”.
The current hyper-partisan political environment has turned people off not only to the political parties but to the entire process. A single election held in November using Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV) as proposed in NEMRA – 2017 can help reverse this trend. RCV / IRV forces candidates to reach out to a more diverse electorate. Appealing simply to the small party base is no longer a clear path to election. Second-choice votes could be the difference between winning and losing. Voters exposed to RCV / IRV elections have noticed a decrease in the negative tone of campaigns.
The goal of those who support AVR is to remove roadblocks to voting allowing more eligible voters to go to the polls. The goal of RCV / IRV is to return civility to the election and governing process and increase voter participation in elections. These goals are mutually supportive to the benefit of all. Question to Nevada legislators; companion bills?
1, Based on best available data from U.S. Census compared to current Nevada voter registration statistics.

Posted on

February Voter Registration – No Surprise , Just Major Questions

Voter registration statistics for February, 2016 are in and no one should be surprised. However, the changes in voter share do raise two major questions.
Voter registration efforts in February by the presidential campaigns, major political parties, and candidates were successful in adding another 25,712 active voters to the rolls. Combined with January’s increase, 41,661 new voters registered to vote during the first two months of 2016, an increase of 3.48 percent. The Republican Party increased voter share at a higher rate than the Democratic Party state-wide, in Clark County, in the rural counties, and among those 55 years old and over. The Democratic Party out did the GOP in Washoe County and with 18 – 34 year olds. Again, not surprising, the increase in voter share of the two major political parties came at the expense of voter share of Non-Partisan and the minor political parties.
Did the increase in voter share have a positive impact on caucus participation? The answer is mixed. The Republican Party had their highest caucus turnout since the parties went to the caucus system in 2008. That’s not saying much though as only 18 percent of registered Republicans caucused. On the Democratic side, 17 percent of registered Democrats attended the caucus. This was down approximately nine percent from 2008 when there was not an incumbent president running. Combined, only 13 percent of the total electorate bothered to participate. And here lies the questions: Does increased voter share lead to increased voter turnout beyond the small party base? Why should any voter have to compromise their principles, beliefs, or personal integrity in order to cast a ballot?
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
13,851
2.94
39.46
0.31
R
14,212
3.36
35.58
0.42
NP
-1,407
-0.60
18.93
-0.53
Other
-944
-1.26
6.03
-0.20
Total not D or R
24.96
-0.73
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
9,914
2.83
43.19
0.25
R
8,758
3.44
31.53
0.38
NP
-304
-0.18
19.67
-0.47
Other
-296
-0.63
5.61
-0.16
Total not D or R
25.28
-0.63
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
2,839
3.49
35.87
0.52
R
2,795
3.15
39.01
0.44
NP
-656
-1.50
18.32
-0.65
Other
-401
-2.45
6.80
-0.30
Total not D or R
25.12
-0.95
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,098
2.78
25.27
0.20
R
2,659
3.32
51.65
0.69
NP
-447
-1.71
16.04
-0.59
Other
-247
-2.14
7.04
-0.30
Total not D or R
23.08
-0.89
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
7,690
7.11
39.16
1.10
R
4,205
5.86
25.67
0.43
NP
-110
-0.13
27.73
-1.17
Other
-140
-2.14
7.44
-0.42
Total not D or R
35.17
-1.59
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
2,582
1.21
40.15
-0.03
R
5,394
2.48
41.32
0.49
NP
-787
-1.07
13.53
-0.32
Other
-459
-1.67
5.00
-0.15
Total not D or R
18.53
-0.47
The above trend is similar when looking at individual state assembly and senate districts. In the senate, the changes were small still leaving 11 districts (52.38%) where the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or total not registered as either Democratic or Republican either exceeds or is within five percent of one of the major political parties. In the assembly, 21 (50.00%) districts have the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or total not registered as either Democratic or Republican exceeding or within five percent of one of the major political parties. This is a decrease of four, however, those four districts do not fall into this category by less than one-tenth of one percent.
Does increased voter share lead to increased voter turnout beyond the small party base? Looking at the numbers for February, the answer has to be no. Given recent primary election turnout, it is doubtful this will change in June. Leading Nevada political analyst Jon Ralston summed it up in his March 2, 2016 Ralston Reports “Trump Effect will continue to resonate in Nevada” when he says: The numbers do not lie. The caucus turnout was 75,000, which more than doubled what it was four years ago but still represents less than 18 percent of the GOP electorate. Compare that to the last two cycles: In the 2014 primary, it was 19 percent, the same as it was in 2012. No reason not to believe the June electorate will be similar to the caucus electorate.”
 Why should any voter have to compromise their principles, beliefs, or personal integrity in order to cast a ballot?  The willingness not to compromise their principals, beliefs, or personal integrity is a high standard we hold those we are voting for to. Voters should not have to compromise theirs. Expanding the voter pool and giving voters a reason to go to the polls, not simply increasing voter share, will increase voter turnout. That is what the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) proposes to accomplish.

Proudly powered by WordPress