Month: March 2020

Posted on

271 Races, 671 Candidates, No Ranked Choice Voting? – Opinion

By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform

On May 23, 2020, in less than ten weeks, voters in Nevada will start casting ballots in the 2020 primary election. Overall, they will be voting in 271 races, deciding between 671 candidates.

Since there are no major state-wide offices on the ballot; U.S. senator, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer, controller, turnout will most likely be less than 20 percent. Very few voters will be selecting the candidates to advance to a high turnout general election or in some cases, deciding the winner of the office. In races with more than three candidates, the winner or winners (where more than one candidate advances) will more than likely advance with a small plurality of the vote with more voters casting ballots for other candidates.

In all elections, Nevada determines the winner(s) using the first past the post (FPTP) method. The candidate with the most votes wins. In races where there are more than two candidates, this can mean the winning candidate(s) receive as low as 20 to 25 percent of the vote. In a low turnout election, this could translate into less than 10 percent of the voters eligible to vote.

The Nevada Democratic Party just used and validated a better way. During the early voting period of the presidential caucus, voters ranked the candidates in order of preference. In a very informal poll, over 90 percent of those responding found the process easy and over 80% liked being able to vote this way. Media has also commented positively on the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in the caucus.

In addition to allowing voter to express their preference among all candidates in all elections when there are more than two candidates, RCV results in a winner with a majority or at the very least a large plurality of the votes. When more than one winner is required in a given race, RCV provides winners whose vote tally cannot be exceeded by other candidates.

271 races, 671 candidates.

Of the 271 races being contested in the June primaries, 32.1 percent (87 races) will most likely have the winner receiving a small plurality of the votes cast. There will be more votes cast against the winner than for. This is no way for a democracy to work.

Partisan races where RCV would benefit:

CD1 Democratic and Republican primary

CD2 Democratic primary

CD3 Democratic and Republican primary

CD4 Democratic and Republican primary

AD2 Democratic and Republican primary

AD5 Republican primary

AD16 Democratic primary

AD18 Democratic primary

AD31 Republican primary

AD37 Republican primary

AD40 Democratic and Republican primary

Clark County Commission A Democratic primary

Clark County Commission C Democratic primary

Clark County Commission D Democratic primary

Storey County Commission 1Republican primary

Nye County Commission 1 Democratic primary

Nye County Commission 3 Democratic primary

Nonpartisan races where RCV would benefit:

State Board of Education 1

State Board of Education 3

Board of Regents 2

Board of Regents 3

Board of Regents 5

Board of Regents 10

Clark County School District A

Clark County School District B

Clark County School District C

Clark County School District E

Washoe County School District A

Washoe County School District D

Washoe County School District At Large

Churchill County School Board

Nye County School Board VI

Reno City Council 1

Reno City Council 3

Reno City Council 5

Reno City Council At Large

Sparks City Council 1

Sparks City Council 3

Carson City Mayor

Carson Supervisor 2

Carson Supervisor 4

Crescent Valley Town Board

Amargosa Town Board

Incline Village GID

Palomino GID

Gardnerville GID

Indian Hills GID

Round Hill GID

Skyland GID

Topaz GID

Verdi TV District

Moapa Water District Longdale

Moapa Water District Overton

Laughlin Town Board

Tahoe Douglas Fire District

Minden Sanitation

There are also 94 judicial races. Of those 26 have three or more candidates (85 candidates).

There are several ways in which Nevada could implement RCV:

  • In any primary contest with more than two candidates with a single winner
  • Multi-winner RCV if using top-two, top-three, top-four primary
  • In any general election race with more than two candidates including races the result of a top-three or top-four primary
  • Give county and city governments to authority to implement RCV by ordinance
  • Forego publicly funded primaries and hold only a general election using RCV. This was proposed in our Greater Choice Greater Voice initiative.
  • For presidential primaries either winner take all or multi-winner

The 2021 Nevada legislative session can fix the state’s elections making them truly representative of not only the voters of Nevada but also allowing candidates and elected officials to be comfortable in knowing they truly have a mandate of those they represent.

Posted on

Democratic Party Gains Voter Share Despite Voter Registration Maintenance

By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform

It may be another month before we know the impact of same-day voter registration during early caucus voting and on caucus day, however, if the February voter registration numbers are any indication, voters wanted to participate.

February was a routine voter roll maintenance month. Normally, with very minor exception, raw numbers and voter share percentages decline across the board. Not this time.

Statewide, in Clark and Washoe counties, in the rurals, and among voters 18 to 34 and over 55 years of age, the Republican Party, Non-Partisan, the American Independent Party, the Libertarian Party, and other minor parties all lost voter share (Non-Partisan gained share in the rurals) while the Democratic Party recorded sizeable gains across the board. Since the processing of same-day caucus registration reportedly is still underway, we have to assume most of the Democratic gain is due to voters registering or changing party affiliation before the caucus so they could participate in the process.

State-Wide

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 444 0.07% 38.34% 0.20%
R -2,989 -0.57% 32.90% -0.04%
NP -2,401 -0.66% 22.61% -0.05%
IAP -1,195 -1.68% 4.40% -0.05%
LIB -467 -2.88% 0.99% -0.02%
Other -724 -5.60% 0.77% -0.04%
Total not D or R     28.76% -0.16

 Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Clark County

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D -3,145 -0.68% 42.00% 0.25%
R -4,494 -1.40% 28.75% -0.04%
NP -4,158 -1.58% 23.47% -0.07%
IAP -1,300 -2.76% 4.16% -0.06%
LIB -452 -4.41% 0.89% -0.03%
Other -686 -7.87% 0.73% -0.05%
Total not D or R     29.25% -0.21

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Washoe County

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 2,755 2.76% 35.61% 0.48%
R 514 0.50% 35.83% -0.31%
NP 590 0.95% 21.75% -0.09%
IAP 18 0.14% 4.46% -0.04%
LIB -17 -0.47% 1.26% -0.02%
Other -21 -0.67% 1.09% -0.02%
Total not D or R     28.56% -0.17

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Rural Counties

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 834 1.84% 22.48% 0.08%
R 991 0.96% 51.12% -0.28%
NP 1,167 3.06% 19.17% 0.29%
IAP 49 0.43% 5.58% -0.06%
LIB 2 0.09% 1.13% -0.02%
Other -17 -1.61% 0.51% -0.02%
Total not D or R     26.39% 0.19

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

18 – 34 Year Old

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 1,046 0.63% 39.45% 0.51%
R -1,306 -1.40% 21.62% -0.16%
NP -1,520 -1.12% 31.63% -0.14%
IAP -505 -2.54% 4.55% -0.09%
LIB -258 -3.50% 1.67% -0.05%
Other -347 -7.00% 1.08% -0.07%
Total not D or R     38.93% -0.35

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and other

55+

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 15 0.01% 38.34% 0.08%
R -610 -0.22% 41.12% -0.01%
NP -188 -0.18% 15.46% 0.00%
IAP -332 -1.17% 4.15% -0.04%
LIB -82 -2.63% 0.45% -0.01%
Other -126 -3.71% 0.48% -0.02%
Total not D or R     20.54% -0.07

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

By district voter share changes.

Congressional Districts

Party # Districts Lose Voter Share # Districts Gain Voter Share # Districts No Change
Democratic 0 4 0
Republican 2 2 0
Non-Partisan 3 1 0
IAP 4 0 0
LIB 4 0 0
Other 4 0 0

In all Congressional districts (100 percent of the districts) the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties.

State Senate Districts

Party # Districts Lose Voter Share # Districts Gain Voter Share # Districts No Change
Democratic 0 21 0
Republican 17 3 1
Non-Partisan 14 6 1
IAP 20 0 1
LIB 20 0 1
Other 21 0 0

In 16 districts (76.19%) the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or the total number not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties. This is a decrease of one.

State Assembly Districts

Party # Districts Lose Voter Share # Districts Gain Voter Share # Districts No Change
Democratic 2 40 0
Republican 35 6 1
Non-Partisan 24 18 0
IAP 39 1 2
LIB 38 0 4
Other 38 1 3

In 34 districts (80.95%) the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or the total number not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties. This is a decrease of two.

The end of March numbers should provide the total impact of the Democratic Party’s registration efforts leading up to the caucus, including same day registration. They will also give us another look at the impact of automatic voter registration. We’re also less than three months from the start of early voting for the state and local primaries and the implementation of same-day registration for all elections.

Proudly powered by WordPress