Compromise or Collaborate – There is a BIG Difference – OPINION

We hear it all the time; elected officials must compromise to solve our problems. I don’t agree. Compromise will not address the hyper-partisan division gripping our society and preventing governments at all levels from actually governing. In fact, compromise could create even more resentment. What is needed is COLLABORATION.

Wait, aren’t they the same thing? Not even close. Let’s look at their definitions:

  • “Compromise: an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.”
  • “Collaborate: work jointly on an activity, especially to produce or create something.”

Please read those carefully. When compromising, each party is required to make concessions, give something up. However, when collaborating, participants are working together to create something.

Issues resolved by collaborating, all sides working together to reach a solution will most likely have greater support, greater buy-in, have a better success rate, and be long-lasting. Conversely, if any side has to make concessions, give in or give something up, the solution will probably be only reluctantly supported, in jeopardy of failing, and create resentment which could carry over to the next need to resolve a problem.

I first became aware of the difference during the 2011 special election for Nevada’s second congressional district. The race was between Republican Mark Amodei, Democratic Party candidate Kate Marshall, and Non-Partisan candidate Helm Lehmann. It was Helm who explained why he never used the word “compromise” but instead used “collaboration”. I have not used “compromise” since.

Our politics are in shambles. Government at all levels has stopped working. Even worse, our society has become almost tribal with political views determining who our friends are, how we treat co-workers, even who we sit next to in church. Our economy has improved, but it could be much better if our governments could actually govern. Business and the economy thrive when business can plan. That’s missing. Social issues are at a boiling point because those responsible to devise and implement solutions won’t talk to one another. Solutions reached as a result of collaboration are needed. If opposing sides only compromise, the issues we face will most likely resurface in the future and when they do, will be more difficult to resolve because one side gave up more than they believe they should have the first time – resentment.

The question we must address is how do we create an environment where collaboration can begin and flourish? We do this by electing leaders who put their constituents over political party and special interests. However, this cannot happen under our current election process. Closed partisan primary elections, where an average of less than 20 percent of either Democratic or Republican Party voters cast ballots for their party’s nominees, produce general election candidates indebted to a narrow party base and special interests. In the general election, minor party and independent candidates are marginalized, and all voters are usually left with choosing the lesser of two evils.

Nevadans for Election Reform has begun the effort to change this, to create a process where candidates must reach out to all voters from the start of the campaign. All voters will have a real choice, a true voice in who represents them. Once elected, the process will require officials to put constituents above party and special interest. Collaboration not only will be encouraged, it will be necessary.  You can read about the Greater Choice – Greater Voice initiative here.

We need to change the mindset. We need to stop saying “compromise” and start saying “collaborate”. When someone mentions the need to compromise, it is up to us to change the conversation to collaboration. People must understand the difference.

We, the voters of Nevada, are in charge. We can make this change happen. We can ensure it is our voices our legislators listen to not those of special interests. We are the ones that will ensure we have a greater choice and greater voice.

If you agree and want to help, please consider donating or volunteering here.

Democratic Party Continues to Take a Beating in Voter Registration

September voter registration data is out and the Democratic Party continues to suffer a steady loss of voter share across all demographics.

While Non-Partisan continues to show steady growth, the Republican Party also showed an increase in voter share in Clark County and among those 18 to 34 years of age. GOP voter share also remained unchanged across the state and in Washoe County.  Of the minor political parties, the Independent American Party had mixed raw number changes while holding a steady voter share, the Libertarian Party showed overall increases in raw numbers with no change in voter share, and the “other” category which includes the Green Party lost raw number and voter share.

It is important to note that Non-Partisan voter share in Washoe County topped 20 percent for the first time and the percentage of voters not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party is closing in on 40 percent.

State-Wide

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 695 0.12 39.08 -0.06
R 1,296 0.26 33.10 0.00
NP 1,856 0.59 21.28 0.07
Other 33 0.03 6.53 -0.02
Total not D or R 27.81 0.05

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.Change is # voters / voter share: IAP +0.25% / 0.00%; Lib +0.59% / 0.59%; other 5 parties -1.23% / -0.02%

Clark County

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 1,376 0.31 42.66 -0.09
R 1,779 0.59 28.87 0.02
NP 2,060 0.89 22.25 0.08
Other 159 0.24 6.22 -0.02
Total not D or R 28.47 0.06

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters / voter share: IAP +0.55% /0.00%; Lib +0.98% / 0.00%; other 5 parties -1.35% / -0.02%

Washoe County

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D -530 -0.60 35.30 -0.03
R -486 -0.52 37.53 0.00
NP -181 -0.36 20.01 0.03
Other -88 -0.47 7.17 0.00
Total not D or R 27.18 0.03

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -0.33% / 0.01%; Lib -0.32% / 0.00%; other 5 parties -1.18 / -0.01%

Rural Counties

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D -151 -0.34 23.88 -0.05
R 3 0.00 51.19 0.06
NP -23 -0.07 17.47 0.01
Other -38 -0.27 7.46 -0.01
Total not D or R 24.93 0.00

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -0.39% / -0.02%; Lib +0.20% / 0.00%; other 5 parties 0.00% / 0.00%

18 – 34 Year Old

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D -164 -0.11 39.15 -0.07
R 258 0.29 22.60 0.05
NP 330 0.28 30.12 0.06
Other -134 -0.41 8.12 -0.04
Total not D or R 38.24 0.02

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -0.02% / 0.00%; Lib +0.40% / 0.01%; other 5 parties -2.03% / -0.04%

55+

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 626 0.26 39.59 -0.06
R 916 0.37 40.49 -0.01
NP 776 0.87 14.66 0.07
Other 141 0.44 5.26 0.00
Total not D or R 19.92 0.07

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters / voter share: IAP +0.41% / 0.00%; Lib +1.26% / 0.00%; other 5 parties 0.03% / 0.00%

Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.

Congressional Districts

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

CD 1, CD 2, and CD 4 continue to show 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 20 1 0
Republican 7 13 1
Non-Partisan 2 19 0
Other 13 4 4

In 16 districts (76.19%); an increase of one over August, 2017, 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. Note the Democratic Party continues a major loss of voter share.

State Assembly Districts

Party # Districts Lose Voter Share # Districts Gain Voter Share # Districts No Change
Democratic 37 4 1
Republican 13 24 5
Non-Partisan 4 37 1
Other 26 7 9

In 31 districts (73.81%) 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. While the overall number did not change, in AD 9 the percentage of those not affiliated with either major party now exceeds the percent registered in the Republican Party and in AD 42 the percent registered as Non-Partisan exceeds the GOP voter share. As in the senate, the Democratic Party continues to experience a major loss of voter share.

This trend in voter registration is not healthy for our state. Voters no longer feel represented by either major party and their departure means fewer voters; normally the ideological pure of each party, select the winner of an election given Nevada’s close primary system and the way legislative districts are created. Without major change, we could end up with a government of the few rather than the many.

Nevadans for Election Reform has begun preparation of the Greater Choice – Greater Voice initiative which will allow all voters to have a clear choice and loud voice in all elections. Click here for details.

The Political Industry is Failing Itself and Us

In September, 2016 Harvard Business School released a report highlighting that the broken political climate in this county is the largest impediment to economic competitiveness. This September, in a report titled “Why Competition In The Politics Industry Is Failing America; A strategy for reinvigorating our democracy” they look at politics as if it were an industry and how lack of competition is failing to provide for the customers whose interests it is supposed to serve. The authors conclude that only through systemic changes can the political industry recover.

In analyzing the current state of our political environment, the authors find it is not the major political parties or current elected officials that bear the responsibility of failure. Rather it is the lack of competition in the current duopoly that puts us in the bind we are in. The parties and politicians are only acting as the system demands, responding to the interests of special interests and political dogma rather than what is in the best interest of all citizens. “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”

The report is broken down into six parts:

  • Part I assesses the broken system that has become the major barrier to progress in America.
  • Part II highlight a political system that is operating not a public institution but a private industry that sets its own rules fundamentally diminishing our democracy.
  • Part III describes the basic outcomes we should expect from a functioning political system, but are not achieving.
  • Part IV uses the Five Forces framework to show how the structure of the politics industry has led to the almost complete elimination of political competition thus not serving the needs of the average citizen.
  • Part V highlights the deliberate changes that have undermined our political system since the early 20th century.
  • Part VI lays out a strategy for reinvigorating our democracy by addressing the root causes of the current political dysfunction. Change will require action by us because our political system will not heal itself.

The report comes down to a few key points.

  • The system must deliver solutions to the problems facing the citizenry that are both practical and effective while also expanding opportunity.
  • The system must allow for action to replace rhetoric
  • Solutions must receive broad-based support from the citizenry over time
  • The system must guarantee respect for the Constitution and the rights of all

The current system provides none of these things.

The authors go on to stress the need to return competition to the political industry.  The importance of the average voter must become a priority over that of special interests and a small partisan party base. There must be an incentive to solve problems rather than stick to talking points. Barriers to competition must fall so accountability for achieving results can return. Unless changes are made, the current worsening trend will continue. Effective change must include: 

  • Restructuring the election process
  • Restructuring the governing process
  • Reforming the role of money in politics
  • Opening up competition

This report should not be a surprise. It is one more of a series by various organizations going back more than four years. All the reports highlight the growing divide caused by partisanship in this country to where it is now the most divisive issue facing our society. The word “tribal” is appearing more and more in the description.

Nevadans for Election Reform is proud to be putting together the Greater Choice – Greater Voice initiative. If passed by the voters, it will meet the challenges put forth by the authors of this report and return competition to the political industry of Nevada benefiting all Nevadans.

Democratic and Republican Party Could Be Minority Parties by 2018 General Election

As the trend in voter share favoring Non-Partisan and minor parties continues, (click here for August, 2017 data) it now appears that come the 2018 general election, more voters could be registered to vote in those categories than will be registered as either Democratic or Republican. If the change in voter share between August 2016 and August 2017 is applied, those registered as Non-Partisan or as a member of a minor party will be over 30 percent. Among voters 18 to 34 years old, that number will be over 40 percent. And while not quite reaching parity, this number will be over 25 percent in the rural counties and over 20 percent among those 55 years of age and older. These numbers are an estimate based on the past year’s change in voter share. My personal opinion is they will be higher. I doubt they’ll be lower.

Back to last month. On the outward appearance, minor parties appear to have fallen in August, 2017. However, the decrease is due to a glitch where the system assigned new voters who did not specify a party to “other” rather than “Non-Partisan.” Bottom line, the two major parties lost voter share.

Again, the GOP did not lose as badly as the Democratic Party. While the Democratic Party lost voter share across all demographics and almost all state senate and assembly districts, the GOP remained unchanged state-wide and had slight increases in voter share in Clark County, the rural counties, and among those 18 to 34 years of age. The GOP also gained voter share in more state senate and assembly district than they lost share.

State-Wide

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 603 0.10 39.14 -0.09
R 1,657 0.34 33.10 0.00
NP 3,518 1.13 21.21 0.17
Other -988 -1.01 6.55 -0.09
Total not D or R     27.76 0.08

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters: IAP +0.40%; Lib +0.80%; other 5 parties -7.30%

Clark County

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 1,011 0.23 42.75 -0.13
R 1,905 0.63 28.85 0.03
NP 3,499 1.53 22.17 0.22
Other -947 -1.43 6.24 -0.12
Total not D or R     28.41 0.10

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters: IAP +0.68%; Lib +0.93%; other 5 parties -9.47%

Washoe County

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D -104 -0.12 35.33 -0.04
R -116 -0.12 37.53 -0.05
NP 199 0.40 19.98 0.08
Other 34 0.19 7.16 0.01
Total not D or R     27.14 0.09

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters: IAP +0.33%; Lib +0.68%; other 5 parties -0.69

Rural Counties

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D -304 -0.68 23.94 -0.07
R -132 -0.14 51.13 0.12
NP -180 -0.55 17.46 -0.03
Other -75 -0.54 7.47 -0.01
Total not D or R     24.93 -0.04

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters: IAP -0.68%; Lib +0.36%; other 5 parties -0.73%

18 – 34 Year Old

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D -172 -0.11 39.22 -0.14
R 448 0.50 22.55 0.06
NP 1,231 1.04 30.06 0.24
Other -525 -1.59 8.16 -0.15
Total not D or R     38.22 0.09

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters: IAP +0.31%; Lib +0.58%; other 5 parties -7.47%

55+

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 535 0.22 39.65 -0.06
R 858 0.35 40.50 -0.01
NP 999 1.13 14.60 0.11
Other -116 -0.36 5.25 -0.04
Total not D or R     19.85 0.07

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters: IAP +0.41%; Lib +1.01%; other 5 parties -6.15%

Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.

Congressional Districts

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

Both CD 1, CD 2, and CD 4 continue to show 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 20 1 0
Republican 6 13 2
Non-Partisan 1 19 1
Other 18 2 1

In 15 districts (71.4%) 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. Note the Democratic Party continues a major loss of voter share. parties gained voter share in all districts.

State Assembly Districts

Party # Districts Lose Voter Share # Districts Gain Voter Share # Districts No Change
Democratic 38 4 0
Republican 17 23 2
Non-Partisan 3 38 1
Other 35 6 1

In 31 districts (73.81%) 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 unchanged from last month. As in the senate, the Democratic Party continues to experience a major loss of voter share.

As Nevadans continue to lose confidence in the both the Democratic and Republican Party, look for exciting news in the near future from Nevadans for Election Reform.

Partisanship Continues to Define and Divide Us

In two recent polls by Pew Research Center, partisanship in the United States continues to define us and divide us as a nation. This trend has been with us for almost a decade, and with these two reports, shows no sign of changing.

In a poll released July 10, 2017, the organization found that opinion of national institutions; churches / religious organizations, banks / financial institutions, labor unions, the national news media, and colleges / universities, and the impact they have on the nation differs based on political party. The study, Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions”, shows significant differences in four of the five areas.

Wide partisan differences over the impact of major institutions on the country

In the second poll, Partisan Shifts in Views of the Nation, but Overall Opinions Remain Negative; Just 26% say ‘their side’ wins more often than it loses in politics” released August 4, 2017 Pew looks at how people view their station in life and how they view the political landscape for “people like them”. It is interesting to note that with the change of the presidency from Democratic to Republican, the percentage who believes their side loses more also switched. In September, 2015, 79 percent of Republicans felt their side loses more. In June, 2017, 79 percent of Democrats feel that way.

Shifting partisan views on how life has changed for ‘people like you’

Partisanship continues to define and divide us as a nation. Those familiar with this blog know this is not the first Pew Research study I have highlighted. Voter frustration with what has been called “tribal” behavior is manifesting itself by voters abandoning both the Democratic and Republican Party, registering without party affiliation; Non-Partisan in Nevada, or in one of the minor political parties.

I believe the political parties will not willingly make the changes needed to reverse this trend and return to a political climate that fosters collaboration and problem solving, where we track wins or loses not by political party but by impact on Americans. After two attempts to have the Nevada legislature act, I am relatively certain it is the voters who will have to make the change. Nevadans for Election Reform is leading this effort in Nevada.

Major Political Parties’ Downward Slide Continues

Can the Democratic and Republican Party in Nevada stop the downward slide in voter share? Looking at the just released voter registration statistics for July, 2017, it does not look like it. The only bright spot for the Republican Party was in the rural counties where they had a slight gain in voter share. Except for that, both the major parties lost voter share across all tracked demographics. As has been the trend, both Non-Partisan and the minor parties gained share.

The bad news does not stop there. For the second consecutive month, the Democratic Party lost voter share in all 21 state senate districts and all but one state assembly district. In the state’s congressional districts, for the first time, both Non-Partisan and minor parties gained voter share in all four districts.

State-Wide

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 1,218 0.21 39.23 -0.08
R 1,574 0.32 33.10 -0.03
NP 1,823 0.59 21.04 0.04
Other 1,340 1.38 6.64 0.06
Total not D or R 27.68 0.10

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.63%; Lib +0.96%; other 5 parties +4.46%

Clark County

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 952 0.21 42.88 -0.08
R 888 0.30 28.81 -0.03
NP 1,189 0.52 21.95 0.03
Other 1,.192 1.83 6.36 0.09
Total not D or R 28.31 0.12

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.71%; Lib +1.11%; other 5 parties +5.97%

Washoe County

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 329 0.37 35.37 -0.08
R 526 0.56 37.58 -0.02
NP 534 1.08 19.90 0.09
Other 133 0.75 7.15 0.01
Total not D or R 27.05 0.10

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.95%; Lib +0.89%; other 5 parties -0.03

Rural Counties

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D -63 -0.14 24.01 -0.06
R 160 0.17 51.01 0.03
NP 100 0.31 17.50 0.03
Other 15 0.11 7.49 0.00
Total not D or R 24.99 0.03

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.01%; Lib +0.36%; other 5 parties +0.64%

18 – 34 Year Old

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 173 0.11 39.36 -0.09
R 237 0.27 22.50 -0.02
NP 456 0.39 29.83 0.02
Other 453 1.39 8.32 0.09
Total not D or R 38.15 0.11

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.40%; Lib +1.10%; other 5 parties +3.86%

55+

Party Change in # Voters % Change % Voter Share Difference in Voter Share %
D 724 0.30 39.71 -0.06
R 1,063 0.43 40.51 -0.01
NP 602 0.69 14.49 0.03
Other 404 1.27 5.29 0.04
Total not D or R 19.78 0.07

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.76%; Lib +0.94%; other 5 parties +4.82%

Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.

Congressional Districts

Party # Districts Lose Voter Share # Districts Gain Voter Share # Districts No Change
Democratic 4 0 0
Republican 4 0 0
Non-Partisan 0 4 0
Other 0 4 0

Both CD 1, CD 2, and CD 4 continue to show 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. Note that Non-Partisan and minor parties gained voter share in all districts.

State Senate Districts

Party # Districts Lose Voter Share # Districts Gain Voter Share # Districts No Change
Democratic 21 0 0
Republican 16 3 2
Non-Partisan 2 17 2
Other 0 21 0

In 15 districts (71.4%) and an increase of one over June, 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. Note the Democratic Party lost voter share in all districts for the second consecutive month. At the same time, minor parties gained voter share in all districts.

State Assembly Districts

Party # Districts Lose Voter Share # Districts Gain Voter Share # Districts No Change
Democratic 41 1 0
Republican 20 19 3
Non-Partisan 11 27 4
Other 7 34 1

Unchanged. In 31 districts (73.81%) 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 unchanged from last month. For the second consecutive month, the Democratic Party lost voter share in all but one district.

Senate bill 103 this last session attempted to address this trend. Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford (D – Las Vegas) refused to give the bill a hearing. Not addressing the problem will not make it go away.

Voter List Maintenance Cannot Stop the Trend as Major Parties Continue to Lose Voter Share

While routine list maintenance caused a drop in registered voters in June, 2017 both major political parties continue to bleed voter share. At the same time, as has been the trend, voter share of Non-Partisan and minor political parties continue to climb.
The list maintenance appears to have a general negative impact in Washoe County. In spite of this, the loss in voter share of both Non-Partisan and the minor parties is less than either the Democratic or Republican Party. Across the board, the sharpest growth in voter share is in the group “other” that includes the Green Party. In contrast, the Democratic Party lost voter share in all demographics and in all state senate districts and all but one state assembly district.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-2,306
-0.40
39.30
-0.05
R
-1,280
-0.26
33.13
0.00
NP
-475
-0.15
21.00
0.02
Other
225
0.23
6.57
0.03
Total not D or R
27.57
0.05
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.41%; Lib +0.09%; other 5 parties +2.75%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,802
0.41
42.96
-0.09
R
1,670
0.56
28.85
-0.01
NP
1,742
0.77
21.92
0.03
Other
1,107
1.73
6.27
0.07
Total not D or R
28.19
0.10
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.79%; Lib +1.39%; other 5 parties +5.14%
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-4,085
-4.43
35.45
-0.12
R
-3,138
-3.25
37.60
0.33
NP
-2,412
-4.67
19.80
-0.12
Other
-986
-5.26
7.14
-0.09
Total not D or R
27.15
0.00
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -5.79%; Lib -3.83%; other 5 parties -4.76%
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-23
-0.05
24.07
-0.07
R
188
0.20
50.98
-0.03
NP
195
0.60
17.46
0.06
Other
104
0.75
7.49
0.04
Total not D or R
24.95
0.10
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.80%; Lib +0.62%; other 5 parties +0.46%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-1,260
-0.80
39.45
-0.04
R
-772
-0.86
22.51
-0.04
NP
-722
-0.61
29.81
0.03
Other
-7
-0.02
8.23
0.06
Total not D or R
38.04
0.09
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.88%; Lib -0.37%; other 5 parties +2.26%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-277
-0.11
39.77
-0.06
R
158
0.06
40.53
0.01
NP
237
0.27
14.45
0.03
Other
174
0.55
5.25
0.03
Total not D or R
19.70
0.06
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.14%; Lib 0.72%; other 5 parties +3.18%
 Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.
Congressional Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
4
0
0
Republican
2
1
1
Non-Partisan
1
3
0
Other
1
3
0
Both CD 1, CD 2, and CD 4 continue to show 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
21
0
0
Republican
11
10
0
Non-Partisan
6
14
1
Other
5
16
0
Unchanged. In 14 districts (66.7%) 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. Note the Democratic Party lost voter share in all districts. This raises questions about the party’s leadership claim of success during the just ended legislative session.
State Assembly Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
41
1
0
Republican
20
19
3
Non-Partisan
11
27
4
Other
7
34
1
Unchanged. In 31 districts (73.81%) 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 unchanged from last month. However, the fact that the Democratic Party lost voter share in all but one district cannot be overlooked.

Partisanship continues to divide our society. Nevada is not immune. Given Governor Sandoval’s 41 vetoes, future analysis of committee minutes and votes along with floor votes could very well show the role partisanship impacts Nevadans’ every-day lives.  

Partisan Violence Will Not Heal The Wounds – Opinion

Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier” (General Colin Powell).
I am by nature a perpetual optimist. I believe every problem has a solution. Some are just harder to find. But as much as members of the Democratic and Republican Party speak of unity following the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise (R – LA), I cannot help but wonder; how long will this last? In spite of my optimistic nature, I believe the answer in “not long”.
To say this country is politically divided is an understatement. Partisan differences have always existed.  But the political environment has never been this toxic. Several studies, especially those conducted by Pew Research over the past few years, have shown not only do we disagree but this disagreement extends into all aspects of our lives. We no longer trust those who do not share our political beliefs. Recent polls even use the word “hate”. We make decisions on who we consider friends and how we relate to co-workers based on the level of political agreement. As one study surmises, we have become tribal. Our respect for freedom of speech has diminished to “only if you agree with me”.
The Congressional baseball game and similar events at all levels of government are meant to be one of those times when members of opposing views can put aside their differences and have fun together. Perhaps some have personal relationships totally opposite of what they present during public discussion and in the media. Why?
Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott and Tom Daschle. These leaders of different political persuasion worked together for the good of the nation. I’m certain there have been similar relationships at the state and local level. Those days are gone. Elected officials may begin their political careers to serve their constituents. However, it doesn’t take long for the focus to become the next election. As their constituents become polarized, elected officials must become similarly polarized if they wish to retain their seat. As more and more voters become frustrated with this process, the number of voters in the so-called “base” becomes smaller and more dogmatic. The politicians must follow or lose the next election.
Collaboration and cooperation by lawmakers should be the norm. Finding areas of agreement then respectfully working on solutions for those where there is not agreement is how solutions are reached. A shooting should not be the wake-up call. The alarm should have gone off years ago.
It will take more than an act of violence for sanity to return to our political system. It will take a total mental reset. Elected officials need to start listening to and re-engaging voters who have become disillusioned. The betterment of our cities, counties, states and nation depend on this and must become the focus. A minority of political party members do not present a picture of the whole.  
Members of all political parties are calling for unity. Hopefully I’m wrong. But the hate and divisiveness is too deep and the pattern of forgetting, I believe, will continue.

As Partisanship Raises Its Head in the Legislature Major Parties Continue to Lose Voter Share

As I write this, the legislature is locked in partisan debate over education savings accounts, minimum wage, and the overall budget. Given this, it should be no surprise that voter registration numbers for May, 2017 again show the Democratic and Republican Party losing voter share across all but one demographic; the GOP gained voter share in Washoe County, while Non-Partisan and minor parties increase. And while there was an increase in the number of registered voters, Non-Partisan and minor parties also gained voters at a higher rate than either of the major parties.
Of special note:
In Clark County the difference in percentage of voters not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party is less than one percent
           
In the rural counties, the percentage of voters not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party is greater than the percent of the Democratic Party
Among 18 to 34 year olds, the percentage of voters registered as Non-Partisan is almost ten percent higher than those registered as Republican and the total not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party is within one and one-half percent of those registered as Democratic
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-197
-0.03
39.36
-0.04
R
-251
-0.05
33.13
-0.04
NP
835
0.27
20.98
0.05
Other
428
0.45
6.54
0.03
Total not D or R
27.52
0.08
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.20%; Lib +0.23%; other 5 parties +1.54%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,122
0.25
43.05
-0.05
R
756
0.25
28.86
-0.03
NP
1,212
0.54
21.89
0.04
Other
658
1.04
6.20
0.04
Total not D or R
28.09
0.08
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.61%; Lib +0.79%; other 5 parties +2.69%
  
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-1,393
-1.49
35.58
-0.02
R
-1,328
-1.36
37.27
0.03
NP
-691
-1.32
19.92
0.02
Other
-335
-1.76
7.23
-0.02
Total not D or R
27.15
0.00
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -1.68%; Lib -1.68%; other 5 parties -2.08%
  
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
74
0.17
24.14
-0.07
R
321
0.34
51.01
-0.05
NP
314
0.98
17.40
0.09
Other
105
0.76
7.45
0.02
Total not D or R
24.85
0.11
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.72%; Lib +0.89%; other 5 parties +1.02%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-520
-0.33
39.49
-0.06
R
-381
-0.42
22.55
-0.05
NP
37
0.03
29.78
0.07
Other
106
0.33
8.17
0.04
Total not D or R
37.95
0.11
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP 0.00%; Lib +0.06%; other 5 parties +1.32%
 55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
267
0.11
39.83
-0.03
R
378
0.15
40.52
-0.01
NP
351
0.40
14.42
0.03
Other
129
0.41
5.22
0.01
Total not D or R
19.64
0.04
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.34%; Lib -0.30%; other 5 parties +1.41%
Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.
Congressional Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
4
0
0
Republican
3
1
0
Non-Partisan
0
4
0
Other
1
3
0
Both CD 1 and CD 4continue to show 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. Additionally, with a shift in May in CD2, the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is within 5% difference against the Democratic Party.
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
18
3
0
Republican
15
4
2
Non-Partisan
1
19
1
Other
2
18
1
Unchanged. In 14 districts (66.7%) 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.
 State Assembly Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
36
5
1
Republican
29
11
2
Non-Partisan
5
32
5
Other
5
33
4
Unchanged. In 31 districts (73.81%) 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 unchanged from last month.
Voters are not seeing any change in the approach of the two major political parties. Their frustration continues to manifest itself in how they register to vote. Given the voter suppression by the Democratic majority this session, I don’t expect any self-initiated change.

Nevada Legislature’s Democratic Leadership Keeping Voter Suppression Alive and Well

Voter suppression can be defined as any attempt to curtail participation in the electoral process. It can be obvious; voter ID, reducing poll locations and hours, requiring proof of citizenship, or skillfully concealed; requiring membership in a specific political party to vote in a publicly funded election, stopping a bill that would restore the right of all voters to have a voice in who represents them, revoking the right to vote for a city official, or not expanding the way people can vote, increasing participation.
Voter suppression as public policy is unfathomable.  Yet this is exactly what the Democratic leadership in the Nevada legislature has done.
Senate Bill (SB) 103 introduced by Senator James Settelmeyer (R – Minden) would have changed the state’s closed primary system to a top-two open primary. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections and never got a hearing. When asked by a reporter for the Reno Gazette Journalwhether or not the bill would get a hearing, Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford (D – Las Vegas) replied, “We don’t feel it’s worthy of a hearing. Next question.” SB 103 would have expanded the voting opportunity for more than 400,000 registered voters, 27 percent of active registered voters. It is important to remember that primary elections are paid for by all tax payers. By including membership in a specific political party as a requirement to vote, Nevada is blocking the participation of voters in a publicly funded election.
Assembly bill (AB) 226 was introduced by Assemblyman Ira Hansen (R – Sparks) to reverse a change made during the 2015 legislative session that eliminated more than 60 percent of registered voters in some districts from having a say in who would represent them in the state legislature or on their county commission. Most of those voters were registered to vote as Democratic, Non-Partisan, or in one of the minor political parties. The bill passed out of the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee on a vote of 9-2 with two of the seven Democratic members voting “no”. In spite of committee passage and three of the Democratic committee members, including the chair signing on as co-sponsors, the Assembly Democratic Majority Leader decided not to bring the bill to a floor vote killing the bill after discussion with the Assembly Democratic caucus.
The Senate Government Affairs Committee introduced SB 434 at the request of Senators  Julia Ratti (D – Sparks) and Tick Segerblom (D – Las Vegas).  The bill changes the cities of Sparks and Reno city charters making their city attorney appointed rather than elected as written in the original charter. Neither Senators Ratti or Segerblom nor the government affairs committee received a request from either city asking for this change. The bill passed the senate along party lines with all Democratic caucus members voting in favor to unilaterally revoke this voter approved choice. In the assembly, five Democratic members joined Republicans in voting “no” but with overwhelming Democratic support, the bill passed revoking a ballot voters have been casting for over 40 years. The governor vetoed the bill.
SB 93 introduced by Senator Joe Hardy (R – Henderson) on behalf of the city of Henderson changes the city charter to allow elections to be conducted by mail, potentially removing obstacles to casting a ballot. The bill received a committee hearing but not a vote and therefore died.
Last session, the Democratic minority blocked changing presidential caucuses to primaries. This session, in the majority, they did not allow a vote, placing Nevada’s role in national party politics above voter participation. They also did not advance a bill having Nevada award its Electoral College votes to the winner of the nation popular vote for president.
Remember, the Democratic Party controls both chambers of the Nevada legislature and determines what bills get hearings and votes and what bills die.
“Publicly funded election”. These are the key words. Political parties are private organizations and as such are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment rights or association. When performing functions related to the internal operation of the party, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld these rights versus the state’s right to conduct open and fair elections. Selecting a nominee to represent the party in the general election is such an internal operation. This is why political parties pay for nomination caucuses and conventions. A primary election, restricted to members of a particular party is identical to a caucus or convention. Since these elections are funded with tax dollars, blocking participation simply based on party registration is a form of voter suppression.
When voters are prevented from casting a ballot for any candidate who will represent them in a legislative body, the winning candidate cannot truly claim they represent the district. Even when two candidates in a general election are members of the same political party, all voters should have the right to vote for the candidate they prefer regardless of the voters’ political party affiliation. When primaries are closed and only a small percentage of one party goes to the polls to select the candidate that will then be unopposed in the general election, this is voter suppression.
A city charter is similar to a constitution. The charter is approved by the state legislature and any changes to it must likewise be approved by the legislature. The city charters of Sparks, approved in 1975 and Reno, approved in 1971 identify the city attorney as an elected position. In 1991, the voters of Sparks reaffirmed their desire to keep this right. The charter committees of Sparks and Reno did not request this change to their charters. The voters of Sparks and Reno did not request this change. By unilaterally putting forth this change, the Democratic members of the legislature are revoking a vote that citizens have been allowed to cast for over 40 years, suppressing the right of the citizens of Sparks and Reno to elect their city attorney as currently required by their city charter.
In a slightly different scenario, the Democratic senate caucus is suppressing the voting rights of the citizens of Henderson. City leadership requested a change to their charter that would make it easier for citizens to vote as well as achieve a much needed cost savings. The bill was heard but not voted on by the Senate Government Affairs Committee. Preventing a process that would allow more citizens to vote from being implemented is voter suppression.  
When Governor Brian Sandoval vetoed the legislature’s party line passage (Democratic majority) of IP-1, the automatic voter registration initiative, Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson (D – Las Vegas) was quoted in the Nevada Independent; “Nevadans agree that we need to have a voting system that protects the fundamental right of every eligible voter— Democrat, Republican, non-partisan or otherwise. Voting is a right, not a privilege and we should make it easy for Nevadans to hold their own government accountable.”

In their Nevada Blueprint for the current session of the legislature, the Democratic Caucus is clearly focused on voting rights. “We also need to protect our heritage. That means preserving Nevada’s natural environment, protecting our constitutional rights, and making it easier for our citizens to participate in the democratic process.”
These two statements seem contradictory to the action taken on the bills highlighted. Voter suppression can be obvious or skillfully concealed. The end result is the same; voter participation is curtailed by policy, process, or action. Voter suppression is alive and well in Carson City.