Author: Doug Goodman

Posted on

As Session Sets to Open Major Parties Still Losing Voter Share

The 2017 session of the Nevada Legislature begins in four days and the Voter registration numbers for January, 2017 show no change in the trend. Both major political parties continue to lose voter share while Non-Partisan and total voters not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party grow. According to the secretary of state’s office, some counties performed routine list maintenance. However, the trend still was across all demographics; state-wide, Clark County, Washoe County, rural counties, among those 18 – 34 years of age and those above 55.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-340
-0.06
39.55
0.00
R
-569
-0.11
33.09
-0.02
NP
76
0.02
20.89
0.01
Other
-41
-0.05
6.46
0.00
Total not D or R
27.35
0.01
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.03%; Lib +0.11%; other 5 parties -0.26%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
77
0.02
43.23
0.00
R
-124
-0.04
28.86
-0.02
NP
220
0.10
21.81
0.02
Other
33
0.05
6.10
0.01
Total not D or R
27.91
0.03
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.09%; Lib +0.25%; other 5 parties -0.22%
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-314
-0.33
35.82
-0.01
R
-291
-0.29
37.09
0.00
NP
-126
-0.24
19.86
0.02
Other
-56
-0.19
7.24
0.00
Total not D or R
27.10
0.02
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.34%; Lib -0.09%; other 5 parties -0.28%
 Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-103
-0.23
24.30
-0.01
R
-154
-0.16
51.04
0.00
NP
-18
-0.06
17.25
0.02
Other
-26
-0.19
7.41
0.00
Total not D or R
24.66
0.02
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.14%; Lib -0.21%; other 5 parties -0.64%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-533
-0.32
39.63
0.00
R
-386
-0.41
22.73
-0.01
NP
-338
-0.28
29.60
0.02
Other
-95
-0.28
8.05
0.01
Total not D or R
37.65
0.03
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.18%; Lib -0.24%; other 5 parties -0.57%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
220
0.09
40.07
0.00
R
136
0.06
40.46
-0.02
NP
230
0.26
14.31
0.02
Other
39
0.12
5.17
0.01
Total not D or R
19.48
0.03
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.12%; Lib +0.23%; other 5 parties +0.05%
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
1
1
2
Republican
3
1
0
Non-Partisan
0
4
0
Other
0
1
3
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.
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
8
6
7
Republican
17
2
2
Non-Partisan
0
17
4
Other
7
7
7
In 13 districts (61.9%) 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.
State Assembly Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
23
18
1
Republican
30
7
5
Non-Partisan
6
28
8
Other
14
20
8
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.
Bill language is pending on a bill draft request submitted by Senator James Settelymeyer (R-Minden) that will open up the primary election process to this continually growing segment of disenfranchised Nevada voters. The Nevada legislature can lead the nation by becoming the first legislative body to enact this important election reform. Voters in other states have lead election reform efforts. Isn’t it better if elected officials implement these changes?

Posted on

Nevada Democratic Caucus Blueprint, Voting Rights, and NEMRA

UPDATE (February 18, 2017)

For the 2017 session, the Democratic Caucus changed the Blueprint. The following is in the introduction signed by both Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford and Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson; “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.”

“Though Democrats won’t release their full slate of legislative priorities until February, one issue both Ford and Frierson have already highlighted as critical in the upcoming session is expanding voting rights, especially amid fears that the Trump Administration won’t fight against initiatives that could disenfranchise minority groups.”

The above paragraph (bold highlight added) is from an article by Megan Messerly and Michelle Rindels, “Ford and Frierson: Will the Legislature’s new leaders be complements or competitors?”published by The Nevada Independent on January 21, 2017.

During the 2015 session of the Nevada legislature, the Democratic caucus published the “Nevada Blueprint”. This document outlines the principles and legislative goals of the caucus.

From that document (bold highlight added)

PROTECTING YOUR RIGHTS

Our Nevada Blueprint Will:
  • Fight to ensure that voting is free, fair, and accessible for all eligible voters in Nevada.
  • Protect every Nevadan’s right to his or her day in court.
  • Encourage voter participation by providing for same-day voter registration, implementing Election Day vote centers, and automating the DMV’s voter registration system.
“..expanding voting rights” and “..accessible for all eligible voters..”. At the end of 2016, over 27 percent of registered voters in Nevada are not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party. Nearly 21 percent are registered as Non-Partisan. Month after month, both major political parties lose voter share while Non-Partisan and minor parties gain. This trend is across all demographics; Clark and Washoe Counties, the rural counties, those between the ages of 18 to 34 (percentage in this group are 10 percent higher than the state total), those over 55, and throughout all state senate and assembly districts.
For partisan elected offices, Nevada uses the closed primary system. Voters must be registered as either Democratic or Republican to help select the party’s candidates for the general election. Political parties are private organizations protected by the first amendment’s right of association. It is their right to conduct their internal operations and select their candidates as they see fit. This right has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in Nevada, all taxpayers pay for primary elections. Democratic Party members are paying for the Republican Party primary and vice versa along with their own. Non-Partisans and members of minor political parties are paying for both parties’ primary elections. Taxpayers are paying for something they are blocked from participating in. Taxpayers funding internal operations of a political party may be unconstitutional.   
As voter registration statistics show, an increasing number of voters are showing their frustration by voluntarily giving up their right to participate in part of their voting franchise. Yes, this is a choice, but the choice is being driven by the system and current level of political divisiveness.
 “..expanding voting rights” and “..accessible for all eligible voters..”. Under the current system, voters’ rights are being curtailed and all elections are not accessible for all eligible voters. The Democratic caucus’ Blueprint places an emphasis on correcting these systemic flaws.
The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) provides the means for the Democratic caucus to satisfy this goal of their agenda. State Senator James Settelmeyer (R-Minden) has filed a bill draft request (BDR).

Ensuring all voters are guaranteed the opportunity to participate in all elections is part of the Democratic caucus Nevada Blueprint. The caucus should work to pass Senator Settelmeyer’s bill. 
Posted on

Another Year and the Partisan Divide Keeps Growing

As we start a new year and a new presidency, Pew Research once again takes a look at the partisan division in this country. The January, 2017 poll does not bode well. I last posted about this last January.

 

With the inauguration of President Trump just completed and what may have been the most negative campaign cycle in recent memory behind us, optimism leads to the thought that perhaps the partisan divide could narrow. If the Pew report is any indication, the reverse is more likely.

 

Going into 2017, 86 percent of those polled say the country is more politically divided. Pew Research has been tracking the partisan divide since 2004 and this is the highest result ever recorded. Even more ominous is the fact that 71 percent think this division will either remain the same or get worse (40 percent remain the same, 31 percent get worse).

 

What about the chances lawmakers will come together and reach agreement? Republicans are more optimistic with 50 percent believing they will not work with the other party. Conversely, among Democratic Party members, 72 percent say that animosity and refusal to come together will continue.

 

For government at all levels to function, this environment cannot exist. Respectful disagreement and discussion of the issues is paramount if collaboration and cooperation are to flourish. Only then will issues be positively addressed.

 

The Nevada legislature has the opportunity to become the first state legislature to implement a process that could lead to lessening the partisan divide. Normally changes that are required are the result of voter initiatives. A bill draft request (BDR) has been submitted by Senator James Settelmeyer (R-Minden) that would put in place a system that has shown to focus campaigns and the act of legislating on the issues rather than on the next election. (Talk of who will run in 2018 and 2020 are already filling the media) The system contained in this BDR forces candidates and elected officials to focus on all voters rather than just their political party’s so-called base. It addresses head on the voter registration dynamics that show the major political parties losing voter share while registrations as Non-Partisan and to minor political parties increase.

 

 

The Nevada legislature convenes in two weeks, February 6, 2017. Let Nevada take the lead in taking the first step to narrow the partisan divide so that future polls show a different result. 

Posted on

December Not Good for Major Parties As Both Lose Voter Share While Non-Partisan and Minor Parties Gain

December, 2016 Voter registration numbers are in and the trend continues.  Even though the state recorded only a small gain in active registered voters (943), the anomaly that was November gave way to a continuation of the trend where both the Democratic and Republican Party lost voter share while Non-Partisan and minor parties continue to gain. As what has become normal, the trend is across all demographics, state-wide, Clark County, Washoe County, rural counties, among 18 to 34 year olds and those 55 and over.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-147
-0.02
39.55
-0.04
R
32
0.01
33.11
-0.02
NP
548
0.17
20.88
0.03
Other
510
0.53
6.46
0.03
Total not D or R
27.34
0.06
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.64%; Lib +0.80%; other 5 parties -0.12%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-197
-0.04
43.23
-0.02
R
-311
-0.1
28.88
-0.03
NP
30
0.01
21.79
0.00
Other
365
0.57
6.09
0.03
Total not D or R
27.88
0.03
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.73%; Lib +0.77%; other 5 parties -0.09%
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
30
0.03
35.83
-0.05
R
121
0.12
37.09
-0.01
NP
228
0.43
19.84
0.05
Other
64
0.33
7.24
0.01
Total not D or R
27.08
0.06
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.43%; Lib +0.85%; other 5 parties -0.41%
 Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
20
0.04
24.31
-0.07
R
222
0.23
51.04
-0.05
NP
290
0.90
17.23
0.10
Other
81
0.58
7.41
0.01
Total not D or R
24.64
0.11
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.53%; Lib +0.90%; other 5 parties +0.55%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-567
-0.34
39.63
-0.03
R
-388
-0.41
22.74
-0.04
NP
-222
-0.18
29.58
0.02
Other
78
0.23
8.04
0.04
Total not D or R
37.62
0.06
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.43%; Lib +0.56%; other 5 parties -0.48%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
484
0.20
40.07
-0.05
R
768
0.31
40.48
0.00
NP
639
0.74
14.29
0.03
Other
233
0.75
5.16
0.02
Total not D or R
19.45
0.05
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.80%; Lib +0.69%; other 5 parties +0.44%
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
3
0
1
Republican
4
0
0
Non-Partisan
0
4
0
Other
0
4
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.
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
16
5
0
Republican
17
4
0
Non-Partisan
5
14
2
Other
1
19
1
In 13 districts (61.9%) 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
30
10
2
Republican
32
8
2
Non-Partisan
11
29
2
Other
5
34
3
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 an increase of one over November.
We are less than a month from the start of the 2017 Nevada legislative session. A bill draft request (BDR) has been filed to acknowledge this continuing trend. If passed, Nevada will be the first state legislature to positively address election reform; election reform normally takes a voter initiative petition.

Posted on

Media Continues to Feed Partisan Divide and Campaign Negativity

The electors of the Electoral College will meet in their respective states in one week and cast the votes that will elect Donald Trump the 45th President of the United States. Throughout the campaign season, many questioned the role of the media, both mainstream and online, in making what was envisioned as nearly impossible a reality.  
The campaigns of 2016 were mostly negative, not only at the national level but at the state and local level as well. It is no secret our political environment is deeply divided. Do media play a role in maintaining, or even increasing this divide?  Do journalists strive for negativity over substance?
I first wrote about this subject in March, 2015 in an article “Does The Media Purposely Fan The Flames Of Political Divisiveness?” Now the Harvard Kennedy School, Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy has released a four-part study analyzing media’s coverage of the 2016 presidential election. While both positive and negative coverage is reviewed, the amount of and reason behind negative stories is revealing.  Also revealing is how media culture and its control over our decisions have changed over the years.
The studyis worth the time it takes to read; the cover page gives a good summary. It takes an in-depth look at the pre-primary period; how media impacted the rise of Donald Trump, the interest in Bernie Sanders, and the negative view of Hillary Clinton.  This is followed by analyses of the race to the nomination, the convention month, and finally the November election.
In each segment, the author provides data on not only how and why negative stories overwhelmingly outnumbered positive but also why media focuses on negative reporting (bottom line, it sells). The study traces the history of this attention to negativity, explaining its roots in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Not surprising, the study finds this emphasis on the negative by media is not restricted to politics but cuts across all areas of our lives.
Given the reason(s) behind the trend of negative reporting, the power it gives journalists, reporters, and commentators over our decisions, and the decades it has been allowed to thrive, it is unlikely change will happen fast. The first step in getting media to return to its original purpose of informing the public and providing unbiased facts is for voters to stop “buying” the negativity and start demanding substantive information on which they can base their decisions.
Using Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off voting (RCV / IRV) as outlined in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) has shown to reduce negative campaigning and return civilityto our electoral and governing processes.   In just eight weeks, on February 6, 2017, the Nevada legislature can begin the process to end negative politics in Nevada by enacting NEMRA – 2017.   

Posted on

GOP Continues to Lose Voter Share as Dem’s, Non-Partisan, and “Other” Gain

Voter registration numbers for November, 2016 have been released and it’s not good news for the GOP. Across all demographics, the Republican Party lost voter share while the Democratic Party, Non-Partisan, and minor parties gained. The only exception was in the 18-34 year old age group where Non-Partisan and minor parties also lost share. There is a caveat. The Independent American Party (IAP) grew by over four percent among this demographic leading to the assumption that some of those voters meant to register as Non-Partisan (an accepted fact).  The IAP also experienced high growth across all other demographics, recording the highest growth rate state-wide of 3.63 percent. Based on historical trends, the assumption is some of this growth should have been in the Non-Partisan category.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
18,137
3.14
39.59
0.15
R
9.689
1.98
33.13
-0.24
NP
9,289
3.05
20.85
0.06
Other
3,071
3.28
6.43
0.03
Total not D or R
27.28
0.09
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +3.63%; Lib +3.30%; other 5 parties +1.94%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
15,425
3.52
43.25
0.16
R
7,081
2.39
28.91
-0.21
NP
7,274
3.28
21.79
0.03
Other
2,269
3.70
6.06
0.03
Total not D or R
27.85
0.06
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +3.70%; Lib +3.75%; other 5 parties +2.13%
 Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,390
1.47
35.88
0.02
R
1,008
1.03
37.10
-0.15
NP
971
1.87
19.79
0.09
Other
369
1.95
7.23
0.04
Total not D or R
27.02
0.13
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +2.25%; Lib +2.12%; other 5 parties +0.86%
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,322
2.98
24.38
0.15
R
1,600
1.70
51.09
-0.36
NP
1,053
3.39
17.13
0.16
Other
433
3.22
7.40
0.06
Total not D or R
24.53
0.22
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +3.19%; Lib +3.21%; other 5 parties +3.61%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
6,122
3.85
39.66
0.21
R
2,666
2.89
22.78
-0.09
NP
3,429
2.87
29.56
-0.12
Other
1,048
3.25
8.00
-0.01
Total not D or R
37.56
-0.13
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +4.12%; Lib +3.31%; other 5 parties +1.22%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
4,847
2.03
40.12
0.07
R
3,460
1.43
40.48
-0.16
NP
1,950
2.30
14.26
0.06
Other
763
2.50
5.14
0.03
Total not D or R
19.40
0.09
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +2.50%; Lib +2.29%; other 5 parties +2.66%
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
1
3
0
Other
0
4
0
In CD 1 and CD 4the 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. This is the first time more than one CD has fallen into this category
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
1
19
1
Republican
21
0
0
Non-Partisan
6
15
0
Other
1
20
0
In 13 districts (61.9%) 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 an increase of one district since close of registration for the general election
State Assembly Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
6
33
3
Republican
42
0
0
Non-Partisan
12
29
1
Other
6
32
4
In 30 districts (71.43%) 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.
November was a good month for the Democratic Party and a disaster for the Republican. November also appears to be one of the exceptions where one of the major parties outperformed Non-Partisans.
We are nine weeks away from the start of the 2017 Nevada legislative session. It will be interesting to see how the legislature in action impacts voter registration trends.

Posted on

State Legislatures Know The Process Is Broken And Are Taking Action

What do these states have in common? At first glance, the answer of “nothing” would be understandable. However, the correct answer is something very significant.
In 2016, the state legislatures in these 13 states along with the District of Columbia, considered legislation dealing with the use of Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off voting (RCV / IRV). This does not include the approval of ballot initiatives in Maine and Benton County, Oregon.
RCV / IRV is not the only election reform legislation considered by state legislatures in 2016. Automatic voter registration (AVR) was approved by the state legislatures in California, Connecticut, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. Voters in Alaska also approved a ballot initiative implementing AVR. Legislatures in 26 other states also did or are considering legislation to implement AVR.
In 16 states, legislatures are also debating the merits of a top-two non-partisan open primary either through direct legislation or by establishing studies or exploratory committees.
Voters believe our election systems are broken. More importantly, state legislators share this belief and are taking action to reverse the partisan divisiveness gripping our country, our states, our counties, and our cities. This divisiveness not only hinders effective governance but our economic well-being as well. Nevada is not currently on any of these lists though the legislature in 2015 briefly considered a bill to change the primary election process.
That can change in ten weeks when the Nevada legislature convenes on February 6, 2017. By filing a bill draft request (BDR) and passing the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017), Nevada can not only join the list of state legislatures addressing the issue but can be one of the first to pass and implement election reform legislation. (Other states have implemented reforms as the result of ballot initiative)
States Considering RCV / IRV
AZ       ME     
CA      MN
GA      NJ
HI        NY
IN        RI
MA      VT
MD      DC
States Considering AVR
AL       LA       OH
AR      MD      PA
AZ       MI       SC
FL       MN      TN
GA      MO      TX
HI        NJ        VA
IL        NM      WA
IN        NY      WI
IA        NC
States Considering Top-Two
AZ       MN
AK      MS
FL       NM
ID        NY
IL        OK
MA      OR
MD      SD
ME      VA

Posted on

Role of Non-Partisan Voters as Nevada Legislature Returns to Blue

Just under 70 percent of Nevada voters cast ballots for state senator or assemblyperson either through in-person early voting, absentee or mail-in ballots or on election day.  Since overall turnout was approximately76 percent, this means six percent did not vote for their representatives in the state legislature.
Data currently available from the secretary of state’s office does not yet include Election Day votes broken down by party. What is known from the data available is Democratic voters made up 42 percent of that total votes cast, Republicans 36 percent, and Non-Partisan and minor party 22 percent. Turnout in Clark County was below the average at 75 percent while Washoe County and the rural counties were above at 79 and 78 respectively.
The data also shows that 56 percent of Democratic voters, 57 percent of Republican voters, and 48 percent of Non-Partisan and minor party voters cast ballots prior to election day. Breaking out that data by county shows Democratic voters turned out an average of 8 percent less than registration, Republicans 16 percent lower, and Non-Partisan and minor party 11 percent less.  
At the close of registrationfor the general election, Non-Partisans accounted for 21 percent of active registered voters with members of minor parties accounting for another 6.5 percent.  In Clark County Non-Partisan and minor parties accounted for 22 percent and six percent, in Washoe County 20 percent and seven percent, and rural counties 17 and seven percent.
The tables linked here show just how important these voters were to the outcome. Even in races where the majority party easily won the seat, Non-partisan and minor party voters were instrumental.  In several races, they were the deciding factor.
In the state senate, 11 seats were up for election. In the state assembly, all 42 seats were up. All major party candidates received a percentage of the vote higher than the party’s registration in their respective district. The higher the difference, the more Non-Partisan, minor party, and cross-over votes were received. In most races, these votes either increased or decreased the margin of victory. However, in Senate Districts 5 and 6, they determined the winner; the difference between the majority party maintaining or losing the seat. A similar impact can be seen in Assembly Districts 5 and 29. In Assembly Districts 4, 31, and 37 Non-Partisan and minor party voters were responsible for the majority party in the district losing the seat.
On the national level, independent voters made Donald Trump president. National turnout is said to have hit a 20-year low at 55 percent. Independent voters accounted for 31 percent. Of that percentage, exit polls show 48 percent voted for Donald Trump, 42 percent backed Hillary Clinton and 10 percent another or no candidate.

As the number of Non-Partisan voters continues to grow, candidates will have to reach out to those voters. This is the political reality. Enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) would provide a mechanism to embrace this changing political environment. 
Posted on

One of the Leading Methods for Positive Structural Election Reform; NEMRA 2017

A single election in November using Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off Voting (RCV / IRV) is among the top methods to create lasting structural election reform. That is the finding of a study conducted by 14 leading political science and election law scholars. The study, released in January, 2016 was done in coordination with FairVote.org. The full study can be read here.
The focus of the study was what structural changes to current election methods would provide the most positive long-term benefits. It looked at both changes to primary and general elections.   
The top structural reforms all involved the use of RCV / IRV in the general election. Changes to the primary election, such as a Top-Two open non-partisan primary currently in use in California, Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana, were judged not to be as effective because they have not shown impact / change to the choices offered in the general election. Changes to primary election structure were also not considered as effective when compared to structural changes in general election processes due to lower turnout and domination of partisan voters in primary elections. When evaluating each structural change, the panel looked at:
·         Legislative Functionality: Evidence-based, long-term policymaking; majoritarian policymaking; independence of legislators from party leadership
·         Electoral Accountability: Voter ability to flip partisan control of chamber; incumbent turnover; responsiveness of outcomes to electoral shifts
·         Voter Engagement: Increase in voters experiencing competitive elections; general election turnout; primary election turnout; year-round citizen engagement with officials; to what degree elections inform voters
·         Openness of Process: Influence of unaffiliated voters; influence of independent and minor-party candidates; breadth of opinion represented in elected office; representation of women; representation of racial minorities
Structural change to an institutional process such as elections is rarely easy.  It becomes easy when the need for change is known. When the details of the change are provided to those responsible for making and implementing the change, it becomes a matter of will.
Voter registration trends, negative campaigns, highly partisan legislative sessions, and outrage to the single party primary change made during the last Nevada legislative session attest to the need for structural election reform. The Nevada Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee took the first steps towards implementing change in 2015 by filing Bill Draft Request (BDR) 1149 and giving a hearing to SB 499. The Nevada legislature can finish the job started in 2015 by introducing and passing the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) during the session that begins in three months.

Posted on

More Voters Identify As Independent Than Democratic or Republican

Between January and August of 2016, Pew Research polled over 8,100 registered voters in various polls where the topic was U.S. politics and / or policy. All polls included this question: ” In politics TODAY, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or independent?
In September, Pew consolidated the answers and the results are very telling. The results are tabulated both in general and detailed categories, 215 separate elements. The number of voters identifying as Independent is higher than both the Democratic and Republican Party in 65 or 30.23 percent. In an additional 130 fields or 60.47 percent, the number identifying as Independent beats or is tied with one of the major political parties.
This should not be a surprise. This data further substantiates the monthly voter registration analysis posted on this blog.
The Nevada legislature can proactively address the overwhelming concern expressed by all the data by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017). All that is needed to start this process is a Bill Draft Request (BDR). The time is now.
(VOL.)
Other/
Rep/
Dem/
No
Unweighted
Rep
Dem
Ind
DK
Lean Rep
Lean Dem
leaning
N
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
ALL REGISTERED VOTERS
29
33
34
4
44
48
8
8113
GENDER
Men
32
26
38
4
51
41
8
4337
Women
27
40
30
4
38
54
8
3776
RACE/ETHNICITY
White, non-Hispanic
36
26
35
3
54
39
7
5895
Black, non-Hispanic
3
70
23
4
7
87
6
782
Hispanic
16
47
32
5
27
63
10
810
Asian, non-Hispanic (English-speaking, only)
18
44
32
6
27
66
7
164
GENERATION
Millennial (ages 18-35 in 2016)
22
34
41
3
36
57
7
1595
Generation X (36-51)
27
33
36
4
42
48
9
1864
Baby-Boomer (52-70)
32
34
30
4
49
45
6
3313
Silent (71-88)
40
32
23
5
53
40
7
1176
DETAILED GENERATION
Younger Millennial (18-25)
22
33
43
2
36
58
6
613
Older Millennial (26-35)
22
35
39
4
36
56
8
982
Younger Gen Xer (36-43)
24
34
37
4
38
51
11
809
Older Gen Xer (44-51)
30
32
35
3
46
46
8
1055
Younger Boomer (52-60)
32
33
32
3
48
46
6
1602
Older Boomer (61-70)
33
34
28
4
49
44
7
1711
Younger Silent (71-80)
39
33
24
4
53
41
7
928
Older Silent (81-88)
43
31
19
8
53
39
8
248
EDUCATION
College grad+
27
36
33
3
41
53
6
3956
   Postgrad
23
43
31
3
35
60
5
1289
  College grad
29
33
34
3
44
50
6
2667
Some college or less
30
32
34
4
46
46
9
4117
   Some college
30
30
36
4
46
45
9
2258
   High school or less
31
34
31
4
45
46
8
1859
FAMILY INCOME
$75,000+
33
31
34
3
49
45
6
3341
$30,000-$74,999
31
31
34
3
48
45
7
2584
<$30,000
20
43
34
3
32
60
8
1464
DETAILED FAMILY INCOME
$150,000+
33
32
32
3
46
48
6
1069
$100,000 to $149,999
34
30
33
3
51
45
4
1188
$75,000 to $99,999
31
30
35
4
48
44
8
1084
$50,000 to $74,999
32
30
35
4
49
44
6
1275
$40,000 to $49,999
31
31
35
3
47
46
7
638
$30,000 to $39,999
31
33
33
3
47
46
7
671
<$30,000
20
43
34
3
32
60
8
1464
MARITAL STATUS
Married
35
32
30
4
51
44
6
939
Unmarried
20
39
38
3
36
56
8
698
GENERATION BY GENDER
Millennial men
26
26
45
4
43
49
8
965
 Millennial women
18
43
36
2
28
66
6
630
Gen Xer men
28
27
41
4
48
43
9
1031
Gen Xer women
26
39
31
3
37
53
10
833
Boomer men
37
27
33
3
56
38
6
1747
Boomer women
28
40
28
4
41
52
7
1566
Silent men
44
25
26
5
60
34
6
537
Silent women
37
38
20
5
48
45
7
639
EDUCATION BY GENDER 2-WAY
College grad+ men
30
27
40
3
49
45
7
2142
College grad+ women
25
45
28
3
34
61
5
1814
Some coll or less men
33
26
37
4
52
40
8
2177
Some coll or less women
28
38
31
4
40
51
9
1940
EDUCATION BY GENDER 4-WAY
Postgrad men
28
31
38
3
45
49
6
668
Postgrad women
20
52
26
2
27
69
4
621
College men
31
25
40
3
50
43
7
1474
 College women
27
41
29
3
38
56
6
1193
Some college men
33
22
40
5
53
37
10
1153
Some college women
27
38
32
4
40
52
7
1105
HS or less men
33
29
34
4
51
42
7
1024
HS or less women
29
38
29
4
40
50
10
835
REGION
Northeast
26
38
33
4
39
54
7
1396
  New England (CT ME MA NH RI VT)
19
34
44
2
35
58
8
372
  Middle Atlantic (DE DC MD NJ NY PA)
27
40
30
4
39
54
7
1241
Great Lakes-East North (IN IL MI OH WI)
29
34
34
4
45
48
8
1194
  Midwest-West North (IA KS MN MO NE ND SD)
32
27
39
3
51
40
9
573
  Midwest
30
31
36
3
47
45
8
1767
South
32
32
32
4
48
45
8
3145
  South Atlantic (FL GA NC SC VA WV)
31
32
33
5
48
45
8
1582
  South Central (AL AR KY LA MS OK TN TX)
34
31
31
4
50
42
8
1345
West
28
34
34
4
40
52
8
1805
  Mountain (AZ CO ID NM MT UT NV WY)
32
29
36
3
45
48
7
637
  Pacific (AK CA HI OR WA)
26
36
33
5
37
54
9
1168
COMMUNITY TYPE
Urban
21
43
33
4
33
60
7
2728
Suburban
32
30
34
3
48
44
7
3778
Rural
38
25
33
3
55
37
8
1390
RELIGIOUS TRADITION
White Non-Hisp Evangelical Protestant
56
14
27
3
76
20
4
1673
White Non-Hisp Mainline Protestant
38
25
34
3
55
37
8
1230
Black Protestant
3
73
20
4
6
88
6
571
Total Catholic
31
34
30
4
47
46
7
1632
  White Non-Hispanic Catholic
38
26
32
3
58
37
6
1151
  Hispanic Catholic
16
56
23
5
23
69
9
363
Mormon
48
13
35
4
69
24
7
142
Jewish
14
53
32
1
24
74
2
188
Total Unaffiliated
12
39
45
3
25
66
9
1681
  Atheist
11
45
40
4
17
74
9
294
  Agnostic
8
40
50
1
21
72
7
352
  Nothing in particular
14
37
45
4
29
62
9
1035
RELIGIOUS TRADITION BY GENERATION
White NH evangelical Prot Millennial
57
13
27
3
78
20
3
198
White NH evangelical Prot Xer
57
9
32
2
79
16
4
324
White NH evangelical Prot Boomer
56
15
27
3
78
19
3
765
White NH evangelical Prot Silent
56
19
21
5
70
24
6
348
White NH mainline Prot Millennial
37
21
40
3
55
34
12
173
White NH mainline Prot Xer
36
26
36
2
53
38
9
234
White NH mainline Prot Boomer
37
26
35
2
56
39
6
545
White NH mainline Prot Silent
45
30
22
3
57
37
6
251
Total Catholic Millennial
28
37
32
3
42
53
5
246
Total Catholic Xer
28
35
34
3
43
48
10
367
Total Catholic Boomer
33
33
30
4
50
44
6
724
Total Catholic Silent
37
31
25
7
55
37
8
267
White NH Catholic Millennial
40
23
35
2
60
36
3
130
White NH Catholic Xer
35
29
33
3
54
39
7
245
White NH Catholic Boomer
38
26
34
2
57
37
6
540
White NH Catholic Silent
42
26
26
6
62
32
6
217
Total Unaffiliated Millennial
9
38
51
2
22
72
6
566
Total Unaffiliated Xer
13
36
45
5
28
61
11
424
Total Unaffiliated Boomer
15
44
38
3
27
63
10
563
Total Unaffiliated Silent
15
47
36
2
23
69
7
104
AMONG WHITE NON-HISPANIC REGISTERED VOTERS
ALL WHITE NON-HISPANIC VOTERS
36
26
35
3
54
39
7
5895
GENDER
Men
39
19
38
3
61
32
7
3168
Women
34
32
31
3
47
46
7
2727
GENERATION
Millennial (ages 18-35 in 2016)
30
25
43
2
47
47
5
966
Generation X (36-51)
35
25
37
3
53
38
9
1251
Baby-Boomer (52-70)
38
26
33
3
57
37
6
2571
Silent (71-88)
44
27
24
4
59
35
6
998
DETAILED GENERATION
Younger Millennial (18-25)
30
24
45
1
49
49
3
344
Older Millennial (26-35)
29
26
41
3
46
46
7
622
Younger Gen Xer (36-43)
32
27
38
4
49
40
10
519
Older Gen Xer (44-51)
37
24
36
3
56
37
7
732
Younger Boomer (52-60)
38
25
35
2
58
36
6
1189
Older Boomer (61-70)
39
27
31
3
56
38
6
1382
Younger Silent (71-80)
45
26
26
3
60
34
5
778
Older Silent (81-88)
43
30
19
8
54
38
8
220
EDUCATION
College grad+
32
32
34
3
47
48
5
3069
  Postgrad
28
39
32
2
42
55
3
997
  College grad
34
29
34
3
50
45
5
2072
Some college or less
39
22
36
3
58
34
8
2811
   Some college
37
22
38
3
57
36
8
1610
   High school or less
41
22
33
3
59
33
8
1201
FAMILY INCOME
$75,000+
37
26
34
3
55
40
5
2634
$30,000-$74,999
39
23
35
2
58
36
6
1894
<$30,000
29
30
38
2
45
47
8
867
DETAILED FAMILY INCOME
$150,000+
38
29
32
2
52
43
4
860
$100,000 to $149,999
38
25
34
3
57
39
4
933
$75,000 to $99,999
36
26
35
3
54
38
8
841
$50,000 to $74,999
38
24
35
3
58
37
6
973
$40,000 to $49,999
38
23
37
2
57
36
7
465
$30,000 to $39,999
42
21
34
2
60
35
5
456
<$30,000
29
30
38
2
45
47
8
867
MARITAL STATUS
Married
39
26
32
4
56
38
6
686
Unmarried
26
31
40
3
47
46
7
424
GENERATION BY GENDER
Millennial men
33
18
46
3
54
39
7
598
 Millennial women
26
33
40
40
57
4
368
Gen Xer men
36
19
42
3
59
33
7
700
Gen Xer women
34
31
32
4
47
43
10
551
Boomer men
42
19
36
3
65
29
6
1368
Boomer women
34
32
30
3
49
44
7
1203
Silent men
48
20
28
5
66
29
5
460
Silent women
42
33
22
4
54
40
6
538
EDUCATION BY GENDER 2-WAY
College grad+ men
34
24
39
3
54
40
5
1681
College grad+ women
30
40
29
2
41
55
4
1388
Some coll or less men
42
16
38
3
65
28
7
1480
Some coll or less women
36
28
33
3
51
40
8
1331
EDUCATION BY GENDER 4-WAY
Postgrad men
32
27
38
3
52
44
4
524
Postgrad women
24
49
26
1
33
64
3
473
College men
35
22
40
3
55
39
6
1157
 College women
33
35
30
3
45
50
5
915
Some college men
41
14
41
4
64
28
8
818
Some college women
34
29
34
3
50
42
8
792
HS or less men
43
18
35
3
66
28
7
662
HS or less women
39
27
31
3
52
38
9
539
REGION
Northeast
32
31
34
3
47
47
6
1056
  New England (CT ME MA NH RI VT)
22
31
46
2
38
55
7
311
  Middle Atlantic (DE DC MD NJ NY PA)
35
32
31
3
51
45
5
880
Midwest
34
26
36
3
53
40
8
1453
  Great Lakes-East North (IN IL MI OH WI)
34
27
35
4
52
41
7
954
  Midwest-West North (IA KS MN MO NE ND SD)
35
24
39
2
55
37
8
499
South
42
21
33
3
62
32
6
2127
  South Atlantic (FL GA NC SC VA WV)
40
21
35
3
62
31
6
1078
  South Central (AL AR KY LA MS OK TN TX)
46
20
31
3
64
29
6
914
West
33
28
36
3
47
45
7
1259
  Mountain (AZ CO ID NM MT UT NV WY)
37
23
38
2
51
41
7
485
  Pacific (AK CA HI OR WA)
31
31
34
4
45
48
7
774
COMMUNITY TYPE
Urban
29
33
36
3
45
49
6
1713
Suburban
38
24
35
3
56
37
7
2898
Rural
43
21
33
3
61
32
7
1164
RELIGIOUS TRADITION
White Non-Hisp Evangelical Protestant
56
14
27
3
76
20
4
1673
White Non-Hisp Mainline Protestant
38
25
34
3
55
37
8
1230
White Non-Hispanic Catholic
38
26
32
3
58
37
6
1151
Mormon
52
11
36
1
71
22
7
120
Jewish
13
53
33
1
22
75
2
178
White non-Hisp Total Unaffiliated
14
38
46
3
27
65
8
1240
  Atheist
11
46
40
3
16
77
6
232
  Agnostic
8
43
48
1
19
73
8
279
  Nothing in particular
16
33
47
3
33
57
9
729
AMONG BLACK NON-HISPANIC REGISTERED VOTERS
ALL BLACK NON-HISPANIC VOTERS
3
70
23
4
7
87
6
782
GENDER
Men
4
63
28
4
6
85
8
379
Women
2
75
18
4
7
89
4
403
GENERATION
Millennial (ages 18-35 in 2016)
3
58
33
6
9
84
7
183
Generation X (36-51)
3
70
25
2
6
88
6
227
Baby-Boomer (52-70)
3
77
15
4
6
89
5
300
EDUCATION
College grad+
2
69
26
2
6
89
5
283
  Postgrad
3
76
19
2
5
91
4
103
  College grad
2
66
30
2
6
88
6
180
Some college or less
3
70
22
5
7
87
6
498
   Some college
3
66
25
5
9
85
6
241
   High school or less
3
73
19
5
5
88
7
257
FAMILY INCOME
$75,000+
3
66
26
4
6
86
8
221
$30,000-$74,999
2
70
23
5
8
88
5
236
<$30,000
4
72
21
2
7
88
5
268
RELIGIOUS TRADITION
Black non-Hisp Protestant
3
73
20
4
6
88
6
571
Black non-Hisp Total Unaffiliated
4
65
28
3
10
87
4
100
AMONG HISPANIC REGISTERED VOTERS
ALL HISPANIC VOTERS
16
47
32
5
27
63
10
810
GENDER
Men
17
40
38
6
32
57
10
427
Women
15
53
28
5
21
68
10
383
GENERATION
Millennial (ages 18-35 in 2016)
14
44
38
4
24
66
10
288
Generation X (36-51)
13
45
38
4
25
61
14
209
Baby-Boomer (52-70)
20
54
19
7
30
64
6
229
EDUCATION
College grad+
16
48
31
4
26
66
8
278
Some college or less
16
47
33
5
27
63
11
526
   Some college
20
43
34
4
30
59
11
231
   High school or less
13
49
32
7
24
65
11
295
FAMILY INCOME
$75,000+
26
38
32
3
41
54
6
243
$30,000-$74,999
14
48
33
5
25
64
10
262
<$30,000
10
55
32
3
18
74
9
226
NATIVE/FOREIGN BORN
Native born
18
46
33
3
30
62
8
549
Foreign born
11
50
30
9
20
66
14
246
RELIGIOUS TRADITION
Hispanic Catholic
16
56
23
5
23
69
9
363
Hispanic Total Unaffiliated
7
39
50
4
24
62
14
166

Proudly powered by WordPress