Author: Doug Goodman

Approximately 41 percent of eligible voters in Nevada are not registered to vote. Of the 59 percent who are, less than 46 percentvoted in the general election of November, 2014. Or to put it bluntly, 73 percent of eligible voters in Nevada just didn’t care.¹

Eligible voters do not register to vote, or do not vote if they are, for basically the same reasons, mostly no interest or lack of time. Missing the registration deadline or not knowing where or how to register are also major reasons for not registering followed closely by lack of knowledge about the candidates or issues, lack of confidence in government, and voting doesn’t make a difference.

 In an attempt to fix low voter registration, states are starting to consider automatically registering eligible voters when they apply for a driver’s license or state identification card. The governors of Oregon and California signed bills in 2015 implementing such a system. Similar bills are pending in 25 states and the District of Columbia. The concept of automatic voter registration (AVR) initially had bipartisan support. However, with the increased partisan rhetoric of the presidential campaigns, support is now aligning along party lines, Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

I’ve heard that in keeping with their Nevada Blueprint, Democratic lawmakers in the Silver State plan on filing a bill draft request (BDR) for the 2017 Nevada legislative session seeking to bring AVR to the state. But will automatically registering a person to vote get that person to actually vote or will the impact of AVR be simply to decrease election turnout rates?

For those who fail to register to vote because they missed the deadline or did not know where or how to register, automatic voter registration will resolve their issue, provided they apply for or renew a driver’s license or state identification card. But what about the remaining 75 percent of eligible voters not registered to vote? 

Simply being registered to vote will not convince the person who didn’t register because they were not interested, didn’t want to take time to learn about the candidates or issues, have lost confidence in government, or don’t think their vote matters, to vote. Opponents of AVR stress voting is a personal responsibility. I believe these reasons for not registering support their argument. However, if those voters’ interest were piqued, if they saw government return to being an institution that embraced respectful disagreement and worked towards collaborative consensus, if they were given a reason to learn about the candidates and issues, and saw that their vote did matter, would the likelihood of them becoming active voters increase? The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) is a means to make the answer, “yes”.

The current hyper-partisan political environment has turned people off not only to the political parties but to the entire process. A single election held in November using Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV) as proposed in NEMRA – 2017 can help reverse this trend. RCV / IRV forces candidates to reach out to a more diverse electorate. Appealing simply to the small party base is no longer a clear path to election. Second-choice votes could be the difference between winning and losing. Voters exposed to RCV / IRV elections have noticed a decrease in the negative tone of campaigns.

The goal of those who support AVR is to remove roadblocks to voting allowing more eligible voters to go to the polls. The goal of RCV / IRV is to return civility to the election and governing process and increase voter participation in elections. These goals are mutually supportive to the benefit of all. Question to Nevada legislators; companion bills?

The overwhelming perception, and there’s much truth behind it, is that money plays the most important role in American politics, from the lowest level campaigns and policies to those of national and global importance. Whether that power is rightfully earned or is the result of voters, candidates, and elected officials unwittingly bestowing it is a question up for debate. Given the apparent level of distain for the influence of money in our political system, is there a way to curtail it?

While data is extremely scarce given the relatively short period of time the process has been used in elections, there is a belief that Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff voting (RCV / IRV) could provide a path towards loosening the grasp of money on our political and governing system.

In a March, 2014 MinnPost opinion piece, former Minnesota United States Senator David Durenberger explains how. RCV / IRV changes the dynamic of elections and policymaking possibly reducing the need for excessive dollars. His opinion cannot be discounted.  Could voters be ready to cause a shift away from money’s influence in state and local races?

In state and local races, national super political action committees (Super PACs) are increasing their spending in an attempt to influence election results. The goal is to elect candidates that share their positions on national issues. This can redirect campaign debate away from important local and state issues towards the hyper-partisan national debate. However, this needn’t be the case.

Elections where voters go to the polls once, for a general election using RCV / IRV, requires candidates speak to a wider audience. Appealing to the small party base as is done in a low turnout primary will no longer ensure election. They must focus on appealing to all voters, general election mode, but with the added advantage that besides first-choice votes, they are looking for second-choice votes that could be the difference between winning or losing. According to Senator Durenberger, this type of campaign requires increased use of forums, town halls, and knocking on doors. Talking directly to voters, addressing the issues, is what wins the election. Attack ads and mudslinging will not guarantee victory on Election Day. Meeting and speaking with voters costs less. A candidate or incumbent running for re-election is a safe district, one where voter registration overwhelmingly favors one party over another, may still have an advantage, however, given the continuing growth of voters registered as Non-Partisan, even safe districts are not so safe. At the end of January, 2016, the number of Nevada voters registered as Non-Partisan or when combined with those registered in a minor party either exceeded or was within five percent of those registered as either Democratic or Republican in 11 of the 21 (52.38%) state senate districts and 25 of the 42 (59.52%) state assembly districts.

I’ve been told that holding a single election in November using RCV / IRV will increase the money needed to be spent because a candidate in a safe district has to be in general election mode, appeal to the greater electorate. The ability to win the election in the primary, where the focus is on only the smaller party base would not be present. I’ve also been told that large donors such as major companies would have to change their donation practices, either increasing the amount of money they allocate to political purposes or reducing the amount of individual donations. Supposedly these donors give to several candidates in the primary election so their chance of having influence following the general election is increased. I do not refute the validity of these statements. However, is it possible the opposite would happen? Less cash available across the board would require candidates to conduct their campaigns as alluded to by Senator Durenberger. RCV / IRV could actually decrease the influence of money in our political system. It is also possible that because RCV / IRV has the potential to increase interest in the election, the amount raised from individual voters could grow.  

Change is not easy. But where would we be today if society had not embraced the many changes that have occurred over the past 50 years? Baby Boomers (my generation) gave way to Gen X and Millennials (our children and possibly grandchildren). The Millennials, those 18 – 34 years of age are now the largest generation. They also are registering to vote as Non-Partisan at much higher rate than other generations. All indications are they are not embracing and will not embrace the politics of the past.  If our cities, counties, state, and nation are to make progress, the younger generations must believe their participation now will make the difference between success and failure.  

In one year, February, 2017, the Nevada legislature can take a major step in showing the generations that are our future their opinions matter, that their participation in our governing processes is important by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).  

In an update to their 2014 study, “The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown,” to be released this week, the Pew Research Center along with their former executive vice president Paul Taylor present data that should not surprise anyone. The hyper-partisan divide infecting our political structure is not only still active, it may have gotten worse.

Some highlights:

The use of partisan ideology as criteria for personal relationships is increasing. Added to this is an increasing level of distrust, denial of opposing facts, and doubt of motives and love of country. The authors observe “It’s as if they belong not to rival parties but alien tribes.”

The two major parties are becoming more demographically homogeneous. As the country grows less white and social tolerance gains acceptance among the younger yet largest generation, the shrinking party bases are becoming less inclusive. The Republican Party base is now whiter, older, more religious, and socially conservative. In contrast, the Democratic Party base is younger, racially diverse, secular, and more acceptant of social differences. This homogeneity is further highlighted in the growing generational gap in voting trends.

 Partisan beliefs continue to be a major and growing consideration in determining where we chose to live, who we chose as friends, who we marry, and where we get our information.

As the partisan divide becomes wider, more voters are choosing to abandon political parties in general. While this trend is present in all generations, it is most prevalent among the millennial generation, those between the ages of 18 and 34. This becomes more important since this generation is now the largest. As I post each month, this is true in Nevada where the percentage among this age group registered to vote as Non-Partisan is 10 percent higher than the overall state percentage.

Those wanting elected officials to collaborate, work together, and compromise are the new “silent majority”. However, in this age of social media and the accompanying pontification, there is no leader able to overcome the volume of the hyper-partisan extremes.

Election turnout plays a major role in allowing this partisan divide to survive. Historically, older voters tend to vote in non-presidential years in far greater numbers that younger voters. With ideological extremes dominating, this has created the large swings we have witnessed; a Democratic president re-elected and a strongly conservation congress maintaining a majority on the national level and a shift to the right in state governments

I posted two articles highlighting the growing partisan divide in 2014. Those posts are available hereand here. As shown in this updated work by Pew Research and Paul Taylor, this divide is widening, negatively impacting our political systems and overall society.

The Nevada legislature can take a step to reverse this polarizing trend when they next meet in February, 2017 by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act. 

Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. These nine states and our nation’s capital currently share a place on the political stage.

Nineteen. That is the number of bills dealing with the implementation of ranked choice / instant runoff voting (RCV / IRV) currently under consideration in the nine state legislatures and Washington D.C. city council. Voters in Maine are not waiting for the legislation. A ballot initiative implementing RCV / IRV for all state and federal elected offices except President of the United States is on the ballot this November.

Legislators in nine states and the District of Columbia city council realize that just talking about the heightened level of political polarization does not solve the problem. They realize that to effectively govern, to do the job they were elected to do, requires people with opposing views to work together, respectfully listen to all opinions, and then develop solutions to the problems facing their constituents. To create the environment where that can take place takes action. They have not just talked. They have acted.

 In 2017 when the next regular session of the Nevada legislature convenes, state legislators can join the ranks of those who choose action. By enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017), lawmakers will address the issues of:

NEMRA – 2017 will also contribute to solving another major problem facing Nevada’s elections. Our voting equipment and software is old and nearing obsolescence. Both will need to be replaced in the very near future. By eliminating at least $3 – 4 million from the cost of administering elections, NEMRA – 2017 will allow county governments and the legislature to redirect those funds towards this critical need.

Nine and nineteen. That is only a piece of election related legislation pending in the states. At present there are 567 bills dealing with issues such as absentee ballots, voter registration, internet voting, voting by mail, types of primary elections, and the creation of committees and task forces to look into voting-related topics pending in various states.

The issue of election reform has the attention of state legislators and voters. Nevada legislators do not have to wait until 2017 to act.  A bill draft request (BDR) can be filed now. 

In November 2016, voters in South Dakota and Maine will have the opportunity to change the way elections are held in their state. The changes, placed on the ballot by initiative petition, recognize the growing numbers of voters not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party and the importance of ending the hyper-partisanship that dominates much of the political landscape.

In South Dakota, voters will decide whether to change the state’s Constitution, replacing the current partisan primary elections with a non-partisan primary and general election. Under the proposed constitutional amendment, all candidates will be listed on the primary ballot without party affiliation or status as an independent. All voters, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof will be allowed to vote. Party affiliation or status as an independent will also not be listed on the general election ballot. The right of any persons to belong to a political party is maintained as is the right of political parties to endorse or support a candidate or candidates. Public funds may not be used by the parties for these purposes.  Currently, 21 percent of South Dakota voters are not registered in either the Democratic or Republican Party. The Democratic Party currently has 33 percent voter share while the Republican Party has 46 percent.

In Maine, 44 percent (39 Independent / 5 other) of registered voters do not identify as either Democratic or Republican.  Voter share for the major parties currently is 33 percent and 23 percent respectively. This measure has roots in the state legislature. The initiative was started by a current and former member of that body. Supporters gathered enough signatures so voters will decide whether or not to eliminate the state’s closed primary system and instead use a single general election using Rank Choice / Instant Run-off voting (RCV / IRV).  This is similar to the proposal now being presented to Nevada legislators.

It’s too soon to know what voters in South Dakota and Maine will decide. Enough voters signified support by signing the petitions placing the measures on the ballot.

The growing trend of dissatisfaction with the two major political parties is not likely to be reversed in the near future. To successfully govern may require elected officials to adopt systems that create an environment where collaboration and cooperation are rewarded by increased voter approval. The 2017 session of the Nevada legislature can do its part, by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).