On June 24th, following 18 months of study, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Political Reform released its report titled “Governing in a Polarized America: A Bipartisan Blueprint to Strengthen our Democracy”. Why is this important and what does it have to do with the proposed Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA)?
First, a little about the BPC. It is a Washington, DC-based think tank dedicated to promoting bipartisanship in governing throughout the nation. It was founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker (R-TN), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Bob Dole (R-KS), and George Mitchell (D-ME). It’s current Co-Chairs are Daschle; Dan Glickman, Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and U.S. Representative (D-KS); Dirk Kempthorne, Former Governor of Idaho, U.S.
Secretary of the Interior, and U.S. Senator (R-ID); Trent Lott, Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader (R-MS); and Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator (R-ME). Its 24 Commissioners are either former federal or state elected or appointed officials and leaders of non-profit political or social action groups and think tanks. Nevada can be proud that Elaine Wynn, National Chairman, Communities in Schools and current President, Nevada State Board of Education is among them.
The report examines three major areas of concern; electoral system reform, congressional reform, and increasing citizen involvement, making specific recommendations that both state and the federal government can act upon to improve and strengthen the process of governing.
Why is this important and what does it have to do with the proposed Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act? Within the section on electoral system reform, the commission looks at primary elections and recommends states enact systems that expand participation allowing the maximum number of voters to cast ballots regardless of party affiliation. Systems put in place should be able to achieve primary election turnout of 30% by 2020 and 35% by 2026. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act should accomplish this by 2018 if implemented for the 2016 election.
The partisan divide in the U.S. goes beyond legislative bodies. It now permeates our daily lives. A poll conducted last year by BPC and USA TODAY shows Americans are self-segregating along partisan lines in their communities and jobs. In that poll, 37% of the Republicans and 34% of the Democrats indicated the people they talk to in their communities are mostly from the same political party while only 17% of Republicans and 18% of Democrats said that most of their neighborhood interactions were with individuals of a different party. On the job, 28% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats indicated the people they talk to are mostly from the same political party and only 12% of Republicans and Democrats indicated that their conversations on the job were mostly with individuals of a different party. It has gotten worse!
In a poll released by Pew Research on June 12th of this year 63% of consistent conservatives and 49% of consistent liberals say most of their close friends share their political views. Of those polled with mixed ideology, only 25% say the same. The Pew poll also showed that 50% of those on the right and 35% of those on the left also are more likely to say it is important to them to live in a place where most people share their political views.
Could political divisiveness impact who we select as a marriage partner similar to religion and race? According to the Pew Poll, “yes”. 30% of consistent conservatives and 23% of consistent liberals say they would be unhappy if an immediate family member married a member of the opposing political party.
Approval ratings for governing bodies are at an all-time low. Yet, as we see from election results, voters do not quite realize they have direct control over who is elected to represent them. The increasing divide and decreasing participation reduces the risk politicians are exposed to by not working towards consensus. By enacting election practices such as specified in NEMRA, states can reverse this trend that infects our government and our society in general. By increasing participation, the risk of not governing effectively and efficiently is increased. In politics as in mostly everything, the more risk accepted the greater the chance of failure. Conversely, the more effective and efficient our government becomes, the benefits extend to our private lives, raising the quality of life and enjoyment of our personal interactions.
The BPC report recommends that both major political parties take strides to broaden their base of support. Other articles on this blog address how NEMRA does just that and how broadening that base benefits the party both in membership and financially. In addressing polarization, BPC further recommends the political parties try to engage a larger piece of the electorate rather than concentrating on being 100% ideologically pure. They see this resulting in a more engaged electorate. A more engaged electorate will turn out to vote. In a primary election this means those voting represent a more accurate picture of the population at large and hence, those advancing to the general election and being elected would reflect those wider views. This broader appeal increases the likelihood of election. These points are all accomplished under NEMRA.
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Political Reform substantiates every goal of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act. It is now up to Nevada’s legislators. Will Nevada lead the way, set the example for the rest of the country? It is up to us to make it happen
A nonpartisan reform that is 61% of the way to go into effect is The National Popular Vote bill.
A survey of Nevada voters showed 72% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 80% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 68% among Others.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 75% among 18-29 year olds, 61% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 73% for those older than 65.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 80% among women and 63% among men.
Now minority party voters in each state are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.
In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.
If presidential campaigns polled, organized, visited, and appealed to more than the current 100,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.
National Popular Vote would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws.
The bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but later enacted by states).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.
When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.
The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have been by state legislative action.
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls: AK – 70%, AR – 80%, AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CO – 68%, CT – 74%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, FL – 78%, IA –75%, ID – 77%, KY- 80%, MA – 73%, ME – 77%, MI – 73%, MN – 75%, MO – 70%, MS – 77%, MT – 72%, NC – 74%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NM– 76%, NV – 72%, NY – 79%, OH – 70%, OK – 81%, OR – 76%, PA – 78%, RI – 74%, SC – 71%, SD – 71%, TN – 83%, UT – 70%, VA – 74%, VT – 75%, WA – 77%, WI – 71%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Republican, Democratic, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote