Blog – Page 11

August 1, 2018September 15, 2018

Trend Returns; Non-Partisan Gain Share While Major Parties Lose

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

Voter registration statistics for July show the trend returning; Non-Partisan gaining voter share while the major parties lose, substantiating my belief last month that major party increases, especially in the Democratic Party, were the result of voter shock of not being able to vote in some major races in the primary because of minor party or Non-Partisan voter registration. Exceptions to the trend: Democratic gain in Washoe County and GOP gain among in the rural counties and with voters 55 years of age and older.

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	2,057	0.37	38.45	0.00
R	1,610	0.32	33.95	-0.02
NP	1,678	0.54	21.22	0.04
IAP	101	0.06	4.41	-0.01
LIB	69	0.48	0.99	0.00
Other	-4	-0.03	0.97	0.00
Total not D or R			27.59	0.03

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	2,958	0.61	42.11	-0.03
R	1,958	0.65	29.75	-0.01
NP	1,961	0.88	22.11	0.04
IAP	425	0.48	4.15	-0.01
LIB	120	1.32	0.91	0.01
Other	102	1.04	0.97	0.00
Total not D or R			28.14	0.04

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-710	-0.78	35.27	0.09
R	-1,087	-1.12	37.39	-0.03
NP	-505	-0.96	20.32	0.01
IAP	-365	-1.58	4.49	-0.03
LIB	-68	-2.05	1.27	-0.01
Other	-112	-3.36	1.26	-0.03
Total not D or R			27.34	-0.06

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	169	0.38	23.18	-0.05
R	739	0.75	51.74	0.07
NP	222	0.66	17.68	0.01
IAP	41	0.16	5.74	-0.03
LIB	17	0.81	1.11	0.00
Other	6	0.56	0.56	0.00
Total not D or R			25.09	-0.02

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	1,067	0.72	38.45	0.01
R	382	0.43	23.53	-0.06
NP	1,066	0.93	30.13	0.07
IAP	138	0.63	4.62	0.00
LIB	21	0.32	1.74	-0.01
Other	6	0.10	1.53	-0.01
Total not D or R			38.02	0.05

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	518	0.21	38.99	-0.02
R	1,063	0.42	41.23	0.06
NP	133	0.15	14.63	-0.02
IAP	-47	-0.19	4.14	-0.02
LIB	-1	-0.04	0.45	0.00
Other	2	0.06	0.57	0.00
Total not D or R			19.79	-0.04

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

By district voter share changes.

Congressional Districts

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

CD 1and CD 2 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	15	4	2
Republican	6	13	2
Non-Partisan	3	17	1
IAP	16	3	2
LIB	5	10	6
Other	8	9	4

In 15 districts (71.14%) 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. There was no change from June.

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	29	10	3
Republican	19	22	1
Non-Partisan	7	33	2
IAP	27	10	5
LIB	10	20	12
Other	19	16	7

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. There was no change from June.

Going into July, the question was would the major party share gains of June continue. Given the intense voter registration efforts currently being conducted by the parties and candidates, it was possible. The fact the growth does not appear to be continuing reinforces the idea that voters may not share the parties’ visions or current paths and are more comfortable not affiliating with any political party. This also highlights the need for change in how we conduct our elections so the growing number of voter not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party are equally represented.

July 2, 2018

Did Voters Who Got Denied Partisan Ballots Spark Increase In Major Party Voter Share?

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

The secretary of state released the voter registration statistics for June and they raise interesting questions. Did voters who were registered Non-Partisan get surprised when they were denied partisan ballots when they went to vote in the primary? While it doesn’t matter for the general election, were voters excited about some of the partisan races and want to make certain they can vote in future primaries? The increases in Democratic Party voter share and decreases in Non-Partisan voter share across the demographics leads me to believe the answer to both questions is “yes”.

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	8,623	1.56	38.46	0.09
R	5,830	1.19	33.96	-0.04
NP	3,502	1.14	21.19	-0.04
IAP	1,092	0.88	4.43	-0.02
LIB	219	1.53	0.99	0.00
Other	306	2.20	0.97	0.01
Total not D or R			27.58	-0.05

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	8,038	1.92	42.14	0.09
R	4,953	1.67	29.76	-0.01
NP	3,056	1.39	22.07	-0.07
IAP	1,003	1.26	4.15	-0.02
LIB	180	2.01	0.90	0.00
Other	300	3.14	0.97	0.01
Total not D or R			28.09	-0.08

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	409	0.45	35.18	0.02
R	261	0.27	37.42	-0.04
NP	284	0.54	20.31	0.03
IAP	47	0.25	4.52	-0.01
LIB	14	0.42	1.28	0.00
Other	4	0.12	1.29	0.00
Total not D or R			27.40	0.02

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	176	0.40	23.24	-0.03
R	616	0.63	51.67	0.05
NP	162	0.49	17.67	-0.01
IAP	42	0.14	5.76	-0.02
LIB	25	1.21	1.10	0.01
Other	2	0.19	0.56	0.00
Total not D or R			25.09	-0.02

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	3,277	2.30	38.44	0.13
R	1,290	1.46	23.59	-0.11
NP	2,110	1.89	30.06	-0.02
IAP	600	1.90	4.62	0.00
LIB	150	2.31	1.75	0.01
Other	123	2.15	1.54	0.00
Total not D or R			37.97	-0.01

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	2,841	1.19	39.02	0.06
R	3,004	1.19	41.17	0.06
NP	359	0.40	14.64	-0.09
IAP	178	0.25	4.15	-0.03
LIB	-1	-0.04	0.45	0.00
Other	115	3.38	0.57	0.01
Total not D or R			19.81	-0.11

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

By district voter share changes.

Congressional Districts

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

CD 1and CD 2 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	7	14	0
Republican	12	8	1
Non-Partisan	15	6	0
IAP	14	3	4
LIB	5	7	9
Other	3	11	7

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	13	28	1
Republican	21	19	2
Non-Partisan	26	13	3
IAP	29	8	5
LIB	8	16	18
Other	6	23	13

It will be interesting to see if this trend continues or if the trend returns to normal; major parties losing voter share while Non-Partisan and minor parties increase. It also raises the often-heard question, why should membership in a private organization be required to vote in any election?

June 26, 2018

Winning With Less Than Ten Percent Support Is Not Representative Democracy – Opinion

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

The candidates waged good campaigns. They appealed to the electorate and were victorious. But do they represent their constituencies? The answer to this question does not reflect on the candidates. It is a symptom of a process that prevents a majority from casting a vote for who represents them in state or local government; a clear example of voter suppression by statute. The answer is “no”.

Under current Nevada law, seven candidates won their seats outright in the primary election just held. In four of those races, the winner garnered less than six percent support from all voters in the district and less than 15 percent of their registered party voters. The other three races were only slightly higher. Approximately 55 percent of voters were prohibited from voting.

In the 2016 primary election, when the current law was first applied, there were 21 races that were won outright. In 13 of those races, 13 candidates received the support of less than 10 percent of the total district voters and less than 20 percent of their party. Since most of these races were Republican candidates in largely Republican districts on average just under 50 percent of voters could not cast ballots, however in one race it was 61 percent.

Another cause of these low numbers is that turnout for primary elections averages around 20 percent while general election turnout is between 65 and 85 percent dependent on whether it is a presidential election year. With fewer voters participating, mandating that a final decision is made as a result of the primary, flies in the face of representative democracy.

How could this happen and why did the legislature allow it to continue after voter suppression became clear?

Nevada has closed partisan primary elections. This mean that only members of the Democratic and Republican Party get to vote for partisan offices in their respective parties’ primary. Prior to 2016 this was not a problem because if only one party had candidates, no minor party or independent candidate filed for a particular office, all voters in the general election got to cast their vote for their preferred candidate from that party between the top two candidates from that party’s primary. The 2015 Nevada legislature changed the law so that if only one party has candidates for a particular office and no minor party or independent candidate has filed, the winner of the party’s primary goes to the general election unopposed. Voters from any other political party or voters registered as Non-Partisan have no choice, no voice in who their representative is. Currently this covers almost 30 percent of voters state-wide and close to 40 percent of voters between the ages of 18 to 34.

During the 2017 legislative session, a bill sponsored by a Republican and co-sponsored by three Democratic Assembly members, was filed to reverse this grievous mistake. The bill was voted out of committee on a vote of 9 -2 with two Democratic Assembly members voting “no”. The bill was then pulled from the floor by the Speaker and Assembly Majority Leader, both Democratic lawmakers, denying the full assembly the chance to vote on the bill. The bill died, leaving the voter suppression measure in place. Only two words describe this event, “voter suppression.”

There will most likely be another attempt to right this wrong during the 2019 state legislative session. However, it strongly appears the same leadership will be in control so the chances of passage or a repeat of 2017 are unknown.

There is another way, through the ballot box.

All voters must have a clear choice in all elections and must know their voice will be heard. Nevadans for Election Reform has taken aim at this goal by filing the Greater Choice – Greater Voice initiative with the secretary of state. Signatures are currently being collected to qualify for the 2020 ballot. If passed by the voters, the low turnout primary elections will no longer be held. Voters will go to the polls only in November and have a choice of all candidates. Additionally, voters will be able to cast a vote for their first, second, and third choice, similar to making the many choices we make every day. No more having to “settle” or be concerned about wasting your vote. Taxpayers will also save between $3 – 4 million; the state’s Legislative Counsel Bureau Financial Analysis Division just release the required analysis of the initiative and found if the proposed process had been in place for the 2016 election, taxpayers would have saved $6 million.

Voter suppression, denying voters the opportunity to cast a vote for their representatives must not be tolerated. Those responsible must be held accountable. If they refuse to fix it, the voters must act.

June 1, 2018June 2, 2018

Primary Early Voting Starts – Major Parties Still Lost Voter Share

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

Early voting has started for the primary elections but voter registration for May, leading up to the election, showed both the Democratic and Republican Party lose voter share. For the Democratic Party the only bright spot was among those 18 to 34 years of age when voter share stayed flat. The GOP fared slightly better picking up share in the rural counties and among those 55 and older. This corresponds to the only areas where Non-Partisan registration lost voter share. The Independent American Party gained share in Clark County and among those 18 to 34, but some of that gain was most likely voters who meant to register as “independent” (Non-Partisan). The Libertarian Party did slightly better, gaining share in both Clark and Washoe County, losing slightly state-wide, and remaining flat elsewhere. These trends also show across state senate and assembly districts. While all registration groups gained raw number of voters (except in the rural counties), Non-Partisan and minor parties grew at a greater percentage.

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	5,631	1.03	38.37	-0.01
R	4,359	0.90	34.01	-0.05
NP	4,124	1.37	21.22	0.07
IAP	920	1.07	4.45	0.00
LIB	218	1.55	0.99	0.00
Other	21	0.15	0.97	-0.01
Total not D or R			27.63	0.06

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	5,620	1.36	42.06	-0.03
R	3,486	1.19	29.78	-0.07
NP	3,902	1.80	22.14	0.08
IAP	1,029	1.85	4.17	0.02
LIB	176	2.01	0.90	0.01
Other	99	1.05	0.96	0.00
Total not D or R			28.17	0.11

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	665	0.74	35.16	-0.02
R	683	0.71	37.47	-0.03
NP	571	1.10	20.28	0.06
IAP	102	0.66	4.53	-0.01
LIB	56	1.73	1.28	0.01
Other	-31	-0.92	1.29	-0.02
Total not D or R			27.38	0.04

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-654	-1.47	23.27	-0.22
R	190	0.20	51.61	0.38
NP	-349	-1.04	17.68	-0.09
IAP	-211	-1.36	5.78	-0.05
LIB	-14	-0.67	1.10	0.00
Other	-47	-4.23	0.56	-0.02
Total not D or R			25.12	-0.16

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	2,749	1.97	38.31	0.00
R	1,232	1.42	23.71	-0.13
NP	2,623	2.40	30.08	0.13
IAP	550	2.31	4.63	0.02
LIB	131	2.06	1.74	0.00
Other	31	0.55	1.54	-0.02
Total not D or R			37.99	0.13

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	1,364	0.57	38.96	-0.02
R	2,100	0.84	41.11	0.09
NP	241	0.92	14.74	-0.05
IAP	81	0.36	4.19	-0.01
LIB	6	0.22	0.45	0.00
Other	-18	-0.53	0.55	-0.01
Total not D or R			19.93	-0.07

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

By district voter share changes.

Congressional Districts

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

CD 1and CD 2 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	17	4	0
Republican	15	5	1
Non-Partisan	3	18	0
IAP	10	10	1
LIB	2	9	10
Other	14	3	4

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	32	9	1
Republican	25	16	1
Non-Partisan	6	35	1
IAP	17	21	4
LIB	9	20	13
Other	29	5	8

Since Nevada has closed primary elections, both the Democratic and Republican Parties stress that unless you register to vote as a party member you will not be able to vote in the key nominating races. This usually leads to slight increases in voter share the month before the primary election. The fact that this did not happen in May could be a further indicator that voters are tired of the hyper-partisan political environment and are resigned to “settling between the lesser of two evils” in November

May 11, 2018

New Pew Research Poll Shows Political System Still Broken

In a poll released April 26, 2018 titled “The Public, the Political System and American Democracy” the Pew Research Center presents data that shows our political system remains broken and that while most agree on the ideals of American democracy, similar percentages do not believe they accurately describe the current political environment.

The poll covered 23 items asking respondents if each was 1) very important to the U.S. and 2) if it currently describes the country well. All 23 items were said to be very important while only eight were labeled as currently describing the county well. The poll can be read here and is worth the time to read.

Some highlights

40 percent believe democracy is not working well
61 percent say significant changes in the design and structure of our government are needed
58 percent view the quality of presidential candidates as bad; 33 percent for congressional candidates and 26 percent for local candidates
Clear majorities do not see :

views of the minority respected
government being transparent
political debate being respectful
the major political parties working together

75 percent do not think elected officials act in the public’s best interest 40 percent have a favorable opinion of the Democratic and Republican Party
60 percent believe there is at least one candidate in every election who shares their views, however, the poll does not say if that is the candidate they vote for
61 percent do not think their Congressperson would help them address a problem

76 percent believe government is run by special interests

53 percent of those 18 to 29 years of age believe their vote matters compared to 61 percent overall
68 percent think personally insulting a political opponent should be “off-limits” but the poll does not ask about acceptance of negative campaigning
44 percent say elected officials should compromise with the opposing side

Regardless of one’s political views, I believe these numbers are troubling.

May 2, 2018

GOP Loses Voter Share in April; First Time in Six Months

For the first time in six months, voter share for the Republican Party in Nevada declined. According to the data released by the secretary of state’s office the loss was across the board; state-wide, Clark County, Washoe County, the rural counties, and among voters between the ages of 18 to 34 and 55 and over. Conversely, voter share of Non-Partisan increased in those same demographics. Non-Partisan also gained voter share in all 21 state senate districts and 38 of the 42 state assembly districts.

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	5,330	0.98	38.38	0.03
R	2.785	0.58	34.06	-0.11
NP	3,796	1.27	21.16	0.08
IAP	832	0.92	4.45	0.00
Lib	202	1.45	0.99	0.01
Other	64	0.46	0.97	0.00
Total not D or R			27.57	0.09

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	4,632	1.13	42.09	0.03
R	1,991	0.68	29.85	-0.11
NP	3,046	1.43	22.06	0.08
IAP	725	1.24	4.16	0.01
Lib	160	1.86	0.89	0.01
Other	60	0.64	0.96	0.00
Total not D or R			28.07	0.10

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	601	0.67	35.17	0.01
R	435	0.46	37.50	-0.07
NP	560	1.10	20.22	0.09
IAP	54	0.30	4.53	-0.02
Lib	23	0.71	1.27	0.00
Other	-3	-0.09	1.31	-0.01
Total not D or R			27.33	0.06

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	97	0.22	23.49	-0.04
R	-30	-0.03	51.24	-0.21
NP	190	0.57	17.76	0.03
IAP	53	0.37	5.83	-0.01
Lib	19	0.92	1.10	0.01
Other	7	0.63	0.58	0.00
Total not D or R			25.27	0.03

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	2,277	1.66	38.31	0.10
R	589	0.68	23.84	-0.17
NP	1,811	1.69	29.95	0.08
IAP	367	1.29	4.61	0.00
Lib	109	1.74	1.74	0.01
Other	17	0.30	1.56	-0.02
Total not D or R			37.86	0.07

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	1,577	0.67	38.98	-0.01
R	1,598	0.64	41.02	-0.02
NP	819	0.92	14.79	0.03
IAP	201	0.64	4.20	0.00
Lib	12	0.43	0.45	0.00
Other	6	0.18	0.56	0.00
Total not D or R			20.01	0.03

Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others

By district voter share changes.

Congressional Districts

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

CD 1and CD 2 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	5	14	2
Republican	19	1	1
Non-Partisan	0	21	0
Other	7	10	4

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	21	17	4
Republican	36	6	0
Non-Partisan	2	38	2
Other	13	21	8

We are six weeks away from the primary election. In spite of this Non-Partisan is showing increase in voter share. There are seven races, four Democratic and three Republican that will be decided in the primary as only one party has candidates. An average of over 50 percent of voters in those districts will have no say in who represents them.

April 4, 2018April 5, 2018

March Voter Roll Maintenance Benefits GOP

March is one of the months the secretary of state’s office performs routine maintenance of the voter rolls. Usually both the number of voters and the percent of voter share in each category falls. Not this time. While the number of voters declined in all but Washoe County, the Republican Party came out the winner in voter share gaining 0.58 percent.

Whether this gain is the luck of the draw, an indication of an on-going successful voter registration drive, or a combination of the two, it cannot be ignored. How this will look come November is one question. Another question is if this is the result of voter registration efforts, where along the partisan spectrum do these new Republican voters fall and how will it impact the result of the primary election?

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-27,501	-4.82	38.34	-0.22
R	-12,931	-2.60	34.17	0.58
NP	-17,443	-5.52	21.08	-0.28
Other	-5,232	-5.46	6.41	-0.08
Total not D or R			27.49	-0.36

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -3.89/0.02%; Lib -3.89/0.00%; other 5 parties -13.26/–0.10%

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-27,953	-6.40	42.06	-0.09
R	-13,127	-4.31	29.96	0.59
NP	-17,923	-7.74	21.98	-0.37
Other	-5,317	-8.36	6.00	-0.14
Total not D or R			27.98	-0.51

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -6.11/0.00% Lib -6.43/0.00%; other 5 parties -18.31/-0.14%

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	714	0.81	35.17	0.03
R	476	0.50	37.57	-0.09
NP	537	1.06	20.13	0.07
Other	119	0.66	7.14	-0.01
Total not D or R			27.27	0.06

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.77/0.00%; Lib 1.19/0.01%; other 5 parties -0.21 / -0.01%

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-262	-0.59	23.52	-0.06
R	109	0.11	51.44	0.23
NP	-57	-0.17	17.73	0.03
Other	-34	-0.24	7.51	0.01
Total not D or R			25.24	0.04

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -0.11/0.01%; Lib -0.77/0.00%; other 5 parties -0.54/0.00%

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-11,033	-7.43	38.21	-0.17
R	-4,073	-4.50	24.01	0.63
NP	-9,583	-8.19	29.86	-0.38
Other	-2,488	-8.03	7.92	-0.09
Total not D or R			37.78	-0.47

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -5.69/0.07%; Lib -5.03/0.04%; other 5 parties -16.96/–0.19%

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-7,129	-2.93	38.99	-0.21
R	-4,243	-1.68	41.04	0.30
NP	-2,509	-2.73	14.76	-0.05
Other	-1,019	-3.12	5.22	-0.04
Total not D or R			19.98	-0.09

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -2.48/0.00%; Lib -2.47/0.00%; other 5 parties -8.41/-0.04%

By district voter share changes.

Congressional Districts

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

CD 1and CD 2 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. CD 4 dropped out of this range.

State Senate Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	12	7	2
Republican	4	17	0
Non-Partisan	16	5	0
Other	17	3	1

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	21	20	1
Republican	11	31	0
Non-Partisan	29	11	2
Other	35	5	2

In 32 districts (76.19%) the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or the total number not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties. This is an increase of one from February.

The months leading up to the primary election will be interesting. Will the GOP trend continue, and will it translate to primary election turnout and the candidates nominated? More important is what happens between the primary and general election.

March 19, 2018March 19, 2018

Candidates Have Filed – We Shouldn’t Have to “Settle”

The candidates for all federal state, and local offices up for election this year have filed to run. The number of candidates for any particular office range from one to 23 (CD 3). Click here for the full list. Of course, all voters will not have a voice in who their choices are in the general election and due to a change made by the 2015 state legislature, over 50 percent of voters will not have any say, even in the general election, in who represents them in six races.

Because primary election participation averages less than 20 percent, approximately seven percent of all voters will decide who the rest of the voters get to choose from in the general election and in the six races mentioned above, decide the winner.

Having our choices made by others then having to “settle” is the nature of not only our current electoral process but our current political environment. Yes, eligible registered voters should actually vote. Yes, a voter could register to vote in either the Republican or Democratic Party to be eligible to vote in the primary. But the partisan divisiveness and intra-party bickering has driven voters away from not only the parties but from participation. This is the problem. Party membership is not growing. Nearly 30 percent of active registered voters in Nevada are not registered to vote in either the Republican or Democratic Party. Over 20 percent are registered as Non-Partisan. This percentage increases every month. The numbers are 10 percent higher among those 18 to 34 years of age and the growth is occurring not only state-wide but individually in Clark County, Washoe County, the rural counties, among 18 to 34-year olds, among those 55 and over, and in most congressional, state senate, and state assembly districts.

Because of the dwindling number of voters participating in the nomination process, those making the decision for all voters are usually the small, highly partisan, and most vocal party loyalists. Campaigns are largely attack ads and candidates are rewarded with nomination for remaining steadfast in party dogma and holding to an inflexible position, not willing to collaborate and reach consensus with those holding different opinions. Often this position carries over to legislating, maintaining an environment where solutions remain elusive.

During the general election campaign, there may be an attempt to discuss issues and solutions because candidates must appeal to a wider array of voters (this should be the norm not the exception), however, negativity overshadows genuine discussion of the issues as there is no reason to show a willingness to reach consensus with the “other side”. What if this wasn’t the way it needed to be?

What would this election look like if it was conducted according to the Greater Choice – Greater Voice initiative? Imagine:

Having to vote only once in the general election
Having a choice among all candidates
Not having to settle but actually vote your conscience, vote for the candidate you truly prefer without being considered a “spoiler” vote
Voting not only for your first choice, but your second and third, knowing your vote will still count if your first choice is eliminated, just as we make many choices on any given day
Candidates debating the issues and possible solutions rather than just attacking their opponent
Elected officials having to collaborate, work together to reach consensus and solve problems rather than being rewarded for maintaining the hyper-partisan divisiveness
The state saving $3 – $4 million each election cycle
All this while maintaining political parties’ first amendment right of association

Think of the election results if all voters could choose their top three candidates in each race from all; 17 running for governor, 15 running for U.S. Senate, 23 running to represent Congressional District 3. What about the state legislature races where there are three, four, five, or six candidates or the local races with similar numbers? Imagine all voters having a real choice.

Governor		First Choice	Second Choice	Third Choice
Russell Best	Independent American
Jared Fisher	Republican
Stanleigh “Stan” Lusak	Republican
Henry Thorns	Democrat
William “Bill” Boyd	Republican
Dan Schwartz	Republican
Jared Lord	Libertarian
Stephanie Carlisle	Republican
Asheesh Dewan	Democrat
Steve Sisolak	Democrat
Chris Giunchigliani	Democrat
Adam Paul Laxalt	Republican
David Jones	Democrat
Ryan Bundy	No political party
Frederick L. Conquest	Republican
Edward F. Dundas	Republican
John Bonaventura	Democrat

With all candidates vying for all votes, a real discussion of the issues would have to take place. Those serious but lesser known candidates would have a greater chance of being heard. No candidate would be marginalized unless they chose to be.

When discussion of the issues is limited to those candidates who, because of existing name recognition, get media attention, ideas and potential solutions from other candidates are only disseminated by the individual campaigns to the extent possible, rarely making it into the main discussion. By opening the entire election process to all voters, all serious candidates have a chance to be heard. Many of these lesser-known candidates are concerned with the direction of government and the lack of real problem-solving. They are concerned with the direction their political party is headed. Some are first-time candidates who have the passion to make a difference and have decided the best way to do that is to run for office. Yet because of the process, their voices are not heard. We have no idea what we are missing. Is a front-runner also missing an idea they had never considered but which may appeal to them?

Take another look at the list of candidates. Answer the following questions:

Without thinking of their chances to win the primary, which candidate is my favorite?
Will I vote for this candidate even if they do not have any chance of winning?
If you answered “yes” to the above question, do you consider your vote to be a spoiler?
If you answered “no” to the above question, why not?
If you answered “no” would you have ranked that candidate as your first choice and other candidates second and third choice if that was allowed?
Would you be upset if your vote went to your second choice if your first choice was eliminated?
Do you think being able to rank candidates; ranking three from all candidates, gives you a greater voice in the election?

March 2, 2018

Republican Ground Game is Working But Will it Result in Votes

The voter registration numbers for February 2018 are out.

For the past few months the national Republican Party has been aggressive in targeting Nevada to increase voter registration in the party. Using an extensive data-driven process, the effort is paying off. Whether this will result in increased GOP turnout in the primary election and votes for GOP candidates in November will have to be seen. However, with the Democratic Party continuing to lose voter share across all tracked demographics, the GOP must feel energized.

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	2,316	0.41	38.57	-0.09
R	4,239	0.86	33.59	0.07
NP	2,310	0.74	21.36	0.02
Other	580	0.61	6.49	0.00
Total not D or R			27.85	0.02

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.66/0.00%; Lib 0.94/0.00%; other 5 parties 0.11/-0.01%

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	1,249	0.29	42.15	-0.08
R	2,270	0.75	29.37	0.08
NP	1,165	0.51	22.35	0.01
Other	199	0.31	6.14	-0.01
Total not D or R			28.49	0.00

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.36/0.00% Lib 0.72/0.00%; other 5 parties -0.18/-0.01%

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	175	0.20	35.14	-0.01
R	209	0.22	37.66	0.00
NP	143	0.28	20.06	0.01
Other	228	1.28	7.14	0.07
Total not D or R			27.20	0.08

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.23/0.00%; Lib 0.31/0.00%; other 5 parties -0.09 / 0.00%

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	892	2.03	23.58	-0.03
R	1,760	1.85	51.21	-0.16
NP	1,002	3.08	17.70	0.16
Other	348	2.51	7.51	0.03
Total not D or R			25.21	0.19

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 2.30/0.01%; Lib 2.87/0.01%; other 5 parties 3.94/0.01%

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	581	0.39	38.38	-0.14
R	1,255	1.41	23.37	0.15
NP	867	0.75	30.24	0.00
Other	201	0.65	8.01	-0.01
Total not D or R			38.25	-0.01

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.89/0.01%; Lib 0.78/0.00%; other 5 parties -0.07/-0.01%

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	1,016	0.42	39.20	-0.08
R	1885	0.75	40.74	0.06
NP	671	0.73	14.81	0.02
Other	207	0.64	5.26	0.01
Total not D or R			20.07	0.03

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.64/0.00%; Lib 0.89/0.00%; other 5 parties 0.40/0.00%

By district voter share changes.

Congressional Districts

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

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	19	2	0
Republican	2	18	1
Non-Partisan	4	12	5
Other	9	9	3

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

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	37	4	1
Republican	5	36	1
Non-Partisan	10	26	6
Other	23	13	1

As we are now three months away from the primary election that will determine the choices all voters must select from in November, the composition and size of the primary election turnout will be critical. If the new Republican voters turn out, will they be more moderate than the current Republican base? If the Democratic Party continues to lose voter share, how will that impact the progressive candidates?

Candidate filing opens on March 6^th. Most candidates have already announced. Several races have multiple candidates. Even with the GOP posting voter share gains, nearly one-third of voters are not affiliated with either major party. Only a small number of voters are choosing the candidates for all voters with many then settling for the lesser of two evils in general election. What would the results be if all voters had a choice of all candidates in November?

February 18, 2018February 18, 2018

Once Elected Officials Start Working Together – The Next Step – OPINION

Another school shooting, more “thoughts and prayers”. These words are followed by more rhetoric, dogmatic talking points, and the same recommended “solutions”.

Violence in our schools and neighborhoods is not the only issue suffering from this type of tired response. Immigration, taxes, medical care, affordable housing, transportation and infrastructure, are just a few more. Partisan rhetoric, the same talking points, and the same “solutions” are presented. Since the current election process rewards maintaining divisiveness, there are not real conversations on “solutions”.

But are the “solutions” being presented, dogmatic and repetitive as they are, really solutions to the problem? No, they are merely band-aids addressing symptoms. Even if discussion takes place and remedies implemented, the issues never seem to go away, the remedies don’t last, and the problem “keeps on giving”.

Why is this? The answer is simple; root cause. Find and solve the root cause, the problem should not return.

If it’s simple why aren’t legislators doing this? Most likely they are not aware of the term or its meaning. It could be a lawyer’s mindset, win the case and move on to the next one. It could be finding the root cause is too difficult and takes too much time. These are excuses. Yes, identifying the root cause is not easy and it does take time and commitment. But, if done properly, problems are actually solved.

The current political environment is not conducive to finding and addressing root cause. Our current election process rewards politicians for maintaining the divisiveness, for being dogmatic, and not willing to respectfully discuss all sides of an issue.

Ranked choice voting and the Greater Choice – Greater Voice initiative proposed by Nevadans for Election Reform encourages elected officials to work together, to collaborate, to reach consensus. Once people start talking, the idea of identifying and solving the root cause can enter the conversation. Imagine the time and energy saved if a problem is truly solved, never having to be revisited.

Regardless of the issue, nothing will happen if those responsible for finding the solution are not willing to talk. Changing the process to encourage positive dialog is the first step that that will allow all others to be taken. Once dialog begins, the root cause can be identified. Real solutions not band-aids to symptoms can become the rule not the very rare exception.