Blog – Page 12

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

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. This is a decrease of one from February.

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.

February 2, 2018February 2, 2018

Non-Partisan Continues to Lead Voter Registration Growth

The new year has begun and for voter registration trends, the direction is the same; Non-Partisan leading the pack in voter share growth and the Democratic Party unable to stem the tide of losing. The GOP’s ground game still appears to be working as the party gained voter share most notably among voters 18 to 34 years of age. And while the Democratic Party is losing voter share in all Congressional districts, 20 of 21 State Senate districts, and 36 of the 42 State Assembly districts, Non-Partisan, the Republican Party, and the minor parties are gaining in those important chambers.

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	1,863	0.33	38.66	-0.05
R	2,516	0.51	33.51	0.01
NP	2,010	0.65	21.34	0.04
Other	472	0.50	6.49	0.00
Total not D or R			27.83	0.04

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.56/0.00%; Lib 0.97/0.00%; other 5 parties -0.16/-0.01%

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	1,565	0.36	42.22	-0.08
R	2,069	0.69	29.29	0.04
NP	1,641	0.72	22.34	0.04
Other	344	0.55	6.15	0.00
Total not D or R			28.49	0.04

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.62/0.00% Lib 0.98/0.00%; other 5 parties -0.08/-0.01%

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	306	0.35	35.15	-0.01
R	291	0.31	37.66	-0.02
NP	266	0.53	20.05	0.03
Other	-120	-0.67	7.07	-0.07
Total not D or R			27.12	-0.04

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.54/0.01%; Lib 0.92/0.01%; other 5 parties -0.44 / -0.01%

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-8	-0.02	23.61	-0.04
R	156	0.16	51.37	0.00
NP	103	0.32	17.54	0.03
Other	53	0.38	7.48	0.02
Total not D or R			25.02	0.05

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.33/0.01%; Lib 1.00/0.01%; other 5 parties -0.19/0.00%

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	402	0.27	38.52	-0.08
R	665	0.75	23.22	0.06
NP	626	0.54	30.25	0.02
Other	123	0.40	8.02	-0.01
Total not D or R			38.27	0.01

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.44/0.00%; Lib 1.01/0.01%; other 5 parties -0.28/-0.01%

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	877	0.36	39.27	-0.04
R	1,290	0.52	40.68	0.02
NP	546	0.60	14.79	0.02
Other	200	0.62	5.25	0.01
Total not D or R			20.04	0.03

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.60/0.01%; Lib 1.33/0.00%; other 5 parties 0.22/0.00%

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	0	4	0
Other	0	1	3

CD 1, CD 2, and CD 4 continue to show the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties.

State Senate Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	20	1	0
Republican	7	12	2
Non-Partisan	2	18	1
Other	6	9	6

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	36	5	1
Republican	13	29	0
Non-Partisan	2	38	2
Other	23	14	5

Our representative form of government may be in jeopardy. With nearly 30 percent of voters (40 percent among voters 18 – 34 years of age) not registered to vote in one of the two major political parties, under 15 percent of registered voters will select who the remaining 85 percent have to settle, most times the lesser of two evils, and chose between in November. Government is not representative under this process.

Nevadans for Election Reform has a better idea. We can and must make our governing institutions truly representative.

January 3, 2018January 15, 2018

Voter Share Loses Haunt Democratic Party in 2017

2017 year-end voter registration numbers are in and the Democratic Party lost nearly a full percent in voter share in 2017. Non-Partisan was the big winner gaining nearly one-half a percent in voter share with voters 18 to 34 years of age registering the highest variances. In December, voter share loses continue to plague the Democratic Party across all demographics and in all legislative districts. Once again the party lost voter share in all four Congressional districts, all state senate districts, and all but two state assembly district while the Republican Party showed mixed results for the month and overall increase in voter share for 2017.

The end of 2017 also showed another milestone; all demographics tracked below have at least 20 percent of registered voters not registered as either Democratic or Republican.

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %	Voter Share Dec. 2016	Yearly Gain / Loss (Difference due to computer rounding)
D	811	0.14	38.71	-0.05	39.55	-0.84
R	1,210	0.25	33.50	-0.01	33.11	0.39
NP	1,674	0.54	21.30	0.06	20.88	0.43
Other	250	0.26	6.49	0.00	6.46	0.03
Total not D or R			27.79	0.06

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.30/0.00%; Lib 0.76/0.00%; other 5 parties -0.32/-0.01%

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %	Voter Share Dec. 2016	Yearly Gain / Loss (Difference due to computer rounding)
D	1,302	0.30	42.30	-0.08	43.23	-0.93
R	1,421	0.48	29.25	0.00	28.88	0.36
NP	1,874	0.83	22.30	0.08	21.79	0.51
Other	350	0.56	6.15	0.00	6.15	0.05
Total not D or R			28.45	0.08

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.30/0.01% Lib 0.90/0.00%; other 5 parties -0.09/-0.01%

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %	Voter Share Dec. 2016	Yearly Gain / Loss (Difference due to computer rounding)
D	-90	-0.10	35.16	-0.05	35.83	-0.67
R	157	0.17	37.68	0.05	37.09	0.59
NP	29	0.06	20.02	0.00	19.84	0.17
Other	7	0.04	7.14	0.00	7.24	-0.10
Total not D or R			27.16	0.00

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.00/0.00%; Lib 1.09/0.01%; other 5 parties -0.79 / -0.01%

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %	Voter Share Dec. 2016	Yearly Gain / Loss (Difference due to computer rounding)
D	-401	-0.91	23.65	-0.07	24.31	-0.66
R	-368	-0.38	51.37	0.11	51.04	0.33
NP	-229	-0.70	17.52	-0.02	17.23	0.28
Other	-107	-0.77	7.46	-0.01	7.41	0.05
Total not D or R			24.98	-0.03

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -0.78/-0.01%; Lib -0.40/0.00%; other 5 parties -1.29/0.00%

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %	Voter Share Dec. 2016	Yearly Gain / Loss (Difference due to computer rounding)
D	-45	-0.03	38.59	-0.04	39.63	-1.03
R	111	0.13	23.16	0.01	22.74	0.41
NP	311	0.27	30.23	0.06	29.58	0.64
Other	-108	-0.35	8.02	-0.03	8.04	-0.02
Total not D or R			38.25	0.03

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -0.15/-0.01%; Lib 0.34/0.00%; other 5 parties -1.50/-0.03%

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %	Voter Share Dec. 2016	Yearly Gain / Loss (Difference due to computer rounding)
D	698	0.29	39.32	-0.05	40.07	-0.76
R	974	0.39	40.67	-0.01	40.49	0.17
NP	702	0.78	14.77	0.05	14.29	0.48
Other	178	0.56	5.25	0.01	5.16	0.08
Total not D or R			20.02	0.06

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.54/0.01%; Lib 1.13/0.00%; other 5 parties 0.24/0.00%

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	2	1
Non-Partisan	1	3	0
Other	1	2	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	21	0	0
Republican	8	10	3
Non-Partisan	3	17	1
Other	3	18	0

In 15 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. This number is unchanged from November.

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	40	1	1
Republican	19	20	3
Non-Partisan	11	30	1
Other	9	27	6

As voters continue to leave the two major political parties, our election system becomes in jeopardy of electing representatives at all levels of government that do not represent the constituency as a whole. This is not healthy for any segment of society. For this not to happen, the system needs to change to meet the needs of the changing political environment. The decision is ours. Nevadans for Election Reform provides the way.

December 1, 2017January 15, 2018

November Voter Registration Numbers Not Smiling On The Democratic Party

November voter registration data is out and it does not look good for the Democratic Party. Across all demographics; state-wide, Clark County, Washoe County, the rural counties, among voters 18 – 34 years of age and those 55 and over, the party lost voter share while Non-Partisan gained in all but Washoe County where it was unchanged. Minor party registration did almost as well losing share only in Washoe County, gaining in the rural counties and remaining even in the other areas. The Democratic Party also lost voter share in all 21 state senate districts and 41 of the 42 state assembly districts. In assembly district 40 (37,231 active registered voters) the party lost 990 voters while Non-Partisan gained 1,000.

The growth in voter share of the Republican Party is worth noting. Until August, the GOP was suffering similar loss of voter share as the Democratic Party. The party seems to have, at least temporarily, reversed that trend gaining voter share each of the past four months. We will see if this new trend continues.

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	1,563	0.28	38.76	-0.08
R	2,686	0.55	33.51	0.02
NP	2,403	0.78	21.25	0.06
Other	419	0.45	6.49	0.00
Total not D or R			27.74	0.06

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.49/0.00%; Lib 1.08/0.01%; other 5 parties -0.28/-0.01%

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	1,458	0.34	42.38	-0.10
R	1,968	0.66	29.25	0.02
NP	2,120	0.94	22.23	0.08
Other	364	0.58	6.14	0.00
Total not D or R			28.37	-0.08

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.62/0.00% Lib 1.44/0.01%; other 5 parties -0.19/-0.01%

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	104	0.12	35.21	-0.05
R	406	0.43	37.63	0.07
NP	118	0.24	20.01	0.00
Other	-4	-0.02	7.14	-0.02
Total not D or R			27.15	-0.02

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.10/-0.01%; Lib 0.16/0.00%; other 5 parties -0.58 / -0.01%

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	1	0.00	23.73	-0.07
R	312	0.33	51.26	0.02
NP	165	0.51	17.53	0.04
Other	59	0.42	7.48	0.01
Total not D or R			25.01	0.05

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.41/0.01%; Lib 0.90/0.01%; other 5 parties -0.28/0.00%

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	106	0.07	38.63	-0.14
R	671	0.76	23.15	0.07
NP	773	0.68	30.17	0.07
Other	119	0.39	8.06	0.00
Total not D or R			38.23	0.07

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.21/-0.01%; Lib 1.11/0.01%; other 5 parties 0.17/0.00%

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	917	0.38	39.37	-0.06
R	1,413	0.57	40.68	0.01
NP	729	0.82	14.72	0.04
Other	213	0.67	5.24	0.01
Total not D or R			19.96	0.05

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access. Change is # voters / voter share: IAP 0.74/0.01%; Lib -0.66/0.00%; other 5 parties 0.16/0.00%

By district voter share changes.

Congressional Districts

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

CD 1, CD 2, and CD 4 continue to show the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties.

State Senate Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	21	0	0
Republican	5	15	1
Non-Partisan	1	19	1
Other	10	6	5

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	41	0	1
Republican	9	28	5
Non-Partisan	4	38	0
Other	16	17	9

Except for the segment of voters 55 years of age and older, well over a quarter of voters are not affiliated with either major political party. Among those 18 – 34 years of age, the number is rapidly approaching 40 percent. For government to function for all citizens, this voluntary disengagement must be addressed. Nevadans for Election Reform provides the means.

November 2, 2017January 15, 2018

Routine Voter List Maintenance Benefits GOP

The secretary of state’s office performed routine voter list maintenance* in October. While the overall number of active registered voters declined by over 36,000, the Republican Party came out the winner increasing voter share in all categories. The maintenance had mixed results for Non-Partisan and minor parties, however, the bad news continues for the Democratic Party; they lost voter share across all demographics.
(* Routine voter list maintenance is done quarterly and involves the moving of voters found to be inactive from the active to inactive lists, the removal of voters reported to be deceased, and removal of voters who have unregistered)

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-17,616	-3.03	38.84	-0.24
R	-6,440	-1.31	33.48	0.38
NP	-9,033	-2.86	21.18	-0.09
Other	-3,001	-3.09	6.49	-0.04
Total not D or R			27.67	-0.13

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -2.60 / -0.01%; Lib -2.20% / 0.00%; other 5 parties -5.71% /-0.04

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-17,768	-3.96	42.48	-0.18
R	-7,174	-2.36	29.22	0.36
NP	-9,360	-4.00	22.15	-0.10
Other	-3,102	-4.74	6.14	-0.08
Total not D or R			28.29	-0.18

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -4.04% /-0.02%; Lib -4.01% / 0.00%; other 5 parties –7.70% / -0.05%

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	220	0.25	35.25	-0.04
R	431	0.46	37.57	0.03
NP	212	0.43	20.02	0.01
Other	59	0.33	7.17	0.00
Total not D or R			27.19	0.01

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP +0.33% / 0.00%; Lib +0.88% / 0.01%; other 5 parties -0.15 / -0.01%

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-68	-0.15	23.79	-0.09
R	303	0.32	51.24	0.06
NP	115	0.35	17.50	0.03
Other	42	0.30	7.47	0.01
Total not D or R			24.97	0.04

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP +0.18% / 0.00%; Lib +1.43% / 0.01%; other 5 parties -0.46% / 0.00%

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-8,094	-5.20	38.77	-0.38
R	-2,065	-2.30	23.07	0.47
NP	-5,237	-4.37	30.09	-0.03
Other	-1,629	-5.05	8.06	-0.06
Total not D or R			38.15	-0.09

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -4.47% / -0.01%; Lib -3.47% / +0.01%; other 5 parties -7.82% / -0.07%

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-3,566	-1.46	39.43	-0.16
R	-1,600	-0.64	40.66	0.17
NP	-886	-0.98	14.68	0.01
Other	-486	-1.50	5.23	-0.02
Total not D or R			19.91	-0.01

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters / voter share: IAP -1.38% / -0.01%; Lib -0.47% / 0.00%; other 5 parties -3.05% / -0.01%

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	0	4	0
Non-Partisan	3	1	0
Other	3	1	0

CD 1, CD 2, and CD 4 continue to show the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties.

State Senate Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	20	1	0
Republican	1	20	0
Non-Partisan	15	5	1
Other	17	4	4

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	37	4	1
Republican	3	39	0
Non-Partisan	32	9	1
Other	35	5	2

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. As was the case in the senate, the changes in AD 9 and 42 reverted back, however, the overall number did not change.

When routine voter list maintenance is performed, decreases in all data elements are the norm. Whether the increase in GOP voter share is strictly a result of this or if other factors also are influencing growth will not be known for a few months.

With candidates for state and federal offices entering the races just seven months before the closed primaries, voter share will become increasingly important. If trends remain intact, fewer voters will be determining who all voters chose between next November in the general election. Voters voluntarily putting themselves in that position send a clear message that the system is broken. Nevadans for Election Reform has the fix.

October 16, 2017January 15, 2018

Compromise or Collaborate – There is a BIG Difference – OPINION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 4, 2017January 15, 2018

Democratic Party Continues to Take a Beating in Voter Registration

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

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

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

State-Wide

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

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

Clark County

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

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

Washoe County

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

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

Rural Counties

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

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

18 – 34 Year Old

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

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

55+

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

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

Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.

Congressional Districts

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

CD 1, CD 2, and CD 4 continue to show the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties.

State Senate Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	20	1	0
Republican	7	13	1
Non-Partisan	2	19	0
Other	13	4	4

In 16 districts (76.19%); an increase of one over August, 2017, the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or the total number not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties. Note the Democratic Party continues a major loss of voter share.

State Assembly Districts

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

In 31 districts (73.81%) the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or the total number not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties. While the overall number did not change, in AD 9 the percentage of those not affiliated with either major party now exceeds the percent registered in the Republican Party and in AD 42 the percent registered as Non-Partisan exceeds the GOP voter share. As in the senate, the Democratic Party continues to experience a major loss of voter share.

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

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