Blog

Posted on

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

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

Posted on

More Voters Identify As Independent Than Democratic or Republican

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

Posted on

Close of Voter Registration – Non-Partisans and Minor Party Will Determine Outcome

Voter registration for the 2016 general election has closed. Some interesting numbers: -5.87%,    -3.92%, +19.21%, +7.93%. These are the percentage of change in voter share since the last presidential election for the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, Non-Partisan, and minor parties. Here is the 2012 to 2016 comparison.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share – 2012
% Voter Share – 2016
Difference in Voter Share %
% Change
D
50,693
9.62
41.90
39.44
-2.46
-5.87
R
52,062
11.92
34.73
33.17
-1.36
-3.92
NP
85,229
38.86
17.44
20.79
3.35
19.21
Other
19,214
25.78
5.93
6.40
0.47
7.93
Total not D or R
23.37
27.19
3.82
16.35
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +8.95%; Lib +5.84%; other 5 parties +114.10%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share – 2012
% Voter Share – 2016
Difference in Voter Share %
% Change
D
48,545
12.44
45.82
43.09
-2.73
-5.96
R
33,753
12.84
30.85
29.12
-1.73
-5.61
NP
70,055
46.24
17.78
21.76
3.98
22.38
Other
14,145
29.95
5.54
6.03
0.49
8.84
Total not D or R
23.32
27.79
4.47
19.17
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +9.12%; Lib +57.86%; other 5 parties +170.00%
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share – 2012
% Voter Share – 2016
Difference in Voter Share %
% Change
D
3,701
4.77
37.60
35.86
-1.74
-4.63
R
6,197
6.74
38.08
37.25
-0.83
-2.18
NP
9,407
22.11
17.62
19.70
2.08
11.80
Other
2,757
17.03
6.71
7.19
0.48
7.15
Total not D or R
24.33
26.89
2.56
10.52
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +2.92%; Lib +57.20%; other 5 parties +50.18%
 Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share – 2012
% Voter Share – 2016
Difference in Voter Share %
% Change
D
-1,553
-3.38
27.94
24.23
-3.71
-13.28
R
12,112
14.76
49.92
51.45
1.53
3.06
NP
5,794
22.93
15.37
16.97
1.60
10.41
Other
2,312
20.80
6.77
7.34
0.57
8.42
Total not D or R
22.14
24.31
2.17
9.80
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +15.97%; Lib +63.0%; other 5 parties +16.76%
Voter registration for the 18 days of October strengthen the assumption that in addition to turnout, those registered as Non-Partisan and in minor parties will determine the outcome. Younger voters, those between the ages of 18 to 34 should also have a major impact. Their numbers grew by just over 10 percent in these 18 days. That is on top of the seven percent growth recorded for that demographic in September. Another point that should gain attention is that in 18 days many of the changes in voter share exceed + / – one-half percent.
Early voting has begun. As voters head to the polls, the trend, fewer voters associating with either major political party continues.  We will know the true impact in a few weeks.
 State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
29,102
5.30
39.44
-0.12
R
17,751
3.77
33.37
-0.61
NP
25,164
9.01
20.79
0.64
Other
6,252
7.15
6.40
0.09
Total not D or R
27.19
0.73
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +5.06%; Lib +10.73%; other 5 parties +12.59%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
24,562
5.93
43.09
-0.17
R
12,382
4.36
29.12
-0.55
NP
19,277
9.53
21.76
0.64
Other
4,371
7.67
6.03
0.08
Total not D or R
27.79
0.72
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +5.89%; Lib +11.71%; other 5 parties +11.14%
 Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
3,249
3.56
35.86
-0.18
R
2,168
2.26
37.25
-0.66
NP
3,716
7.71
19.70
0.66
Other
1,208
6.81
7.19
0.18
Total not D or R
26.89
0.84
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +3.0%; Lib +9.50%; other 5 parties +18.08%
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,291
3.0
24.23
-0.29
R
3,201
3.52
51.45
-0.32
NP
2,171
7.51
16.97
0.53
Other
673
5.28
7.34
0.08
Total not D or R
24.31
0.61
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +4.25%; Lib +8.44%; other 5 parties +10.50%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
13,378
9.46
39.45
-0.21
R
6,168
7.17
22.87
-0.61
NP
13,914
13.16
29.68
0.82
Other
3,409
11.81
8.01
0.13
Total not D or R
37.69
0.95
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +8.64%; Lib +15.20%; other 5 parties +16.77%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
5,951
2.56
40.05
-0.05
R
4,984
2.10
40.64
-0.24
NP
3,669
4.53
14.20
0.26
Other
1,008
3.42
5.11
0.04
Total not D or R
19.31
0.30
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +2.78%; Lib +4.02%; other 5 parties +7.65%
 Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.
Congressional Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
4
0
0
Republican
4
0
0
Non-Partisan
0
4
0
Other
0
4
0
In CD 1 there are over two percent more voters registered as Non-Partisan than Republican. When minor party registrations are added, the difference is over eight percent.
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
20
0
1
Republican
21
0
0
Non-Partisan
0
21
0
Other
0
21
0
In 13 districts (61.90%) the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or the total number not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties. This is an increase of one district over September, 2016
State Assembly Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
42
0
0
Republican
42
0
0
Non-Partisan
2
40
0
Other
0
42
0
In 29 districts (69.05%) 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 2 districts over September, 2016
This data reinforces the fact that voters are disillusioned with the current state of the political landscape and are expressing that disillusionment by not affiliating with either major political party or any political party. I do not believe the parties can reverse this feeling in the near future. They can however, recognize the landscape and adapt to it. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) provides the tool.

Posted on

2016 – Have We Reached the Pinnacle of Negativity?

Campaign Season 2016 backs up recent studies that show partisanship is the most divisive issue facing our nation and that civility has all but disappeared from our political process.  Unless something is done to reverse this trend, could we reach the point where the ability to govern ceases?
According to a Pew Research study released October 18, 2016, elected officials are viewed as least likely to act in the public’s best interest.  A clear majority, 54 percent have “not too much confidence” while another 19 percent express “no confidence”. Only three percent express a “great deal of confidence” that elected officials act in the public’s best interest.  
The impact of negativity on legislating becomes critical when looking at the recent history of divided government; one party has the presidency and the other party controls at least one chamber of Congress, and voters support or opposition for single party control.  It is also important when one party controls both the executive and legislative branches of government, minimizing or shutting out the views and input of the minority party.
It is up to candidates and elected officials to set the tone and climate of the campaigns and legislative sessions. However in recent years, the level of partisanship expressed by the vocal minority of voters (the so-called party base) makes collaboration difficult for out of fear of upsetting the base..losing the next primary election.  It is often difficult for rational, respectful dialog and debate to take place.
It does not have to be this way. Civility, the willingness to listen to opposing views, and then collaborate on solutions can be returned to our political process. Elected officials can rise from the bottom and regain the trust of all Americans. The use of Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off Voting (RCV / IRV) has shown to be the way.
In 2015, Fairvote.org released a two-year study, The Civility Project, which looked at the impact of RCV / IRV on the tone of campaigns. It also looked at voter understanding of the process. Overall, the study found campaigns were less negative according to both voters and candidates. Voters had no problem understanding the process and expressed support for it over previously used systems. Civility during the campaign should translate to more collaboration and civility when legislating.
All elections are “local”. How a state elects its representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives down to how members of a city council are elected is determined by the states. In Nevada, the legislature can take a step towards restoring civility to the campaign and legislative process by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) during the session that begins in less than four months.

Posted on

Broken Political System Biggest Cause of Negative Economic Progress and Competitiveness

Jobs and the economy are often the top concerns mentioned by voters. Now the state of our political process is being listed as the major contributor to what many see as a sluggish recovery where the middle class is being left behind.
The biggest obstacle to U.S. economic progress and competitiveness is our broken, highly partisan, political system. This is the opinion of a Harvard Business School report published last month (September, 2016).
According to the authors of the report“PROBLEMS UNSOLVED AND A NATION DIVIDED; The State of U.S. Competitiveness 2016 Including findings from Harvard Business School’s 2016 surveys on U.S. competitiveness” “..we believe that our political system is now the major obstacle to progress on the economy..” and “..that dysfunction in America’s political system is now the single most important challenge to U.S. economic progress.”
Before writing specifically about the political dysfunction, the authors cover an overview of economic competitiveness, U.S. economic performance, the business environment, the need for a national economic strategy, and tax reform.  However, there is a constant theme throughout the report. All the issues addressed require a political environment that allows for collaboration, a clear discussion of opposing points of view, and agreement on public and private actions required.
The report also mentions the findings of Pew Research, findings that I have also reported and mentioned several times, that partisanship is the most divisive issue facing this country. It also lists election reforms that could be implemented to return the political process to the point where solutions could be achieved.
If our country, our states, our counties, and our cities are to make economic progress and be competitive, our political and governing mechanisms must facilitate the implementation of programs addressing the various elements of a vibrant economic system. Civility must be a cornerstone. The willingness to actively listen to all points of view, to collaborate on solutions to the root causes must be allowed to flourish.  
During the 2015 Nevada legislative session, the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee introduced legislation to change the political climate in Nevada. The bill as introduced varied from the Bill Draft Request (BDR) and following a hearing, the bill language was stripped and the bill used for another purpose.
In 2017, legislators can take off where the  2015 session left off by filing a BDR then enacting  the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).

Jobs and the economy are often the top concerns mentioned by voters. The creation of jobs is a key argument as the Nevada legislature considers a tax increase to build a football stadium, as I write this article. Perhaps the Nevada legislature should take the findings of the Harvard Business School seriously. The key to fixing Nevada’s economy could be easier than originally thought.
Posted on

Younger Voters (18 – 34 years old) Increase by 7 Percent / Non-Partisan Tops 20 Percent

Voter registration numbers for September, 2016 have been released and two numbers stand out. The number of voters 18 – 34 years of age grew by almost seven percent. This is not quite double (75 percent) the overall increase for the state (3.86 percent). Also, for the first time, voters registered as Non-Partisan top 20 percent of total active voters.
The Democratic and Republican Parties should also be concerned in that they continue to lose voter share to Non-Partisan and minor parties and are picking up new voters at a rate less than one-half the rate of those two groups. This continuing trend resonates across all demographics.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
17,473
3.29
39.56
-0.22
R
11,643
2.53
33.98
-0.44
NP
17,614
6.73
20.15
0.54
Other
4,861
5.88
6.31
0.12
Total not D or R
26.46
0.66
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +3.47%; Lib +9.81%; other 5 parties +13.17%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
15,309
3.84
43.26
-0.27
R
8,257
2.99
29.67
-0.43
NP
14,144
7.52
21.12
0.60
Other
3,402
6.35
5.95
0.10
Total not D or R
27.07
0.70
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +3.85%; Lib +10.48%; other 5 parties +13.03%
 Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,461
1.63
36.04
-0.25
R
1,210
1.28
37.91
-0.41
NP
2,250
4.90
19.04
0.46
Other
897
5.32
7.01
0.20
Total not D or R
26.05
0.66
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +2.0%; Lib +9.27%; other 5 parties +15.13%
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
703
1.66
24.52
-0.26
R
2,176
2.45
51.77
-0.14
NP
1,220
4.41
16.44
0.26
Other
562
4.61
7.26
0.13
Total not D or R
23.70
0.39
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +2.75%; Lib +7.83%; other 5 parties +8.43%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
7,910
5.76
39.66
-0.39
R
3,577
4.34
23.48
-0.56
NP
9,162
9.46
28.86
0.62
Other
2,562
9.74
7.88
0.21
Total not D or R
36.74
0.83
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +5.40%; Lib +14.35%; other 5 parties +17.68%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
4,248
1.86
40.10
-0.13
R
4,255
1.83
40.88
-0.14
NP
3,005
3.85
13.94
0.22
Other
875
3.06
5.07
0.04
Total not D or R
19.01
0.26
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +2.19%; Lib +3.83%; other 5 parties +9.22%
Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.
Congressional Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
4
0
0
Republican
4
0
0
Non-Partisan
0
4
0
Other
0
4
0
In CD 1 the number of voters not affiliated with either major party exceeds those registered as Republican by 5.79%. The difference between GOP and Non-Partisan in CD1 is <0.25%. At the end of July, 2016 the difference was over 0.60%
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
21
0
0
Republican
21
0
0
Non-Partisan
0
21
0
Other
0
21
0
In 12 districts (57.14%) 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.
State Assembly Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
42
0
0
Republican
42
0
0
Non-Partisan
2
40
0
Other
0
42
0
In 27 districts (64.29%) 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 3 districts over August, 2016
September was National Voter Registration Month. Voters registered as Non-Partisan and not affiliated with either major political party will be a major factor in many races. By registering as Non-Partisan or in a minor party, voters are clearly stating something is wrong with either the two-party system or the way the Democratic and Republican Party are addressing the issues.
These voters’ concerns should also be recognized during the upcoming Nevada legislative session as well as in Congress and county commission and city council meetings.  The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) provides the path to accomplish this task.

Posted on

We’re in the Middle of the Mud Field and Sinking Fast (Opinion)

The current campaign season is one of the most toxic I can remember in my 55 years of paying attention. This has not happened over-night. Campaigns at all levels have been slowly becoming more negative for at least the past decade. However, since 2014, it appears candidates are in a competition not to win the election but rather to see who or which party can sling the most mud and create the widest gap between themselves and facts. Combined with the extreme negative impact of partisanship on our society, this is not healthy for our country, our state, our counties, or our cities. If this is allowed to continue, will we damage our political process beyond repair?
I’d like to borrow a song title penned by John Lennon; “Imagine”.
Just imagine:
Imagine if voters were not perceived as gullible by those sponsoring campaign ads
Imagine if voters did not “buy” what campaigns, PAC’s and Super PAC’s were currently “selling”
Imagine if media and journalists were unbiased and “reported” rather than present opinion and commentary as fact
Imagine if fact-checking was not necessary
Imagine if truth and personal integrity were the cornerstones of how candidates were judged
Imagine country, state, county, city, and all constituents, not political party, being the most important consideration of all candidates and elected officials
Imagine if voters had facts readily available on which to base decisions
Imagine if candidates could move beyond talking-points
Imagine if candidates stressed what they would do, change, and improve instead of what their opponent(s) did or will do wrong
Imagine if campaigns, candidate debates, and the act of governing were respectful discussions of the issues despite differences of opinion
Imagine if voters cast their ballot for who they believed was the most qualified not on the perception of the lesser of evils
Imagine if lawmakers were not afraid to collaborate with members of the other party
Just imagine
But looking through rose-colored glasses does not reveal reality.
We have evolved (?) into a society:
Where partisanship divides us more than any other issue
Where respect for opinions that are different from our own has nearly disappeared
Where differing opinions spark feelings of hate and even calls for violence
Where many journalists are no longer reporters but rather commentators issuing opinion presented and accepted as fact
Where the decision to publish by media appears to be based on sales potential not added value to factual discussion
Where emotion allows bent truth and lies to be accepted as fact
Where talking points built on our emotion is all we use to base our decision without questioning
Where our votes are against the opposing candidate not really for the candidate we support
Where lawmakers are fearful or outright refuse to collaborate with the other party
It has not always been like this. We’ve had presidents able to work with a divided congress. We’ve had state legislatures able to work through partisan differences. We’ve had campaign seasons where respectful discussion of the issues provided voters with the ability to make informed decisions. We’ve had journalists and media who reported facts and labeled commentary and opinion as such.
Rose-colored glasses can be turned in to clear ones. It will take hard work, determination, and the willingness to make tough decisions by lawmakers and candidates. It will take voters willing to stand up and demand facts, clear discussion of the issues, and stop “buying” the current rhetoric.
In just over four months, the Nevada legislature can take steps to change rose-colored to clear by continuing the work on election reform started during the 2015 session. By re-introducing and enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017), the groundwork will be laid. You can make your voice heard by signing the petition to legislative leaders here.

Posted on

Active Voters Shrink As Major Parties Continue to Lose Voter Share

The number of active voters in Nevada decreased in August due to routine clean-up of the voter rolls but that did not impact the continuing trend of both the Democratic and Republican Party losing voter share. What is also not changing is the fact Non-Partisan and “other” or minor political parties are growing at a faster rate than either major party.
With the 2016 general election two months away, voter registration efforts are in full swing. Given that the number of total voters, both active and inactive, increased by just under 16,000, these efforts are meeting with success. It is also clear these voters are turning away from the major political parties.  
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-6,409
-1.13
39.78
-0.10
R
-5,299
-1.14
34.42
-0.09
NP
-667
-0.25
19.61
0.13
Other
139
0.17
6.19
0.07
Total not D or R
25.80
0.20
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -1.55%; Lib +1.25%; other 8 parties +7.37%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-6,294
-1.55
43.53
0.00
R
-5,828
-2.07
30.10
-0.11
NP
-1,982
-1.04
20.52
0.10
Other
-231
-0.43
5.85
0.07
Total not D or R
26.37
0.17
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -2.56%; Lib +0.34%; other 8 parties +8.04%
 Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-60
-0.07
36.29
-0.07
R
-501
-0.53
38.32
-0.24
NP
707
1.56
18.58
0.27
Other
119
0.71
6.81
0.04
Total not D or R
25.39
0.31
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.75%; Lib +1.80%; other 8 parties +5.96%
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
307
0.73
24.78
-0.14
R
1,030
1.17
51.91
-0.07
NP
608
2.25
16.18
0.15
Other
251
2.10
7.13
0.06
Total not D or R
23.31
0.21
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +1.50%; Lib +4.45%; other 8 parties +4.77%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-919
-0.66
40.05
0.15
R
-1,690
-2.01
24.04
-0.23
NP
-251
-0.26
28.24
0.23
Other
192
0.74
7.67
0.14
Total not D or R
35.91
0.37
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -2.25%; Lib +1.58%; other 8 parties +9.03%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-1,680
-0.73
40.23
-0.08
R
-1,285
-0.55
41.02
-0.00
NP
-87
-0.11
13.72
0.06
Other
-33
-0.12
5.03
0.02
Total not D or R
18.75
0.08
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.92%; Lib +0.56%; other 8 parties +6.00%
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
2
2
0
Republican
3
1
0
Non-Partisan
0
4
0
Other
1
3
0
In CD 1 the number of voters not affiliated with either major party exceeds those registered as Republican by 5.79%. The difference between GOP and Non-Partisan in CD1 is <0.25%. At the end of July, 2016 the difference was over 0.60%
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
13
7
1
Republican
20
1
0
Non-Partisan
3
18
0
Other
0
20
1
In 12 districts (57.14%) 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.
State Assembly Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
24
17
1
Republican
39
2
1
Non-Partisan
8
34
0
Other
1
39
1
In 24 districts (57.14%) 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 an increase of 1 district over July, 2016
September, 2017 has been declared Voter Registration Month by the secretary of state. It will be interesting to see the changes at the end of the month. I expect the trend will continue providing legislators in the 2017 session of the Nevada legislature a choice. Legislators can leave the election process as is with fewer voters choosing our elected officials or they can change the process, recognizing the growing dissatisfaction among the electorate. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017), provides the mechanism for this needed change.

Posted on

Major Parties Lose Voter Share As Non-Partisan and Minor Parties Out Front in Growth

The Nevada Democratic Party could be seeing the impact of Bernie Sanders supporters. The Republican Party could be seeing the impact of Donald Trump. Or it could be the trend of voters believing the major political parties do not represent them continues unabated.
Whether one or all of the above apply, July, 2016 voter registration numbers show Non-Partisan and minor party registration out-pacing both the Democratic and Republican Party in rate of growth while at the same time gaining voter share as both major parties lose.
The question also needs to be asked, what is happening with the “other” category? This is a consolidated group of parties not ballot qualified such as the Green and Whig and is continuing to show growth of over 10 percent. This is happening at the same time the Libertarian Party is growing by approximately 5 percent and the Independent American Party by 1 ½ percent.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
8,564
1.62
39.88
-0.11
R
5,938
1.29
34.51
-0.20
NP
7,890
3.10
19.48
0.23
Other
2,531
3.17
6.12
0.07
Total not D or R
25.70
0.30
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +1.71%; Lib +4.27%; other 8 parties +10.56%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
7,146
1.80
43.53
-0.11
R
3,678
1.32
30.21
-0.21
NP
6,000
3.26
20.42
0.24
Other
1,851
3.56
5.78
0.08
Total not D or R
26.20
0.32
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +1.64%; Lib +4.58%; other 8 parties +11.73%
  
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,161
1.31
36.36
-0.15
R
1,264
1.34
38.56
-0.15
NP
1,342
3.06
18.31
0.02
Other
474
2.92
6.77
0.08
Total not D or R
25.08
0.10
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +2.25%; Lib +4.12%; other 8 parties +4.71%
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
257
0.61
24.92
-0.15
R
996
1.15
51.98
-0.02
NP
548
2.07
16.03
0.14
Other
206
1.76
7.07
0.04
Total not D or R
23.10
0.18
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +1.36%; Lib +3.16%; other 8 parties +3.84%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
2,598
1.91
39.90
-0.45
R
1,835
2.23
24.27
-0.20
NP
3,743
4.01
28.01
0.25
Other
1,157
4.64
7.53
0.11
Total not D or R
35.54
0.36
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +2.66%; Lib +5.71%; other 8 parties +10.07%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
2,381
1.04
40.31
-0.07
R
2,305
0.99
41.02
-0.10
NP
1.654
2.17
13.66
0.13
Other
556
1.98
5.01
0.04
Total not D or R
18.67
0.17
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +1.11%; Lib +2.14%; other 8 parties +9.67%
Major party loses are also the trend in congressional and legislative districts.
Congressional Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
4
0
0
Republican
4
0
0
Non-Partisan
0
4
0
Other
0
4
0
In CD 1 the number of voters not affiliated with either major party exceeds those registered as Republican by 4.77%
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
19
1
1
Republican
20
1
0
Non-Partisan
0
21
0
Other
2
19
0
In 12 districts (57.14%) 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 an increase of 1 district over June, 2016
State Assembly Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
37
5
0
Republican
28
2
2
Non-Partisan
0
42
0
Other
1
40
1
In 23 districts (54.76%) 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 1 district over June, 2016
The 2017 session of the Nevada legislature convenes in six months. Bill draft requests (BDR) are being submitted now. By filing a BDR for the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017), legislators can show they are ready to address the partisanship that is causing the continuing exodus.
You can let the secretary of state and legislative leaders know you want NEMRA – 2017 passed during the 2017 session by signing the petition on Change.org.

Posted on

Race for Washoe County School Board District C – Another Justification for NEMRA – 2017

The race for Washoe County School District Board of Trustees District C trustee has become a textbook example of why the 2017 session of the Nevada legislature needs to enact the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).
Because the incumbent resigned before completing one-half their term and after the filing deadline for the primary election, the new school board trustee could be elected with the support of less than 15 percent of the registered voters in the district. Perhaps 80 percent of those who did vote will have voted for someone else. Mandate? Not even close.
 As of July 14, 2016, there were 47,552 registered voters in District C. Since this race is non-partisan, party registration does not matter. Average voter turnout for school board trustee elections in presidential election years (1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012) is 67.9 percent. Using current registration, this means 32,288 voters can be expected to cast ballots for District C school board trustee. With a relatively strong turnout why such low support for the winner and such a strong justification for NEMRA – 2017?
Five candidates, no runoff of the top two vote getters as the case with the other four school board races that were contested in the primary, and 32,288 votes split five ways.  With less than 6,500 votes needed for election, the new trustee will not have the support of a significant majority of voters.
Under NERMA – 2017 this would be different. Regardless of the number of candidates, the winner would have the support of a much larger segment of the district. With a large plurality, if not majority of support, the newly elected trustee would take their seat knowing they truly represent the district and voters would be confident their representative on the school board represents their interests.
By utilizing a system where the primary and general election are rolled into one, where voters only have to go to the polls once, voter turnout is maximized and those elected have a much larger base of support.
Allowing government officials to be elected with low levels of support can make governing, the setting of policy, difficult. Can an elected official make the right decision knowing they are speaking for only a small portion of their constituents? Can voters have confidence in the decisions of their representative when a significant number did not support their election? It’s unlikely. And an election system that fosters such an outcome needs to be seriously re-evaluated and eventually replaced.
The race for Washoe County School District Board of Trustees District C will be the 22ndelection contest this year where the winner is decided by a small minority of voters, perhaps less than 15 percent.

Nevada’s lawmakers can make 2016 the last year where outcomes such as this are possible by passing the NEMRA – 2017 during the legislative session beginning in February.  
Proudly powered by WordPress